Let’s Talk Business

Stuff Your Boss Wishes You Knew

Don Jones

This book is for sale at http://leanpub.com/letstalkbusiness

This version was published on 2019-08-26

*   *   *   *   *

This is a Leanpub book. Leanpub empowers authors and publishers with the Lean Publishing process. Lean Publishing is the act of publishing an in-progress ebook using lightweight tools and many iterations to get reader feedback, pivot until you have the right book and build traction once you do.

*   *   *   *   *

© 2019 Don Jones

For everyone who’s helped me be better in business.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Part 1: Know Your Business

1. Businesses Are People, Too

2. How Businesses Really Make Money

3. What Does Your Business Sell?

1. A Problem of Perspective

2. Terri’s International Bulbs

3. Martin’s Theme Parks

4. Pat’s Fruity Clothing

5. Know the Details

4. Understanding Risk

5. Love the One You’re With

3. Part 2: Running a Business

1. OKRs, Rocks, and Pebbles

1. Rocks ‘N’ Pebbles

2. OKRs

3. Priorities, Priorities

2. Opportunity Cost

3. Good, Better, Best

4. It Isn’t Personal

5. Time Is Money

6. Making Mistakes Positive

7. Be Data Driven

8. Negotiating

4. Part 3: Business Mathematics

1. Fully Loaded Salaries and Recordkeeping

2. Reading a P&L

3. Understanding Averages

4. Selling It

5. Part 4: The Part About People

1. A Measured Response

2. Communicating

3. One Team

6. Part 5: Business Terminology

1. Functions, Processes, Services, and Capabilities

7. Conclusion

Introduction

I’ve been in the information technology industry, professionally, since about 1995. I’ve been teaching technology topics since around 1997 or 1998. In recent years, I started branching out into “soft skills” with books like Be the Master, How to Find a Wolf in Siberia (or, How to Troubleshoot Almost Anything), The Culture of Learning, and so on. As I’ve spoken with readers and colleagues online, at conferences, and such, there’s been a recurring theme from them: “When are you going to write a book that teaches tech people to speak more like businesspeople?”

I get it. As I moved from working in the trenches and into management and leadership positions, I found I had a lot to learn. I was fortunate in that I had patient leaders over me who were willing to let me make mistakes and then help walk me through the mistake and how to do better. I’m fortunate now to work for a company with truly compassionate leaders, who are themselves always learning how to be better leaders and sharing what they learn with the rest of us. And I’ve also experienced the frustration of having employees work for me who just don’t seem to “get it” a lot of the time. Frankly, I used to think of them, inside my head and admittedly dismissively, as people who just didn’t care to get it and who would always feel like they were under the boss’ thumb simply because they wanted little more than to collect their paycheck and go home.

I was recently convinced differently, though, and that’s why this book is now a thing.

Nobody is born knowing about businesses; we all have to learn about it at some point. Some of us are fortunate to have teachers from an early stage, while others of us never have that advantage. But if business is a game we play, then I think it’s crucial that everyone have access to the rules. After all, you can’t win a game without knowing the rules. You can’t even enjoy a game properly without knowing the rules. For me, knowing how businesses work, and how I can work better within them, isn’t even entirely about me being successful or my employees not irritating me; it’s a critical life skill that every employee, from entry-level on up, needs to know simply to be happy. To feel like you’ve got some control over your life, and that things happen for reasons, even if you don’t agree with them. That the world isn’t just blind chaos. So that you can recognize if you’re actually being ill-used by your employer, and if there’s a method to the madness.

I’ve made four or five abortive attempts at starting this book. My problem, I think, was that I started approaching it as just a list of stuff you needed to know about business, and a list of attitudes you needed to recognize or adopt. Lists. Blah. Nobody learns from lists. I realized that I didn’t learn from lists; I learned from experiences. And so this book is going to be about those experiences. I’m going to tell the world of business as a set of stories, most adapted from my own experiences (with names changed to protect the innocent), and a few adapted from others’ experiences that they’ve shared with me. I’ve collected lists of “things you wished your employees thought about” topics from my Twitter friends (I’m @concentratedDon, by the way), and thought back to when I learned those lessons, and tried to tell those stories as well.

I need to make a particular point clear before we proceed: While I absolutely believe that anyone can have a positive experience in the world of business, I acknowledge that not every single company or organization is going to provide that opportunity. There are, sadly, terrible companies who treat people terribly for no other reason than that they can. All the business-level knowledge, positive attitude, critical thinking, and workplace empathy in the world won’t make those better or more satisfying places to work. If you come to a point where you truly believe you know what your employer stands for, and you still feel like you’re being treated unfairly, then you should leave. Changing jobs is stressful, the entire job hunt process is largely inhumane, and the prospect of having a longer commute, having to move to a different town, or all the other stuff that comes along with job changing – I get it. It’s horrible. But I promise that you can have a satisfying, positive, affirming experience in the world of business, once you’re at the right company. A company whose decisions make sense, once you understand their perspective. This isn’t just a “grass is greener” argument; all companies are going to seem terrible if you don’t know where they’re coming from. But if you’re really embracing the stuff I’m sharing in this book, then I believe there is a good company for you, somewhere, and it’s worth your time to find it.

Okay. Enough preaching. Let’s get to it.

PART 1: KNOW YOUR BUSINESS

Businesses Are People, Too

In most countries, businesses are, from a legal sense, considered entities in the same way that people are. Companies have individual rights and obligations, often pay taxes, can own and sell property, and so on. The Romans of the mid-500s (mid-500s AD, that is) recognized a range of corporate entities; the word corporation itself comes from corpus, meaning a body, or more specifically a body of people.

None of that has any bearing whatsoever on what I’m talking about here. Fun facts, though.

No, what I’m talking about here relates, I suppose, to the legal concept of a business being an entity, but it’s way more meta. Companies, like people, have needs. They have motivations, which often relate to those needs. Getting judge-y about other peoples’ needs is easy. For example, I cannot comprehend why the people in the condo above mine needed the yappiest-possible little dog as a present this past Christmas, but here we are. The point is that anyone or anything with different needs or motivations than yours can be easy to look down on, but what’s important is to acknowledge that we all are different. That includes businesses. People get down on businesses because “all they want to do is make money.” Yeah, that’s more or less the precise reason you start a business, so nobody should act all surprised when that’s what the business’ primary motivator turns out to be.

Like people, businesses engage in relationships. Like any relationship, everyone in the relationship is expecting to get something from it, and the relationship only works well if everyone is getting at least most of what they need. One-sided relationships (a particular in-law comes to mind) aren’t healthy, are often frustrating, and are the ones most likely to end in a fight.

So let’s talk about businesses and their relationships.

Probably the first kind of business relationship that springs to mind is the one businesses have with their customers. That’s an easy one, right? Customers get whatever it is the company sells, and the business receives money, and everyone’s basically satisfied with the relationship. There are degrees of “satisfaction,” though. I filled the car up with gas the other day: the gas pump worked, and the price … well, it was what it was. We don’t have that much variability in my neighborhood. So I suppose both myself and the business were satisfied, albeit on a somewhat vague, done-and-gone level. I mean, I’m not explicitly planning a return engagement, and I don’t dream wistfully of those minutes spent at the pump. It’s a good relationship we have, but not a great one. It’s nothing like the relationship I have with a little restaurant called 7th & Carson, just a couple of blocks from my condo building.

I love going to 7th&, as we call it around the neighborhood. The food is terrific, and I feel it’s an excellent value for the money. I look forward to the charred octopus in particular, although the chicken wings are pretty spectacular as well. I like the staff – Oscar behind the bar who always makes such great drinks, Chef Fortunato who not only turns out excellent food but is also fun to chat with, and the owner, Liam, who’s got a delightful Irish accent and always makes us feel welcome. As a customer, I think I have a great relationship with 7th&. I enjoy telling people about that relationship, as you can see.

Like people, if not more so, businesses need relationships in their lives. A company with zero relationships isn’t going to go to therapy or stay home and play video games; that business is going to die. Businesses not only need relationships, they need good ones. Many companies go out of their way to try to foster good relations, even when those relationships get a little one-sided in favor of the customer (looking at you, so-called “Yelp Elite”). Businesses will often stay in toxic relationships a little longer than they should, making you wonder if there’s some sort of couples counseling for companies and their customers.

Businesses also have relationships with their vendors, of course. They may have relationships with organizations like the news media, the local government (for licensing and inspections), and so on. However, the most significant relationship a business has is with its employees.

You might argue that the customer is king, but I’d phrase it a little differently. A business is its employees; the relationship a business has with its employees is absolutely required for the company to, by definition, exist in the first place. True, businesses are more tolerant of toxic relationships when it comes to customers, but that doesn’t make the employee relationship less critical.

I view the customer relationship a bit like meeting the relatives of your significant other. You know there’s going to be one or two weirdos in the group, and you’re prepared to tolerate them. Most of the rest are fine, and if you’re lucky, there’s a handful of really brilliant characters in the mix. The employee relationship is a lot more like the friends you grew up with and have stayed in touch with your whole life. You all know way too many dirty secrets about one another, you’ve seen each other drunk too many times, and you’re a little too quick to piss each other off. But you’re also comfortable with each other, which means you’re generally more tolerant when you’ve pissed each other off, and you tend to come back to each other. That doesn’t mean your BFFs, though: even the best of friends can have a relationship go toxic, and while it’s always painful and dramatic, sometimes the relationship has to end. That’s how it is between businesses and employees, too.

Also, like any relationship, the quality of the business-employee relationship can fall on a spectrum. In the best relationships, both sides are getting what they need, they’re happy about it, and all’s well in the world. In the worst relationships, neither side is happy about it, nobody is having their needs met, and everyone else wonders why they don’t just call it off.

We hear the word “entitlement” a lot these days, and it’s really easy to point at someone who expects things to be a certain way and call them “entitled.” I’m going to choose to not use that word because I think it’s a little overloaded with sentiment. Instead, I’ll go back to that relationship analogy.

When I was just out of high school, I had a small group of friends who hung out quite a bit, and it was pretty common for us to wind up at a diner or burger joint somewhere in the evenings. Two of my friends stand out in my memory: one, whom I’ll call Jon, was always really up-front when he couldn’t afford to eat out with us. “I can’t, guys, I’m short until my next check,” he’d say. We’d all nod, and either we’d offer to cover his tab, or he’d go off on his own if none of us could. Often, one of us would go with him and do something else, or we’d all call off the eating-out altogether. Another, who shall be known as Shelly, would invariably wait until everyone had ordered, finished their food, and the check had come, before announcing she had no money. Shelly was annoying that way. I mean, we liked Shelly. She was fun, and she didn’t mind sharing popcorn at a movie, presuming she had the money to pay for the movie and the popcorn, but she’d always wait until the rest of us were basically on the hook before announcing that she wasn’t participating. After she’d eaten, of course.

Shelly was an example of a bad relationship. She was clearly getting something from the relationship, but the rest of us weren’t getting what we needed, which was some mutual respect and not being taken advantage of. If our group was the “business,” then Shelly was a lousy employee.

I run into many employees who are like Shelly. They seem to feel that a job is something everyone is supposed to have and that so long as they’re showing up most of the time, and putting in minimal effort, then they deserve to get paid. I don’t think of this as entitlement, although, again, that’s the word you hear a lot. I think of it as a sad, one-sided relationship.

I also run into many employees who are like Jon. They seem to feel that if they’re not interested in doing whatever the job is, that they should leave and go work someplace else. You can imagine which type of employee I have more respect for. Again, though, this is just a different place on the relationship spectrum, a place most of us would regard as healthy and desirable.

However, Jon and Shelly are, of course, extremes. Most of us are neither Jon nor Shelly; we’re somewhere in between. But if you were to think about your relationship with your employer, how would you characterize the relationship? And no, don’t think about how you feel about the business; give yourself an honest appraisal of how the business might feel about you. If you were in charge of “couples therapy” for your relationship with your employer, what observation would you make? What advice would you offer?

If it’s easier, modify the relationship analogy and consider the contractual relationship between you and your employer. You may actually have an employment contract, but if you don’t, pretend that you do. What does the contract require of your employer? What does it really require? If it’s silent on the length of a work week, for example, then you’ve no reason to presume it will be 30 hours or 60 hours; it “is what it is.” What does the contract require of you? Presumably, your job description outlines your duties. And yes, I know the “and other duties as assigned” clause. The point is, if you accepted the contract, explicitly or implicitly, then you need to hold up your end of it. The business needs to hold up its end, too – believe me, I’ve seen plenty of businesses that were the toxic end of the relationship, and I’m not trying to make employees out to be the Universal Enemy. But I am saying that it takes two to tango; if you feel you signed a bad contract, or that the other party isn’t upholding its side of the bargain, then end it.

A friend of mine, Bob, was in a particular job for about six years. He was hired to do software quality analysis, which is a fancy way of saying he watched a bunch of machines run automated tests against a bunch of other machines to make sure the second set of machines did what they were supposed to do. When they didn’t, he sent test reports back to the machines’ programmers, who made fixes so that Bob could do it all over again the next day. Bob got bored of this after about six months, which is completely understandable; indeed, smart companies have automated all of it these days, so they do not need a Bob at all anymore. But Bob stuck with it. Sort of. Initially, he began looking at the broken code and making suggestions for fixes. The programmers were delighted by this because Bob was doing their job for them, out of his sheer boredom. Bob asked for a pay raise and was turned down. Not a great call on the company’s part, because you’re then asking someone not to do a good job, right? That’s when the relationship went a little toxic, and it’s honestly when Bob should have started looking for another job elsewhere. But he stayed on – again, for more than five additional years.

What’d he do in all that time? He caused trouble. He’d start rejecting code not because it failed its tests but because he’d spot stylistic errors. Basically, he’d reject functional code because he didn’t like the color shirt it was wearing, which wasn’t one of the criteria he’d been given in the first place. After getting yelled at about it, he started just fixing the stylistic errors he saw. Of course, these would sometimes create functional problems, causing the code to fail in the field – because Bob had passed it, so it was presumed to be working! – which would get the programmers yelled at. All the while, Bob would just remark how lucky the company was to have him, doing all this extra unpaid work.

Except the company didn’t want him doing it. They’d had an implied contract for Bob’s job and what he would be paid. That had never changed. Well, it had: Bob had changed it. He’d unilaterally renegotiated his contract, reinvented his job, and then gotten bitter that the other party to the contract wasn’t on board. From a relationship perspective, the company didn’t need this extra fuss Bob was causing, and eventually, the relationship got toxic enough that Bob was fired. Bob was that friend who moved in for a weekend and stayed for a month: “Dude, I like you and all, but this is not what I wanted the relationship to be.”

The funny thing is, some folks could argue that either of them was the original proximate cause of the problem. I mean, sure, the company didn’t want to pay Bob more to do a job they hadn’t hired him for – weird, right?!? Bob could have just gone back to doing what the relationship initially called for, but he didn’t. I argued with him and said, “You know, man, it’s like you moved in with a roommate, agreed that you’d both sleep in separate rooms, and then he finds you in his bed with him every morning. That’s gonna piss him off, dude. You changed the rules of engagement without everyone buying in.” Bob firmly felt the relationship’s souring was the business’ fault. And that’s how relationships work, right? Once they go wrong, nobody wants to own responsibility. So responsibility almost doesn’t matter – bad is bad, and sometimes the best you can do is end it before it gets worse.

I’m not suggesting you quit your job.

I am suggesting that you have a job because a business needed a skill or service that you could provide. Maybe they needed some filing done, or a car fixed, or some software programmed, or some paperwork filled out, or whatever. I don’t know. But the business had that need, and you came along and offered to do it. You presumably needed money and benefits and what-have-you, and you both agreed it was a fair exchange. The moment that situation changed, it was on one of you to say something. “I’m bored of filing,” you might say. “Do you have any other needs?” “No,” the business might have answered. “It’s filing or the highway,” at which point you’re the one who asked for the change in relationship, so you need to decide if you can continue as it was or if you need to move on. Also, it can go the other way: “Hey, employee, I no longer need filing done. That is not a need of mine anymore. I’ve changed.” “Well, business,” you might say, “I love me some filing and always will.” However, the relationship changed. It would be sad if you had to leave because of a reason like that, but if you’re no longer satisfying each others’ needs, then the relationship can’t continue without going toxic.

Does that make any sense? Businesses are people, and people change. The needs a business has today might not exist in ten years. The things you’re willing to provide to a business might not stay the same for five years. At some point, one of you will have different needs. That’s nobody’s fault, provided someone can speak up, acknowledge that the relationship no longer works, and see if there’s a new relationship that does. Where it gets toxic is when you know the relationship no longer works, but you want to keep plugging along and ignoring it. Just as in your personal relationships, that is never a good idea, and it’s what makes everything eventually end badly.

As you engage with business, look at your relationship with it as well as at how others relate to the company. You’re absolutely going to run across companies who can’t maintain a healthy relationship with anyone. That’s a shame, and the bigger shame is when the people in that relationship aren’t able to recognize it for what it is, or when they’re trapped in some way and not able to get out of it. We’ve all heard stories about people who were in bad personal relationships that, for whatever reason, they didn’t feel they could get out of.

If you find yourself running a business, be mindful of that relationship. Employees aren’t “resources” to be utilized to their maximum potential and then discarded; your business is in a relationship with them. Sure, you need something from that relationship, but they do as well.

I think businesses go wrong when the people running the business stop thinking of the company as a person, and when they stop realizing that there’s a true relationship between the business and its customers, vendors, and employees. I think employees tend to go wrong when they forget that, too. Always approach it from the angle of “what could make this relationship better for both of us,” and see if that doesn’t help create a better situation or at least create some clarity on whether the relationship can be good or bad.

How Businesses Really Make Money

When you work for a company, it’s really, really, really important to understand what the company really does for a living, and how the company itself – or those with a stake in the company – measure the company’s success. Gross revenue is rarely the most compelling metric about a business, and for many modern businesses, gross profit isn’t even the most important metric.

Consider the story of MedVidCo, a company I’ve invented for this story. MedVidCo is in the business of making videos about medical procedures, and they sell their services on a subscription basis to doctors. Doctors pay over $10,000 a year for access to MedVidCo, and the company employees some of the most well-known doctors in the world to create their videos. Their library serves as an invaluable reference to doctors, who use the videos to learn new techniques, brush up on ones they’ve not performed in a while, and so on. MedVidCo has been successful enough that they’ve attracted several rounds of private investment to fuel growth, and they’ve just recently completed an Initial Public Offering, or IPO, to become a publicly traded company. Think of MedVidCo as “the Netflix of medical videos,” where you pay a flat fee for unlimited online access to stream anything from their entire library.

Joey is a salesperson for MedVidCo. He recently attended a medical conference and met one of the experts who creates videos for the company. They had a great afternoon chatting about how well the company was doing, and the expert brought up a point Joey had never considered. “Why,” he asked, “don’t you guys have us also create videos for ordinary people? You’ve already got us experts, and we could cover topics like general wellness, explaining various conditions people deal with, and so on.”

Joey was intrigued but pointed out that ordinary people weren’t going to pay $10,000 a year for access to that kind of video.

“Sure,” the expert said, “but you’d sell it to them for like $100 a year instead. So you’d make less per customer, but you’d have tons more customers. Think of how much the revenue would go up!”

Joey took the idea back to the office after the conference and created quite a conversation within the Sales team. However, when they finally took the idea to their executives, the executives killed the idea almost without discussion. Joey was depressed. He couldn’t understand why a sensible company would turn their back on potentially millions in revenue and started wondering if he was at the right company. To be dismissed so categorically was disheartening, and it seemed like the executives just didn’t “get it.”

The problem here is that Joey doesn’t have all the facts.

First, no form of revenue is ever free. You always have to spend money to make money. In this instance, a new line of business would require new marketing campaigns, which cost money. You also have to worry about how long an ordinary person would maintain a subscription; if you spend $80 per subscriber in marketing, and make $100 for the first year, and then the person doesn’t renew, then you only cleared about $20. That’s not very good.

Second, no resource is infinite. While your video-making experts might be able to make content of interest to ordinary humans, if they did so, they’d have to temporarily stop doing content for your high-paying doctors. At $20 profit per ordinary-human per year, you’d need 500 of them to make up for one doctor subscription. Yet while your experts were churning out ordinary-human videos, you might start losing doctor subscriptions because you’re not turning out the quantity of doctor-level content they’re used to. This is called an opportunity cost, and it’s something we’ll discuss later in the book. It’s the cost you incur when you do Thing A instead of doing Thing B.

Third and perhaps more important, Joey doesn’t know a thing about how the public market values MedVidCo. It turns out that for their kind of subscription-based company, the two key metrics that tell the market how well the company is doing are Average Subscriber Revenue and Subscriber Retention Rate. With subscribers paying $10,000 and renewing regularly, the company looks fantastic. Throw in $100 subscriptions, though, and that Average Subscriber Revenue goes way down. Moreover, if those ordinary humans don’t renew as reliably as doctors, then the Subscriber Retention Rate goes down. All of a sudden, it looks like MedVidCo isn’t a healthy company and is instead doing fire-sale pricing to try to shore itself up. People start selling the stock, driving its price down, and making it harder for MedVidCo to borrow more money to fund future growth.

Now sure, Joey’s executives could have explained all of that, and in a good company, they’d have done so. But if Joey were really a businessperson, he’d have asked those questions up front. He’d have not assumed that raw revenue was the main thing everyone was worried about; he’d have asked what the company’s key metrics were.

My experience with most executives (although certainly not all) is that they have no problems answering questions about how the company works, how it is valued, or what metrics they rely on to run the company. Most are eager to share that information if they can do so. What tends to rub them wrong, though, is people coming up to them with The Next Great Idea without bothering to ask any questions up-front. Imagine being inundated all day, every day, with “great ideas” that fundamentally don’t fit how the company works, all brought by people who never took a minute to try to understand if their ideas were, in fact, “great” or not. You’d get irritable, too, and you might even stop paying attention to the genuinely good ideas that sneak through. That sucks, but it’s human nature to a degree.

Whether you’re trying to pitch a “great idea” or not, though, you should take an interest in understanding why your company exists, what motivates it, and what it considers “success:”

- What problem does our company attempt to solve in the marketplace?

- What are the key metrics we use to determine overall company health?

- What resources do we use to run the business, and what are their inherent limitations?

- Who are our customers? What do they see our company doing for them?

I almost added a fifth item to that list: “Who are our competitors, and what do they do differently?” That’s a question you should be asking, but it’s a loaded one. Once you know the answer, that doesn’t mean your company needs to try to do the same things as your competitors. You need to be very cautious about correlation: “Well, our competitors do this differently than us, and they’re making a ton more revenue than we are.”

Joey ran across the same thing. MedVidCo’s biggest competitor is HumanVideos. HV does a similar line of business, but they ship physical Blu-Ray discs rather than streaming videos. HV’s customers pay a one-time fee for each package of discs rather than a subscription fee. HV is also publicly traded, so it’s public knowledge that they make a lot more in revenue than MedVidCo does. It was reasonable, then, for Joey to suggest that MedVidCo should also sell Blu-Rays to customers as an alternative to the streaming video library.

However, upon deeper digging, it turns out that HV’s market valuation – that is, what the public market feels the company is worth – is about what HV’s current revenue is. In other words, the market doesn’t see a lot of growth potential. MedVidCo, however, is valued at three times its current revenue, which means the market sees a lot of room for MedVidCo to get bigger. You see, HV could go out of business at almost any time because they rely on continuously selling Blu-Rays to new doctors, and more Blu-Rays to the same doctors. They don’t have any guaranteed recurring revenue; each new sale is a one-and-done thing. MedVidCo, in contrast, has recurring revenue. Even if a doctor goes on vacation for a month and isn’t watching videos, MedVidCo still took in their subscription fee. MedVidCo has to worry about renewals, but that’s often easier than booking a whole new sale. MedVidCo’s subscription model is part of what makes their valuation so high, and it’s something they’d lose if they added a Blu-Ray sales option.

Businesses can be complicated. They involve customer psychology, they involve market forces, and they can involve truly subtle and complex measurements and considerations. You should try to understand as many of those as you can. Doing so not only makes it easier for you to have a healthy “personal relationship” with the company but can line you up to make better decisions, which will eventually line you up to take on more responsibilities, including – if it interests you – leadership. Not understanding the hidden details of the business means a lot of what the business does will seem inexplicable or even stupid, and that’s a terrible way to feel about a personal relationship that’s as important as the one you have with the company that employs you.

What Does Your Business Sell?

Do you know what your business sells?

Let’s consider these stories. While you’re reading, try to imagine what the company thinks it does for a living, and where there might be some room for improvement in its business models.

Terri works for International Bulbs. The company stocks an enormous range of light bulbs, from old-school fluorescent tubes to leading-edge color-changing LEDs. She’s employed as a programmer, working mainly on the computer systems that control the company’s warehousing and distribution center operations. In working on those systems, she’s noticed that the company tends to stock only minimal quantities of most bulbs. She knows from looking at the data that the company         sells plenty of bulbs, but many times an order will come in that can’t be immediately fulfilled. Instead, there’s a delay of several days until the warehouse receives the stock and then ships it out to the customer.

Martin works for Global Themed Amusements (GTA), a company that owns regional themed amusement parks across the globe. Martin works in the Purchasing department, primarily focused on negotiating deals for maintenance supplies that are used throughout the company’s properties. Martin’s recently been concerned about what GTA’s competitors are doing. While the competition is building ever-more-thrilling rides like multimillion-dollar roller coasters, the GTA parks tend to expand more slowly, and tend to install less expensive “dark rides.” The company also spends way more on retail merchandise than its competitors do – and the shops used to sell that merchandise often take up valuable space that could have been used for rides and other attractions.

Pat works as a salesperson for Fruity, a high-end clothing brand that markets primarily to teenagers. Fruity doesn’t sell directly to consumers; instead, Pat’s job is to work with buyers from major online and brick-and-mortar retailers. Fruity’s clothing is pretty expensive – most items run 3-4 times as expensive as similar items from cheaper competitors. Pat gets frustrated that so many lower-end retailers won’t even consider stocking Fruity, and feels the company’s price point excludes them from many markets. That means Pat doesn’t make as much in commissions as would otherwise be possible, which is where the frustration originates.

Now obviously, these are fake companies, and obviously, I’m lining you up with trick questions. Try, for a moment, to forget that they’re trick questions. Put yourself into the day-to-day life of Terri, Martin, and Pat. Try to see things from their perspectives. What, if you were them and they wound up in control of their companies, would you change?

A Problem of Perspective

The problem with all three of these scenarios is that you don’t have the full download on what these companies are all about; you’re only getting a biased view from one employee. However, that’s how most employees operate, and it isn’t always entirely their fault. Many companies do a poor job of helping their entire group of employees genuinely understand what the company is all about. Often, that’s just because the company’s leaders haven’t thought to do so, and if someone asks, they’re usually happy to share.

Terri’s International Bulbs

For example, what Terri doesn’t know is that International Bulbs makes its money as a subscription service. Subscriptions are what make the stock market love the company because they have incredibly predictable revenues, and most of the company’s sales and marketing efforts can go toward winning new business rather than having to continually “re-win” business from existing customers.

The company’s warehouse works precisely as designed, which is to minimize the amount of back-stock they keep on hand. Back-stock is expensive: In most countries, under Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) rules, you can’t write off the cost of the goods you sell until you’ve sold them. So if you buy $100,000 worth of light bulbs, you pay income tax on that money and recoup the tax when you sell the bulbs. So you tend to try as hard as possible not to keep much back-stock.

Instead, Terri’s company does just-in-time (JIT) stocking. For example, if they know that a customer is on a quarterly subscription for a bulb, and they know it takes them a week to get that bulb in stock, then they can simply work the dates backward so that they order the bulbs, receive them, and then ship them to the final customer “just in time.” The customer doesn’t see any of that happening on the back-end. What Terri sees in the warehouse isn’t an “out of stock” situation; instead, it’s the stock being received precisely when it’s needed so that it can then be shipped out to the final customers right on time.

The question Terri might instead be asking is why International Bulbs doesn’t engage in drop-shipping, a practice where the company places bulb orders with its suppliers, but those suppliers ship directly to the final customer. There are times when that might not work, such as when International has to buy a massive case of bulbs and then break down that case to ship to multiple customers, but drop-shipping – when it’s practical – would be a way to save money by cutting out International’s “middleman” warehouse.

Martin’s Theme Parks

This example is about understanding what your company sells and recognizing that it might not be what everyone “commonly” thinks they sell. In the case of GTA, Martin’s worried because the company is being overtaken in the thrill-ride department by competitors. However, GTA as a company doesn’t see themselves as being in the thrill-ride business at all. They see themselves as selling a family experience. They focus on attractions that families can experience together and that create strong and positive memories. One way they profit from those memories is by selling merchandise that reinforces the rides’ themes and imagery. Retail merchandise at the parks earns a strong 70% profit margin, which winds up paying for a much larger percentage of new ride construction than the parks’ admission fee accounts for on its own.

See, just because you see another company doing something similar to yours – building theme parks, for example – doesn’t mean they’re fallen competitors. Good companies try to differentiate themselves from the competition so that consumers don’t have a simple A-or-B decision to make. If you’re selling a commodity like gasoline, consumers pretty much make a decision based on factors like price and convenience, which is why most towns have so many gas stations – they’re all fighting to be more convenient for some chunk of the population. It’s also why gas companies spend so much time trying to differentiate on the quality of their gas, or their rewards programs, or whatever.

It pays to really understand how your company believes it differentiates itself.

Pat’s Fruity Clothing

Many businesses differentiate themselves through perception. Take Apple, which sells phones, computers, and other electronics that routinely cost hundreds more than their competitors’ products. How do they “get away” with it? By creating a brand that certain consumers want. In any given market, you’ll always have consumers who are price-sensitive and will go for the least expensive version of a thing that is available. You’ll also have consumers who are brand-sensitive and will go for the brand that they perceive as being the most valuable. None of those consumers are wrong; they’re just being met in the marketplace by different vendors.

This thinking is why car companies like Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have separate brands like Lexus, Accura, and Infinity. It’s why some people buy Rolex and others buy Timex. In the case of Pat’s company, selling into “lower end” retailers might indeed open up more commissions for Pat, it might also erode the “high end” brand that the company has worked to achieve.

I’ve worked for companies that play this “branding” game, and it can be tough. I’m mainly a price-sensitive consumer with things like clothing, and so for me, selling a pair of jeans for $110 seems silly when I can see other brands selling for $20. However, companies in those spaces deal with a far more complex range of issues than you might think. While both pairs of jeans probably cost a similar amount to make, the $110 pair is creating a lot more profit margin, meaning the company doesn’t have to sell as many pairs. Moreover, consumers who are brand-sensitive will tend to buy more than just jeans: they’ll also buy shirts, shoes, and accessories, and they’ll often come back several times a year to do so. There’s an entire brand loyalty scheme at play, which usually doesn’t draw the price-sensitive consumer as much. Again, none of these companies are wrong – they’re just operating in different spaces, for various reasons, and with different risk/reward situations.

Sure, Fruity could charge less and be in a broader array of retailers, but then they’d be a different company. It’s unfair to ask a business to be someone different. After all, they were who they were when you got there, so if you want them to be someone else, then maybe you should be looking for a new line of work, instead?

Know the Details

The point of all this is to know why your company makes money and to know how they make money. Sure, there are likely other ways your company could operate. Those other ways aren’t wrong, but what your company is currently doing isn’t necessarily wrong, either. Ask questions that help you understand why your company behaves the way it does.

I’ll offer you a story that was told to me when I started asking those questions. “Why,” I asked, “is our fiscal year starting in February and not January?” Our CEO, a long-time operator from the department store days, laid out a calendar.

“You get four seasons in a year,” he said. “Each season is three months. The first month of each season is where you lead and make the most money. The middle month is your primary sales for those seasons. Last month is your clearance.

“The first season is Spring clothing – February, March, and April, lined up with Easter roughly in the middle. Next is Summer clothing, May, June, and July, with the end of school right in the middle. Next is Fall, August, September, October, with back to school in the middle. Last is Christmas, November, December, January.

“The reason we want January in there, and on the same fiscal year as Christmas is so that your returns come in on the same fiscal year as the sales. Otherwise, you start your fiscal off in the negative, and that looks bad.”

It was an eye-opening story, and it explained a lot, all of a sudden, about the retail cycles I’d been working in for years without ever realizing it.

Understanding Risk

Risk is a fundamental concept in business that people don’t talk about enough.

In any venture, any kind whatsoever, there is a risk of failure. Just driving to the grocery store involves risks: someone will hit your car, the store won’t have what you need, your credit card will be declined, or whatever. Risk is all around us. For the small, day-to-day risks, most of us have learned to mitigate what we can automatically: we drive carefully, we pay our credit card bill on time, and so on. However, most of the risk that most of us deal with on a day-to-day basis is within our control. We decide to drive carefully, we choose to check the store inventory online before we leave the house, we decide to pay the credit card bill on time. We can’t eliminate the risks, of course, but we can, through personal action, mitigate those risks to a pretty large degree.

Businesses are a little different.

To start at the end of the conversation, the risks faced by businesses are rarely within the businesses’ control. Instead, a business relies on other people, its employees, to mitigate the risks. Think about how mentally challenging that would be if it were you. Imagine that you’re planning a big family vacation, and some stranger is handling absolutely every last detail, and they’re not even really sharing those details with you. That’d make me a nervous wreck, although if I’m honest, I run across people on vacations all the time who do it just that way. They’re usually miserable because they couldn’t take any personal responsibility for their enjoyment, and their vacation planner forgot some crucial detail, and it all went wrong at some point.

However, I digress.

People can choose to outsource their risk mitigation or handle it personally, depending on how much of a control freak they are. Businesses don’t have that choice. They always rely on other people, their employees, to deal with every possible risk.

So what risks are we talking about?

Predominantly financial. Every business is, at any moment, just a few bad decisions away from losing everything, going bankrupt, laying off all their employees, and disappearing from existence altogether. The owners of the business are specifically the ones at risk because they’re the ones who put up all the money in the first place. That’s why the owners of the company get to share in the business’ success, although great businesses will, through bonus and other types of programs, try to share some of that success with the employees who helped make it happen.

Actually, bonuses are a cool way to think about it.

Suppose you work for a company that has a gain-sharing program, or profit-sharing program, or something similar. When the company makes a profit, the owners agree to set aside say, 25% of that profit, and divvy it up amongst the employees. Cool, right? At the end of the year, or quarter, or whatever, every employee gets a nice chunk of extra change as a way of thanking them for helping make the business a success. However, what if the company didn’t make a profit? What if it lost money? Would you, as an employee, expect to have money withheld from your paycheck? Almost nobody would, but it would be fair, right? If the business succeeds, you get a chunk of the profits; if it fails, shouldn’t you pay a chunk of the losses? Say the company lost $100,000 – shouldn’t the owner take 25% of that, or $25,000, and divvy it up as a deduction from everyone’s paychecks? After all, if it’s the employees who make or break the business, and if they share in the successes, wouldn’t they have responsibility for, and a share in, the losses?

I’m not aware of profit-sharing programs that do that, which is why they’re fundamentally not a way of sharing the risk in the business. See, when you have a proper share of risk, then you succeed when the company does, and you lose when the company does. Risk means you stand to lose something. The stock market is all about risk: When the companies you invest in fail, your stock value goes down, and you’ve lost money. That’s why stockholders are literally considered co-owners of their companies, and it’s why they get a say in how those companies are run, often by appointing a Board of Directors, who in turn, hires the executives who run the company daily.

Risk and a say in things go together. If you have no risk – that is, there’s no chance of you losing money – then you don’t get much of a say in how things are run. This is a basic rule every parent teaches their children, whether they realize it or not: “You live under my roof, you follow my rules.” As the parent, you’ve got all the risk, right? You have to hold down a job, make sure bills get paid on time, watch out for your kids’ health, and so on. All the risk, so you get to make the rules. Well, at work, most employees are “living” under their employers’ “roof,” and so the employer – the one shouldering all the risk for running the business – gets to make the rules.

Many are the employees I’ve spoken with who don’t understand why the business doesn’t just do so-and-so. “It’d be so much better!” Nearly universally, those employees lack context about how the business makes its money, and nearly universally, they lack any actual skin in the game. I get that it’s frustrating to work in an environment that won’t “listen to you,” but how much did your parents listen to you about proper television allowances when they were paying all the bills? However, when you finally moved out and got your own place, you could stay up and watch as much TV as you liked, right? Same thing in business: You want a say, you take the risk. Start your own business. Walk away from the sure-thing paycheck, the benefits, the 401(k), the free coffee, or whatever. Instead, worry about where your next check is going to come from. Worry about whether your employees are going to make the right decisions that day and keep the company running. Put up the money, take the risk, and you get to make all the decisions.

Another reason I find that companies get a little deaf when it comes to listening to employees telling them how to “fix everything and make it better” is that most employees lack sufficient context. They can’t see all the “moving parts” that make up a company. Not that the company is hiding anything; it’s just that businesses, especially large ones, are horrifically complex. Take the company I currently work for: We have to file income taxes in something like two dozen US states and a half-dozen foreign countries. That simple fact creates a level of business complexity I can barely comprehend. Literally every day-to-day company decision gets affected by that fact. “Should we rent some new office space so that we’re not so dang crowded?” becomes an epic question when you think about different states’ tax incentives, the depreciation rules on office build-outs, whether the office is located in a city where we’ve agreed to employ a certain number of people in order to get certain incentives, whether the lease comes out as a simple expense or not – it’s mind-numbing. You’d think it’d be a simple answer, like, “Well, if the lease is $3,000 a month and we’re currently making more profit than that, then sure!” but it isn’t even close to that simple. That’s why when I hear employees (not at my company, mind you) complain about petty things like whether the kitchen has the coffee K-Cup flavor they prefer, I start laughing so hard I almost cry. The day-to-day brainpower that goes into the seemingly simplest company decisions is so much that “coffee flavors” likely didn’t even make it on anyone’s agenda. Coffee flavor is something you can only complain about from the comfort of a nothing-at-risk position. The people managing the actual risks of the company, the ones charged with keeping it in business and making sure our paycheck gets cut on time? They’re probably delighted that the water is still running to the building – and less concerned about what flavor coffee people are making with it.

So. You want to have a louder voice in the running of your company? You want to be heard by the people in charge?

Start by making sure your voice is more than just noise. Learn what the business is for. Learn why it exists and how it makes money. Then learn how companies are run. That doesn’t mean getting a Masters of Business Administration (although it’s not like that would hurt), but you’re going to need to learn about business finances, business management, and a lot of other topics. You can do it – the people running your company didn’t drop out of the womb with that knowledge, right? They learned it someplace. You can, too. Then look for ways to put some skin in the game. People will take you more seriously when you’ve something at risk. So if that’s not possible at your current company, ask yourself if you’re ready to go to a different one or start your own.

Context. Business acumen. Risk. Those are what create a voice in business.

Love the One You’re With

I have a friend who works for one of the major Las Vegas Strip resorts. In the property’s early days, it was still being run by its founder, and he lent a specific kind of vibe to how the property was run. For example, when the property first opened, one particular restaurant – a very high-end one – had been designed to the founder’s very exacting specifications. After visiting the restaurant on opening night, the founder demanded that it be closed and completely redesigned, a multimillion-dollar expense. The same kind of thing happened all over the property: A small pizza parlor’s china (plates and such) was placed in storage as the venue was re-imagined as a dessert and pastry shop, which served food on high-end plastic plates. Upon being served ice cream in a plastic bowl one day, the founder demanded that china be brought to him to review. The old pizza place’s china was brought out of storage – and mind, this was some high-end stuff to begin with, that the founder had previously approved of – but it wasn’t good enough. New china was ordered for the ice cream shop, which closed just months later to be remodeled into a clothing boutique. Upper management in the company just got used to this casual tossing-around of money.

Fast forward several years: The founder is gone, and the new executives primarily come from a financial background. They very much want to maintain the property’s five-star mission, but they want to do so without wasting tens of millions of dollars a year. So they begin asking their senior leaders to crack down, examine unnecessary expenses, and “right-size” the company’s spending to meet the mission. For a handful of senior leaders, especially those nearing retirement, it’s not a fun time. They’re suddenly being asked to be more accountable and to lead their teams to results rather than just tossing money every which way. Their personal morale crashes, and they start becoming a negative voice within their own teams. The situation gets toxic and some are abruptly asked to leave as the company pivots toward its new “personality.”

Another story: I’ve worked for many pre-IPO startups, some of which I’ve been with through their IPO. As a small, pre-IPO company, you get a certain kind of “personality” in a company. There’s room for smart, aggressive people to make sweeping changes for the good. They share the entrepreneurial spirit of the company’s founders (or are one of those founders), and they want to “move fast and break things.” They’re constantly diving in, even in areas technically not their own, to try to “move the needle” and keep the company moving in a positive direction. They’re good people to have around, even if they can be a bit tough to take now and again.

However, as those companies get a bit larger, they inevitably get a bit more rigid. Total Employee Flexibility is hard to pull off when you’ve got dozens of teams each executing on different missions, and that “move fast and break things” person starts to become a disruptive influence. It’s easy for them to dive in without having the full picture because the company simply has so much going on at any given moment. The personality of the company begins to shift. This is neither a good thing nor a bad thing; it is merely a thing. Any entity’s personality changes over time, and companies are no different: They’re organic, living things in many ways. The brash teenager company someone starts with will eventually become a more measured young adult and eventually grow into a more deliberate and calculating adult.

For you, it’s only important that you work for the company you’re in right now, not the company it once was. Nostalgia has little place in the world of business, and you have to recognize that companies change. Their mission evolves. Their way of doing business adjusts, sometimes slowly and subtly, and sometimes massively and deliberately. Look, I bring all this up because it’s happened to me, more than once, and the latest was relatively recent. I came into a small company – emailing the CEO was no big deal, jumping into another team’s problem was fine so long as I was helping make a solution. However, the company grew, as companies do. Things changed. I had to realize that, unlike when the company was small, I no longer had the total picture. “Jumping in” was disruptive because I didn’t have all the facts anymore, much as I might have thought I did. Ignoring the org chart just caused pain for other people, and made me someone they didn’t love to see walking into a meeting. I had a choice: I could leave or I could change.

When you were younger – say, college-aged – you probably had one or two friends who were the life of the party. They were welcome in any gathering, and they were loud, boisterous, funny, maybe a little overly intoxicated, and so on. They were perfect for that time and place. But you may have had one of those friends show up years later, perhaps at a wedding reception or a birthday or something else. It’s sit-com gold: that same loud, drunken party friend just doesn’t fit into that new time and place quite as well. They’re embarrassing. Everyone else has grown up a bit, and moved on; they’re still holding onto the past.

I’ve had to decide if I was still the jump-in-and-fix-things guy or if I could change to be someone my more grown-up company needed now. That’s a tough decision. I’ve always been a “see the problem, fix the problem” person. When I find myself in a situation that no longer needs that kind of person, I’ve always just got up and left, to find a new company that needed the kind of person I was. There’s nothing wrong with that: Different companies need different types of people at different points in their lives. Alternatively, I could see if maybe I was also someone else, or if I could at least grow to become someone else, someone that the company needed now. Neither decision is wrong. The only wrong choice is to keep being the person the company needed but no longer does and refuse to become someone the company needs now.

As I’ve written elsewhere, working for a company is very much the same as being in a relationship with another human. Once you’re in a good place, you sure want them to stay that way forever. Why would you want a good thing to change? However, things do change. It’s nobody’s fault, and it’s not inherently a bad thing. It might be bad for you, though, in that the evolved relationship is no longer the perfect fit that the original one was.

My advice: If you find yourself in a company that you used to love working for but are losing that feeling, then it’s a good time to sit down and enumerate exactly what you used to love about the relationship. Be specific. Don’t frame things in terms of what you might not like now; focus on what you loved then. Once you’ve done that, really analyze why those things have changed.

Here’s an example: I once worked for a company that had a pretty open policy regarding expenses. “If you’re doing the right thing,” the official policy went, “and you’re responsible, then go ahead.” As that company grew, and ultimately went public, things got a lot more “locked down.” I wouldn’t say I liked the new locked-down company, and I eventually left. Looking back, I realize that the expense policy was kind of a touchstone for what I loved: The company didn’t have many rules, and it gave me, personally, a lot of leeway to jump in and make a positive contribution. What changed was that the company – after going public and coming under a great deal more external scrutiny – simply had to be different. It couldn’t be as freewheeling. It wasn’t a teenager anymore, worried only about doing something cool. It had to be a grownup, observe a budget, and be accountable to others. At the time, that imposed many restrictions that I didn’t enjoy and didn’t feel I fit within. However, I did the right thing: I left. I could have done the other “right” thing and adapted myself to be someone who could make a positive contribution under those new rules. Tone it down, move a little more slowly, and work with others; at that point in my life, it wasn’t something I was able to recognize and do. I’m glad I didn’t just stay, turn myself into an unwanted disruptive force, and wind up leaving on bad terms.

Make sure that, when it comes to working for a business, you love the one you’re with. If you’re not, don’t expect the business – composed of hundreds or thousands of other people – to be the one to change. If you can’t change so that you can continue to love the company you’re with, as it grows and evolves, then it’s time to go. That might be a little bittersweet, but it’s not bad.

PART 2: RUNNING A BUSINESS

OKRs, Rocks, and Pebbles

I find that a lot of people working for companies don’t always understand or agree with what the company’s priorities seem to be. To be fair, not all companies are terribly good about communicating their priorities or how they came to them, which is a shame. But I’ll explain one model that many companies use to figure out what they’re going to do.

Rocks ‘N’ Pebbles

The first is a Stephen Covey analogy: rocks and pebbles.

Imagine you have a bowl. This bowl represents the time you have in a day, or month, or quarter, or whatever. The bowl is, therefore, a fixed size: Just as you cannot create more time out of thin air, you cannot make the bowl any bigger.

Beside the bowl are rocks of various sizes. Big ones the size of your fist, and little ones you’d need tweezers to pick up. These are all the things your company could choose to do. The big ones take up the most time and require the most other resources, and the little ones take the least time. As a result, the big ones also tend to be the ones that generate the most significant impact on the company, and the little ones tend to generate the least impact. A big rock might be creating a new customer self-service portal, where customers can look up answers to questions about your products; a little pebble might be picking up the phone and answering a single customer’s question.

Prioritization becomes a process of deciding what to put into the bowl. You could just fill it with little pebbles. They’re easy, and they get you an “instant win.” They’re often the “low-hanging fruit” you hear people talking about. But they’re not going to make a definite long-term impact, even taken as a group. You could just focus on the big rocks that you know will create that significant long-term impact – but doing so will mean ignoring some of the little, day-to-day stuff. It goes without saying that you can’t do it all because the bowl is a fixed size. The trick is in deciding what mix to put into the bowl. And the big trick is realizing that there’s no objectively correct answer, and the biggest trick is realizing that you won’t know if you got it right until the bowl is full and you can look back.

This kind of prioritization is a struggle for all people, and all businesses, all of the time, always. You’ve always got more you want to do, and not enough time/money/whatever to do it. You’ve always got people happy to second-guess your decisions, but you don’t know in advance if their decisions would have turned out any better in the end. Running a business is a compromise, and it involves making a lot of bets over the short, medium, and long term, and it’s often a long while before you see if those bets paid off or busted. Anytime you’re thinking, “I don’t know why the business doesn’t just do X,” it’s because adding something to the bowl would necessitate taking something else out. And while X might be some wee little thing that wouldn’t take any time at all – X might also be a pebble that won’t generate the kind of long-term impact that the company is hoping will result from whatever is in the bowl at the time. Hey, in the end, you might be right – doing X might have been smarter than whatever else was being done. But if you’re not the person with skin in the game (see the earlier chapter on risk), then you’re not the one who gets to make the bets with what goes into the company’s bowl.

OKRs

A related and sometimes complementary model is Objectives and Key Results, or OKRs.

An Objective is something you want to gain by doing something. Relating back to the rocks and pebbles analogy, an Objective is the reason you put the rock into the bowl. Objectives have to be observable, which means an objective person needs to be able to look at the situation and determine whether or not the Objective happened. “Increase Sales” is certainly an objective, and it’s something that can be measured and agreed upon. “Increase customer loyalty” might be an Objective, if and only if you have a model for accurately measuring customer loyalty in the first place.

Key Results, or KRs, are the ways you tell whether you’ve achieved an Objective. “Customer Satisfaction Surveys Exceed 80% Completion with a Rating of 75% or Higher” is a good Key Result. “Conduct Customer Satisfaction Surveys” is not a Key Result; it’s a task that you must undertake. “Conduct 100 Surveys” is also not a Key Result, or shouldn’t be, unless you’ve defined some “soft” Objective like “Learn More About What Our Customers Think of Us.”

I don’t like soft Objectives because they don’t move the business in any direction. “Hire 10 People” is a terrible Objective. What if those ten people just sit around playing Solitaire? Nothing is achieved. “Decrease Time to File Customer Claims by 20%” is a fine Objective, and “10 New Claims Clerks Working at Nominal Capacity” might well be a Key Result that helps you get there. Objectives are things that will measurably improve the business; Key Results are the measurable milestones along the way that let you know you’re headed in the right direction. Note that “10 New Claims Clerks Working at Nominal Capacity” itself implies many underlying tasks: We have to hire the clerks, presumably train them, probably supervise them, and so on, to get them at “nominal capacity.”

OKRs are something a company can set for itself, and it’s good when it can do so. But you can also do OKRs at a department level or even within small teams. Ideally, team OKRs will be “connected” to a department OKR that they support, which will be connected to a company OKR that it supports. The idea being to get everyone doing the stuff that will help the company achieve its overall goals. Teams and departments will often have other OKRs that don’t directly address a company OKR but are still relevant and worthwhile.

Priorities, Priorities

While I’m a huge fan of companies that use mechanisms like these to communicate top-level priorities to the whole company (or even departments or teams who do so), I realize that not all companies do. But there’s no reason you can’t ask. Ask how you, in whatever your position is, can understand on a day-to-day basis where the company, department, and team priorities lie. Ask how those are measured. Make it clear that you want to line up your own daily actions with whatever will have the best impact on those priorities. If you’ve got suggestions, lining them up against those priorities will be the best way to have them heard. “Hey – I know our priority is to get new customers to sign up faster. I had an idea about modifying our sign-up screens that would shave about 10 seconds off per customer. Where would be the right place to take that suggestion?”

Opportunity Cost

In our physics-based universe, almost nothing is limitless. Every resource we have is finite, and that means we have to make choices about how to use them. If you get two weeks of vacation from work, you have to decide what to do with those – much as you might want to take an 80-day trip around the world, you can’t, unless you’re willing to lose your job. Businesses work under the same constraints: To do something is to also not do some other thing. This is always true. I’ll sometimes get amused by employees who’ll make observations like, “Well, we could do this thing that I think should be done, and it’s not like it would cost more or take any extra time,” when those same employees are usually the ones also remarking on how overworked they are and how little time they have to do anything extra. Everything will require some expenditure of resources, and that means those resources won’t be available for some other thing.

Businesses usually discuss this decision-making process in terms of opportunity cost. If I do thing A, what will I miss out on?

I’ve had to struggle with this question myself innumerable times in the various businesses I’ve owned or run over the years. Mind you, it’s a lot easier to wrap your head around this concept for a small-scale business because the numbers involved are both smaller and more readily available. For example, we once had an opportunity to do some extraordinarily exclusive and lucrative consulting work for a division of Microsoft. However, with our sharply limited resources, it meant basically dedicating the company to that and nothing else for about a year. That dedication meant rapidly closing out our existing commitments, taking no new commitments for that period, and, more seriously, potentially damaging our pipeline for future work. By stepping away from our then-current line of business for that long period, we risked those customers throwing up their hands and finding someone else to do what we’d been doing, which means after the year-long gig was up, we’d potentially struggle for new work. The opportunity with Microsoft, in other words, came with a cost that we’d have to be willing to pay.

Number-crunching commenced. So, to use big, round numbers, let’s say the company was making $500k a year doing what we were doing. Let’s say we figured it’d be six months to re-ramp back to that after concluding the consulting gig, with revenue slowly coming back online during that ramp period. It means our “opportunity cost” was about $675k, meaning the Microsoft gig needed to pay that much or it’d end up losing us money.

Opportunity cost happens everywhere, all the time in business because to do something always means to not do something else. It’s just a numeric way of looking at the “rocks and pebbles” analogy; if my bowl is only a certain size, and I need to decide which rocks to put in it, I need to look carefully at the value of those rocks. I need to select the rocks that will produce the most long-term value because the bowl is of a fixed capacity. You have to learn to ask yourselves with everything you do if you expect to be taken seriously by experienced businesspeople. Every project, every meeting, every initiative, at some point down to every task you take on and every moment of your day.

Now, look: If you’re not in a leadership role in your company, you might not get to make the decisions about what gets done and what, as a result, doesn’t get done. However, you should ask questions, and work to understand the decision-making process that went into those decisions. You should try to get as much context as possible around things like opportunity costs so that the business decisions are comprehensible to you.

Very deliberate word choice: comprehensible. I have learned, as I was coming up through various companies and figuring out how businesses were run, that I need to be very, very deliberate about not forming opinions. There’s a fine line between arrogance and confidence. Confidence is knowing what you know, and arrogance is not knowing what you don’t know but behaving as if you do. I don’t need to agree with business decisions until after I’m sure I fully comprehend the decision and where it came from. In fact, I tried very hard to assume that if I saw a decision I disagreed with, I was probably wrong, and I’d work as hard as possible to understand why. At the end of the day, there were still plenty of decisions I didn’t agree with. When those started to pile up at a given company, I started brushing up the resume. But what I found even more often were decisions I didn’t agree with that, after I’d learned a bit more, I could at least get to a place of, “Oh, OK. I mean, I wish there was another way, but I kind of get it.” Business decisions are often a matter of choosing the least-destructive option from a long-view perspective, and while you don’t always have to love the decisions, you can often at least respect the company’s intent and where the decisions came from.

Opportunity cost is one of the important pieces of context that go into business decisions. It’s far from the only one, of course, and different business types have different concerns. The point of this short chapter is, in part, to help you understand that there are different bits of context and it’s important to understand them if you hope to comprehend the decisions that your company makes.

Good, Better, Best

Back in the day, one of my responsibilities was for our company’s PBX – the phone system. Our system was relatively new, and it was well-equipped, but one particular area of challenge was the voicemail system. We had many salespeople who spent much time away from the office, and they saved every voicemail. Our system kept filling up. We’d run out of room for the entire company, and callers couldn’t leave voicemails. I should mention that this was before Internet email was a broadly available thing; voicemail was crucial. My boss asked me to contact the vendor and work out an expansion so that they could look at the budget. I sat down and did math, baby. I’d already been going in every time the system hit “full,” and manually clearing out older voicemails. So I had a good idea of how fast we were going through our storage and what it would take to be able to hold roughly 30 days’ of voicemail companywide. We needed to roughly double our capacity.

Capacity expansions for that system came in “blocks,” and I could either add a “small block,” which would add about 20% or a “big block,” which would add about 400%. There was no middle ground. I ran up a quote for a big block and took it to my boss. This solution was, I reasoned, what we needed and then some; in my young, “engineering mindset,” I’d rather overbuild and not run into the problem again, right? It was a lot of money – close to a quarter-million if I remember correctly. Phone systems are expensive. My boss pointed out the massive expense and asked if there was anything else we could do, and I said – truthfully from my perspective – “no.” I mean, a small block wasn’t going to make any appreciable difference.

Anyway, a few weeks later, my boss and I had a meeting, wherein I was … let’s go with “chastised” as a word. She had called the phone system vendor and spoken to them in more detail, and they’d said that it was entirely possible to install multiple “small block” expansions and that we could get a roughly 80% increase – close to the doubling I’d been after – for much closer to $150k, a bit over half of what I’d been quoted. It turns out the “big block” also came with a bunch of other stuff we weren’t after and involved some pre-requisites we didn’t have, which is why it was so much more.

I learned two lessons.

One, ask more questions. I was assuming that, for our Ginormous Company, $250k was a lot but not an insurmountable sum. The money meant nothing to me because I had no idea what the money meant to the company. I had no idea what else we might need money for. So I didn’t dig into the possible solutions. I didn’t take the time to really understand that “big block” option because I didn’t see the need to; it was just money, right? We had lots, right? I was perfectly happy to throw someone else’s money at a problem because at the time, to me, $250k was essentially equivalent to Infinite Money. It was 10x as much as I made in a year!

Two, offer options. Offering options is something I learned from a friend who’s in Procurement at a large resort hotel property. He works with restaurant chefs who get pretty demanding around the things they want in their kitchens. In Procurement, you try to reduce the number of things you’re buying so that you can get better deals by buying fewer types of things in greater quantities. Every chef specified different … well, everything. Spatulas. With ten food outlets, he’d be buying ten different kinds of spatulas. So, when he came into the property, he put the kibosh on that. “I have three options,” he said. “There’s a good one, a better one, and the best one. The low-end outlets like the buffet get the good one. Higher-end outlets can pick.” In expanding the voicemail system, I should have researched it to the point where I could provide a good, better, best scenario. “We can do this option for this much, but it won’t meet our needs for very long. We can do a better option, and it’ll come closer, but it’ll cost a bit more. We can do the best option, which will set us up for life, but it’s going to cost a good bit more.” Then my boss could have evaluated those options and either chosen one, asked me to dig into them more, or modified the criteria a bit and asked me to go back and try again. You see, by only offering one option, and in doing so with essentially no business context, I was putting my boss into a corner where my “solution” didn’t fit with all the business criteria she was dealing with and wasn’t able to share with me. I wasn’t helping her; I was compounding a problem situation. With a good, better, best option, I could have provided her with some context, with a sense of the shape of the solution. “Here are three ways to tackle this, and the trade-offs between them.” That’d help inform the next round of more-precise questions that we could have used to drill down to an actual solution.

Now, to be fair, my boss could have helped me realize all that at the time. I’m not saying she was a fantastic manager (we disagreed on many subjects, and even in retrospect, I question the wisdom of some of what we did as a team). However, in that particular situation, we were both wrong in different ways.

I’ve since learned to present good, better, best options along with a concise summary of the trade-offs, a recommendation about how I think we should proceed, and the assumptions that went into that recommendation. Those assumptions are essential because my boss can quickly scan them to see if there are any considerations I didn’t take into account – remember, I don’t necessarily know All The Things – and determine if whatever I missed might change the equation. By implicitly letting my boss see where I’m missing information, I create a better opportunity for my boss to fill me in on the missing pieces, helping educate myself and helping myself make better recommendations the next time around.

Business leaders aren’t always asking for solutions. Sometimes they’re asking for options because they’re trying to inform themselves about the shape of something. They’re asking in a particular way because they know how they themselves process information and learn from it. My boss and I need to be partners in that way: The boss is charged with a particular set of responsibilities and outcomes that I’m not entirely filled-in on because it’s not my job to know all those things at all times. So I need to provide a spectrum of options so that my boss can get a feel for the overall situation and understand what trade-offs may have to be made: good, better, best.

It Isn’t Personal

There’s a story that I’ve probably told elsewhere in this book that is especially apt here. I grew up mainly in the Norfolk, Virginia, area, which is home to the Norfolk Naval Base. It’s the largest naval base in the world, and so the Naval perspective tends to color all of the local news.

In the mid-1990s, the Clinton administration implemented the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The basic intent was to allow gay and lesbian service members to remain in the service, provided they stayed closeted. Military recruiters crossed our recruitment form questions that asked about homosexuality. All of this capped off what had been a multi-year national conversation on whether gays and lesbians could or should serve in the military. In Norfolk, which also enjoys a prominent position in America’s conservative “Bible Belt,” the main narrative was that allowing homosexuals to serve in the military would diminish unit cohesion, negatively impact unit readiness and effectiveness, and so on.

The best quote I heard on the news during that period was from a Captain or Commander – both fairly senior ranks in the US Navy – on the subject. I’m paraphrasing, but the gist was, “I don’t believe homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military. However, if my Commander-in-Chief orders it, then it will happen, and I can assure you there will not be a problem in any of my units.”

I think most business decisions are probably less contentious and debated than that example, but I think that quote starkly illustrates a vital part of the business world: It’s not personal. It’s not about you.

In a recent position, I sat with several of the company’s senior leaders and argued pretty intensely around a particular decision that had to be made. I offered a great deal of context and background from my perspective and outlined some of the risks I saw in where I felt the leaders were headed. At the end of the discussion, which got a little heated at times, they indeed made the decision I’d hoped they wouldn’t. The person ultimately in charge of that decision looked at me point-blank and asked, “Is this going to be a problem?” You see, I was in charge of implementing the decision they’d made. I just shrugged and leaned back in my chair. “Nope,” I said. “I made my point. I’ll do my best to make this happen the way you want.” It’s wasn’t my business. It wasn’t my decision to make. Yes, I needed to advise that decision and provide input to it, but ultimately I was being paid to do my job, and the company directed what that would be, not me. I could either do my job to the best of my ability, not trying to undermine the decision I disagreed with or carry a bad attitude back to my team, or I could resign if I felt that strongly about it. I’ve no problem faithfully executing on decisions I disagree with because in a whole bunch of cases it all turned out better than I’d thought. When I don’t “own” the decision, I probably don’t have the entire picture. So I can provide advice, but it’s not a personal dig if the decision ultimately doesn’t go “my” way.

In another company, one group within the organization was charged with designing upcoming projects, setting project specifications, and so on. Another group was in charge of finding vendors to implement those projects, and negotiating those vendors’ rates and fees. I was talking to one of the Design team one day, and he complained that one of the Vendor team had contracted with a vendor whose rates had historically been too high. We’d all been getting lectured about the need to save money and be more conscious about spend, so he was, understandably, upset at what he saw as a waste of money. “Dude,” I said, getting him to take a breath, “that’s not your mission. The Vendor team has their own metrics and their own oversight. It’s good that you care, but they don’t tell you how to do design work.”

The perfect employee, many businesspeople will tell you, has a lot of passion for what they do. The problem is that passionate people have trouble also being dispassionate when the time comes. The person who can walk that line – being passionate about their point of view and advocating for it and then stepping back and being dispassionate once a decision is made – is genuinely lined up to do well in business, both from a “success” angle as well as from a “personal happiness” level.

I wrote a chapter on understanding risk. The people who are taking the risk, and the people they’ve trusted to run things, are the ones who get to make the big decisions. They’re the ones called to the carpet if things go wrong. Often, they need to take input from many sources, which may include you but will doubtless include other sources. Their inputs may include pressures and concerns you’re not even aware of. So when they make a decision, whether it goes “your” way or not, it’s got nothing to do with you. If you ever work for an organization where you truly feel it is personal, then you should quit. Because 99% of the time, it’s not personal. So when a decision doesn’t go “your” way, take that as an opportunity to try to understand why. Try to understand the same big picture that the decision-maker needed to grasp, or as much of it as possible. That’ll only make your future input more useful.

Here’s another story, this one from a friend:

The Highest Paid Person in the Organization (HiPPO) sometimes makes non-transparent political decisions. Not because he/she wants to but because that’s way top deals are set up. These “golf course” deals can be frustrating for the people doing the research/execution because they often don’t align with the direct need of the organization/customer.

The example he gave was something along the lines of he and his team spending a great deal of time testing a new piece of equipment for their company. The equipment was a multimillion-dollar investment, and the company was considering two different brands. The brand my friend was working on seemed to be the best fit, and they’d put in a serious amount of work testing it, getting it configured for their environment, and so on.

The announcement then came down that the company had decided to go with the other brand. Frustrating! In speaking to his boss, my friend mentioned how disappointing it was. The brand they’d been working with, he said, was clearly a better fit, and they’d put so much effort into it that was now wasted.

“Oh, it’s not wasted,” his boss told him. “On the contrary. The brand we decided to go with is well aware of the favor we’re doing for them, and they’re going to be taking us into several of their largest customers. We’re going to double our revenue on that deal. So if their equipment is a little bit less perfect of a fit, whatever. We’re getting a great deal in the end.”

“Perhaps,” my friend told me, “the lesson here was that corporate politics are part of the game. And we shouldn’t blame our bosses for just playing.”

It’s true. It’s not personal, and sometimes you just don’t have all the details because there’s no way for you to have them.

I have a friend who worked for a long time at a themed restaurant. The restaurant’s theme was “Colonial America.” Basically, the servers wore knee-length pants with white hose underneath, tricorn hats, the whole deal. The menu was “Americana Comfort Food,” with dishes more or less based on traditional Thanksgiving dinners. Hosts would cry, “Hear ye, hear ye!” when calling a family up for their reservation – that kind of thing.

My friend enjoyed adding a little “extra” for his guests when he could. Servers are, after all, paid mostly in tips, and he didn’t mind working for his. He’d sprinkle some red, white, and blue glitter-confetti on the table for birthdays, amuse children by piecing together drinking straws into three-foot-long super-straws, and so on. The thing is, his manager didn’t care much for the antics. They got into so many arguments over it that my friend eventually left that restaurant (he wound up at a better one, so it ended well).

I wasn’t there for any of this, so I’ve no skin in the game. However, I do know that my friend took the decision to “stop doing the confetti and stuff, it’s off-theme” pretty personally. I understand that it’s not like the guests dressed to theme, and it’s not like a little super-straw action was going to somehow make people suddenly realize they weren’t in the late 1700s. I mean, the glassware was made of glass, and there were restrooms with running water, both of which were pretty off-theme. Also, being told to “stop it” would, he felt, affect his tips.

However, I understand the manager’s perspective, too, or at least the bits I’m aware of. The goofing-off might slow down service for other tables. The confetti makes a mess. Also, those bits weren’t improving “the show” for the whole restaurant, they were solely helping one person’s tips. Other servers, more obedient ones, might wonder why they weren’t allowed to fling confetti all over the place to get better tips. If they were, of course, the restaurant’s theme – and cleaning crew – would wind up in a pretty different place, right?

I think my friend’s only problem, and this is purely from my outside perspective, was taking it personally. It wasn’t his restaurant. He didn’t own it, he wasn’t responsible if it made a profit or not, and he wouldn’t suffer one way or another if profits went up or down. It wouldn’t affect him all that much if the restaurant got a good or bad review on Yelp or something. He had no risk in the game. He’d provided his input to the decision-making process – confetti! straws! – but he took it personally when the management decision didn’t go his way. The management decision didn’t even need to be objectively correct in this case. Management is allowed to make wrong decisions; they’re not accountable to the front-line employees, they’re accountable to their superiors. That doesn’t make it personal unless you make it personal. I felt my friend should either just let it go and do the job he was paid to do, without adding the unwanted extras, or leave. He did leave, as I said, although that happened after it had gotten pretty tense at work, which is a shame.

Business isn’t personal. Or shouldn’t be.

Time Is Money

Time, in the business world, truly is money. We hear that all the time, and I think the phrase gets a little watered down. We get cynical about it, and we stop realizing how globally it applies to everything we do.

I once had to migrate a pretty large-capacity server. The original server was running a product called Novell NetWare, which basically let the server act as a file repository for the company’s users, not unlike what Dropbox does today. It also provided the interface between users and the various laser printers we had scattered around the office. It was, in the parlance of the day, a “file and print server.” We migrated it to a different product called Microsoft Windows NT, which provided us with more user capacity and some other benefits. To ease the transition, Microsoft offered a product called File & Print for NetWare, or FPNW, which basically let the Windows NT server masquerade as a NetWare server. That meant we got all the benefits but all of our users wouldn’t have to change the way they worked. In theory.

Migration “cutover” day is always terrifying in these kinds of projects. You basically come in the night before and turn the old server off, and rename the new server so that everyone thinks it’s really the old server. In theory, it’s seamless. And it indeed seemed that way in our late-night tests. But come morning, we realized something had gone horribly wrong. Some users could access nothing, while others had access to everything on the entire server, which was not the intent. And about half the printers weren’t working for some reason.

We can fix this, my team and I said. By lunchtime, we still hadn’t, although we’d made some progress on understanding the problem. It seemed the initial process of copying the files from the old server to the new hadn’t been done correctly, which resulted in the permissions on the various files being all mucked-up. One of my team started outlining a plan to repeat the copy, which, mind you, had taken all night to complete the first time.

No, I said. Time is money. We’d already kept a decent chunk of the company offline for half a day. Our need to be the heroes who made this sucker work did not outweigh the rest of the company’s need to do their jobs. I ordered them to take the new server offline, stand the old one back up, and admit defeat. We’d spend the rest of the afternoon documenting new tests that would cover the problems we’d run into, and we’d start the entire migration over from scratch. We’d rebuild the new server from ground zero. We’d repeat a test migration, and then run all of our new tests to confirm the problems weren’t present. We’d do it all over.

Sure, we’d be spending more time to do all that, and time is money. But our time was less money than the time of the rest of the company we’d disrupted; getting them back to work was more important.

I see this kind of situation all the time in various ways, and far too often I see people get into a stubborn, no, I can do this! attitude over it.

“This isn’t working,” I’d say.

“I can make it work!”

“But you could do this other thing and just get it working enough for now,” I’d say.

“Why isn’t it working the way it’s supposed to?”

“I don’t know, but I know this other thing would get it working for now,” I’d say.

“No! I can make this work!”

Stop yourself. Focus on the outcome. Focus on who is affected. Should you call for help? Should you escalate this to another team? Should you admit defeat, roll back, and start over? What does the business expect to get from all of this activity, and how can you get it as much of that, as quickly as possible, despite how it makes you “look” in the end? Remember: business isn’t personal, and time is money. What’s the lowest impact on the money equation you can arrange, no matter how you might feel about that personally?

I hate seeing people pound their head against a problem just because they’re trying to get it to work in a particular way that they believe it should work. You can do all that when you’re not holding up other people, but when you are, focus on the most expeditious solution, not the one you think is “right.” Achieve perfection on your own time, with your own money; when someone else is paying, get them to where they need to be in the least amount of time possible.

Making Mistakes Positive

When you’re running a business – even if you’re in a junior leadership position of any kind – one of the best things you can do is be respectful of mistakes.

That is a very hard concept for a very large number of companies. I understand that. Nobody likes to mess up or fail, right? But the fact is that failure is often the way we humans learn best, so if we’re not making any mistakes, then we’re either perfect or we’re not learning. And I’m betting you’re not perfect.

You might be thinking, “Oh, my company hates mistakes. Hates them! Mess up even a little bit and someone is all over you.” In certain trades, that’s obviously going to be true. If you’re a neurosurgeon, for example, mistakes are going to be frowned upon to say the least. But all people make mistakes. Regrettably, even neurosurgeons.

But for most companies – you know, the ones not operating on people’s brains – I find that the underlying cause for hatred of mistakes is people don’t seem to learn from them. The first time your kid burns his finger by touching the hot pot on the stove, you’re going to comfort him and probably explain why he got hurt. You’re making it a positive experience in the long run. The ninth time your kid touches the pot, you’re probably going to yell at him.

That’s how a lot of companies wound up feeling the way they do about mistakes.

Here’s another angle to consider: Suppose you have a kid who touches the hot pot on the stove far too many times. You wind up yelling at the kid, and eventually you start putting in some kind of deterrent so they’ll stop touching the pot. Maybe you require them to get permission before they even walk into the kitchen, or you squirt them with a water bottle when they approach the stove. I don’t know, I don’t have kids.

But then suppose you later have a second kid. It’s entirely possible that the first time the kid even walks into the kitchen, you yell at the kid. You know the kid didn’t do anything wrong, but your experience tells you that you’re not having little Einsteins, and so you try to be proactive and prevent the mistake from happening.

All of that is literally how employee handbooks come into being. They are a list of mistakes someone made, sometimes in the distant past. And if your company is intolerant of mistakes now, it’s very possible that it earned that attitude from past employees. That’s a shame, and it’s something you can actively address and try to improve, but you need to recognize where the attitude comes from.

So how can mistakes be positive? Simple: When you don’t repeat them. The problem is that most humans will say, “Oh, sorry, I won’t do that again,” but even when they’re sincere, they can’t help the fact that they’re human. Humans make mistakes, including when they’re telling you they won’t make a mistake. They will. You have to recognize that our ability to repeat mistakes is built into us, and you have to engineer around that weakness so that mistakes can be a positive thing.

For example, in the software programming field, there’s a concept called unit testing. A unit test is basically a very tiny little program that tests another program to see if the second program is working. If you’re writing a program to do numeric calculations, you might write a unit test that plugs in two numbers and checks to see that the result is correct. A single large application might have tens of thousands of unit tests, while a small mobile app might have a couple of hundred. Unit tests are automated, which means you can run thousands of them by pushing a single button and sitting back until they finish. Most importantly, unit tests serve as a programmer’s memory. A human being, left to their own devices, might forget to run a particular test, which might mean they leave a bug in their software. But automated unit tests are like elephants: They never forget.

The idea is that a programmer who finds a bug doesn’t immediately fix the bug. First, they write a new unit test that tests for whatever that bug was. Right off the bat, that unit test will fail because the bug is still there. That’s good! It confirms that the unit test “caught” the bug. The programmer then goes off and fixes the bug, runs the unit test again, and confirms that it now passes. That bug is now “committed to memory,” which means if it ever winds up being re-introduced to the software, it’ll be “caught.” The mistake won’t be repeated.

Let’s walk through the important bits of that little story:

- All people make mistakes.

- Most people feel bad about it, and try not to do it again.

- People will make the same mistake again.

- If you can create a system that catches mistakes, then you can help people not make mistakes, which makes the company more understanding when they do happen.

In other words, unit tests are a way of telling a company, “Hey, we messed up that software, but it will definitely not happen again.” The mistake wasn’t “solved” by the company giving up on programmers altogether; it was solved by creating a way to preserve the knowledge of the mistake and to ensure it wouldn’t happen again.

As a business leader, you need to create unit tests. That is, you need to create systems in which mistakes can happen once, that people can learn from, and in which the same mistake won’t happen again. Once you can almost-guarantee that a mistake won’t be repeated, you can start treating mistakes like very positive experiences! Think of the world as containing a finite number of mistakes; eventually, once you experience them all, you won’t have any more mistakes to make! Every mistake you make is a good thing because it reduces the number of mistakes you’ll make in the future, even if the future contains an infinite supply of new ones for you to try.

So how can you create unit tests? Obviously, it depends, and the answer will differ for whatever kind of business you’re in and for the types of tasks you perform. Dig into the basic principles of the task. For example, unit tests were designed to solve for a specific problem: fallible human memory. A programmer would simply forget to test something. Computers don’t forget, so automated testing is really a fix for human memory. In banks, counting large sums of cash involves some pretty obvious human failures: our fingers stick to the bills, we get bored and our attention wanders, and so on. Bill-counting machines have none of those problems, and so they’re a good way to keep past mistakes form happening in the future.

Conducting “post-mortem” meetings after a project or incident, where everyone can calmly (and without finger-pointing) discuss what went wrong under the hood, can help. A good post-mortem will focus on what I call the “biological factor.” You don’t sit in a conference room and say, “Hey, Bob screwed up and didn’t drain the machine.” You say, “Hey, a human forgot to turn on the drain pump.” Forget is something we can fix. It’s something we can learn from. We might attach a checklist to the machine to help remind people to turn on the drain pump. We might install an interlock so that the machine can’t be turned on without the drain pump being turned on. The point is to learn and to preserve that knowledge in a system that will deter or prevent future reoccurrences.

Be Data Driven

Human beings are unique on earth in our ability to believe. That is, we can accept and treat something as a fact even if there is absolutely no evidence for it being a fact and even if there is evidence that what we’ve accepted is contradicted by available evidence. This is different from merely holding an opinion or stating a theory; we behave as if the thing we believe is absolutely, irrefutably true, and are often resistant to a discussion about how our belief relates to any available physical evidence.

Your dog doesn’t get excited around dinner time because it believes you’re going to feed it; it gets excited because it’s operating from a pattern of past activity where you did, in fact, feed it. That’s not a guarantee that you’ll do so again, but its world is based on those past experiences, which definitely and provably occurred.

A human, however, can believe, for example, that a particular politician committed a particular crime or other offense, with no experience or objective evidence to back it up, and can continue believing that even if an overwhelming amount of evidence refutes their belief. We want a thing to be true, and so we create a narrative for ourselves where it is true and then behave as if our narrative has been confirmed by objective, physical evidence.

All that’s fine for what it is, but it gets especially tricky in business. Good businesses do not operate from belief; they run from theory, and they confirm or refute theories based on facts. That is to say, good businesses are data-driven. So if you’d like to be taken seriously in such a business, you too will need to become a data-driven person.

I used to work for a division of Bell Atlantic, and that at one point I was responsible for migrating us from our aging and overwhelmed Lotus cc:Mail messaging system to something else. Much of the rest of Bell Atlantic was going with Lotus Notes, another IBM product and the “obvious” successor to cc:Mail. As a standalone division, we were free to make our own choice, and so my team and I started collecting data. We had some specific criteria: We needed, for example, to be able to place a fixed maximum size for each user’s mailbox. Our research discovered that Notes didn’t provide that capability; you could set a maximum size on an entire mail database, but a database would typically contain many, many different mailboxes. One colleague said that his company’s workaround was to have one database per user, effectively giving them a per-mailbox size limit, but with the expense of vastly more complex system management, backups, and performance problems. We made a note of that, along with a variety of other facts about our business needs, Notes’ capabilities, and the capabilities of Microsoft Exchange Server, the primary competitor to Notes at the time. In the end, we expressed the opinion that, based on the data, Exchange was the better choice for our division’s business needs. This choice was not a belief of ours; we had collected objective facts that informed our recommendation. Some of my team were die-hard Notes enthusiasts; others loved them some Exchange. However, we agreed that the facts would be the primary driver of the decision.

Our recommendation was not popular with some of our superiors who believed Notes was just a better product. However, our division’s leadership was pretty used to making data-driven decisions. We brought up our fact-chart. We went through each business criterion and asked our superiors to confirm that we had each one correct and that each was still relevant to the discussion. We indicated how each product met, or didn’t meet, each criterion. They nodded, asked a few good questions, and accepted our recommendation because it was data-driven and the facts that drove our recommendation were valid, meaningful, and relevant.

I’ll point out that we took some pain to ensure our facts were free of any bias that couldn’t be supported by more facts. While facts themselves are, by definition, always true, the way you present those facts can indeed impart bias and create, if not a “false” impression, then at least a “steered” impression. We tried to avoid that because when someone catches you trying to “spin” a fact, they start to call the rest of your facts into question, and the whole process impugns your credibility. Neither Notes nor Exchange came off as perfect in our analysis; both had problems that we’d need to work around. We tried to provide context for those workarounds, to categorize their difficulty and long-term impact, their costs, and so on, and we tried to be very clear about where we departed from objective fact and entered a world of estimates and guesses. We were, to try to sum up the entire process and attitude into a single word, scientific.

A problem I find with many people is that they have difficulty pulling themselves away from what they want to be true and operating instead in a purely data-driven fashion.

For example, I have one friend who believes that Android phones are superior in every way to iPhones. That’s an opinion, and he’s certainly welcome to it, but there are no facts that support either platform being objectively better than the other. Instead, he will take pieces of information – not data per se – and “spin” those to support his opinion: Android is more open, he’ll say, which means it is inherently more secure. Android is less expensive, he’ll say, which means more people will buy them which will make them part of a larger and therefore more robust ecosystem. He is an extremely vexing person to be around when he starts on that path, and you wonder exactly what kind of financial incentives, and from whom, he’s under to be such a die-hard proponent. Belief is the problem. For most humans, it is not enough to believe something on your own; you must also win others to your belief as if belief was a kind of democracy where the largest crowd of believers “wins” and gets to have their beliefs magically become proven fact.

Try not to be that person at work.

People also mistake correlation with fact. “IBM servers,” a former colleague once averred, “are far less stable. I can prove it because we have to reboot them 3-4 times as often as our Dell servers.” I pointed out that the IBM servers were used only to run a particular application that was known to be poorly written, and that it was the application, not the server hardware, that necessitated the frequent reboots. The fact that it happened to be on IBM hardware was a correlation – two distinct things that happened at the same time – rather than a factual causation, where the one thing (being an IBM server) automatically led to the other (frequent reboots). By his logic, we can confidentially state that tomatoes are toxic to humans because every human who has ever eaten a tomato is either dead or will be dead at some point. There’s a correlation – people do eat tomatoes, and people do indeed die – but the two are not causally connected. This correlation business got to be such an argument that I installed the poorly written application on a Dell server, which wound up needing to be rebooted just as often, and removed it from an IBM server, which suddenly didn’t need to be rebooted as much. Because my colleague so committed to his belief, his response was that I’d messed up the servers somehow – the evidence itself didn’t sway him.

Try not to be that person at work, either.

Here’s the thing: For millennia, humans haven’t had data. Sure, we had experience, but experiences can be subjective; they’re not always universally shared. So learning came, in large part, on instinct and perceived cause and effect relationships. So even in today’s modern, always-connected world, it’s so freakin’ easy just to observe and then go with your gut. That’s a terrible way to become a better businessperson.

No, no, I can already hear the objections, so let’s be clear: Observing and going with your gut is a great way to form a theory about something. “Hey, I see this happening and I think this is what I should do about it.” Fine. But then gather data. Gathering data is rarely fun (unless it’s something you’re personally into), and it’s not always easy (which is why data engineering is such a “thing” in businesses these days). However, it’s what you need to do. Dig into the data around that thing you see happening – do you see something whole and real or just the edge of something or something completely imaginary? Let the data show you how, or how not, your gut-instinct solution will help. So if you decide to go ahead with your solution, measure more data. Consider yourself a scientist: “I think this is what’s happening, and I have some data to validate it, so I’m going to try an experiment. I’ll measure that experiment, and decide if I made a positive change or not.”

Be that person at work.

Negotiating

Negotiating sometimes gets a bad rap. Some people think it means “compromising,” which technically it does, although those people think compromise is an evil word. Some people see negotiating as a painful and unpleasant exercise. Many think it’s stressful, with two people battling to beat down the other.

Negotiating is quite simply the act of figuring out what two or more different parties want, and what they value, when in the beginning you don’t know those things.

Consider a seller, who wants to sell a car. The car costs $10,000 to make, and they normally sell the car for $30,000 (we’re sticking with easy numbers here, not realistic ones). The seller can also offer the buyer a warranty, which costs the seller about $1,000 a year to service. The seller – in this story, you’re the seller – knows the only important thing they need to know: what things cost.

The seller probably also knows a slightly less important, but still valuable, piece of information, which is how much they want to profit. Too many people go into negotiations with an attitude of “I want to profit as much as possible.” That’s utterly selfish, and it’s disrespectful of the other parties in the negotiation. Those people may succeed for a while, but they’ll inevitably fail. Almost all businesses, as I’ve shared elsewhere, know what they want their gross profit margin to be, and they satisfy themselves with that. Say the seller has decided they need a 50% gross margin. That is, they need to sell a $10,000 car for $20,000 in order to pay their staff, their rent, themselves, and so on.

What the seller does not know is what value the buyer attaches to the car or the warranty. You can never know that going in, because every buyer will be different. Cost and value are different things. Cost is something objective and measurable: if you pay $10 for something, then its cost is $10, period. But a buyer may value that thing for $50, which means that’s what they’d be willing to pay.

BUYER: I’m interested in buying that car.

SELLER: It’s $30,000.

BUYER: I don’t want to pay $30,000, I want to pay $15,000.

The buyer isn’t making a value statement here – they’re negotiating. They may in fact value the car at $40,000 for all we know, but they’re trying to get a deal. Nothing wrong with that. But $15,000 is less than the seller needs to make. The wrong thing to do here is to start engaging in back-and-forth counteroffers. That’s haggling, not negotiating.

In a true negotiation, each side needs to know their “bottom line.” In this story, the seller’s bottom line is $20,000 and we don’t know the buyer’s bottom line. The buyer has asked the seller to give something – a $15,000 discount – and now the seller needs to ask for something in return. That’s negotiation: you give, and I get. I give, and you get. We don’t just haggle on a price. We try to change the story so that we’re no longer talking about one simple thing.

SELLER: Okay, well, that’s a pretty big discount. I tell you what, we offer a warranty on that car. If you pick up the warranty for $5,000, I can probably drop the car’s base price and get it all to you for $25,000 total.

The seller appears to have “given” a $10,000 discount, which only a third less than the buyer asked for, but they’ve done it by throwing in an additional $4,000 in gross margin. They’re getting what they want for the car, plus $4,000.

BUYER: That’s still a bit too steep for me. Tell you what, can we go to $22,000, but I’ll take a version of the car that’s stick shift instead of automatic?

We’ve now learned that the buyer doesn’t place value on an automatic transmission. They’ve “given” the transmission back, asking the seller to “give” $3,000. At this point, the seller is getting what he wants for both the car and the warranty: a 50% gross margin. Probably more, since the car with the stick shift probably costs the seller less. But at no time did anyone engaging in haggling – everyone had to give something to get something.

Car dealerships are a terrible analogy because that’s not how they work. They’re all about haggling, with the dealer “getting” nothing more than a sale, and the buyer “getting” nothing more than whatever the dealer can convince them is a good deal. But the story here illustrates what actual negotiating is, and what it looks like in most business-to-business deals.

This is why an experienced negotiator will talk about “levers.” A lever is something you can pull on, to “give” your negotiating partner something, or “push” on, to take something from them. The more levers you have, the more complex a deal can be, and the more nuanced the negotiation can be.

BUYER: We’d like to purchase 10,000 licenses of your software from you.

SELLER: Fantastic! That’s $100 apiece, so it’s $1,000,000.

BUYER: We’d like a 50% discount.

SELLER: You know, deploying this isn’t hard, but it’s specialized. We want you to be successful and stress-free – can we do $750,000, and include professional services to handle the deployment for you?

BUYER: Yeah, we’d like that, but we need it to be closer to $600,000. What if we dropped to 8,000 licenses, but signed a three-year maintenance agreement?

SELLER: We could do $650,000 for the base sale, then, and maintenance would be $20,000 in years two and three. Would that work?

BUYER: It might. We need this deployed quickly, though. What are your timelines?

SELLER: Right now we’re at a six-month lead, but if it’s urgent I can rearrange some other customers. It’d move us back to $750,000, though, plus the maintenance.

BUYER: Speed costs, I understand that. What if we agreed to deploy 5,000 licenses now, contract to bring on 2,500 in each of years two and three, with five-year maintenance?

SELLER: You know, what if we do $550,000 in the first year, then, and $55,000 in years two and three, and $20,000 in years four and five?

BUYER: I feel like we’re close. What if we offered to be an on-record reference for other customers, and let you do a public case study?

You can see how complex this gets. We’re pulling a lot of levers: time to deploy, license count, professional services, ability to use the customer as a reference, and so on. But along the way it’s always been give-and-take.

This kind of negotiating can – and arguably should – apply to most back-and-forth conversations in life. Two neighbors with a disagreement on how loud one can play their music? Don’t just argue. Negotiate. Music can go up to a point in the evening, but then it needs to cut down. Nobody wins in that nobody gets exactly what they came into the conversation asking for, but potentially everybody wins in that they get something they can work with in the end.

The trick is to listen. What’s important – really important – to the other person? Not what they’re saying per se, but what they’re leading to. What might they be willing to offer to create an agreement? What can you offer that you might not value as deeply, letting you give them something they feel is valuable, but which costs you relatively little?

Taken in that light, negotiating isn’t an evil exercise. It’s an attempt to draw out what’s important to both parties. It’s an opportunity to create not conflict, but trust. Many of us go into conversations unwilling to put all of our cards on the table, so to speak. Instead, we need to have a conversation. We need to gain trust. We need to understand that the other party isn’t out to gouge us, and we need to understand and respect they they have wants and needs as well. If we can both take time to understand those, we can negotiate a relationship that everyone can benefit from.

Too many people see negotiations as an opportunity to only win or lose. They seem to think that they need to get out with more than the other guy. That’s wrong. It’s not how life works, or sat least not how it usually should work. We all want different things, and we all place value on different things.

Take myself, when I was an independent writer. I was available on a for-hire basis to write white papers, technical documents, and other things. I had a base rate which was, at the time, about $2,500 for a roughly 5,000-word paper, which I’d usually deliver in two or three months. I frequently had customers come to me asking if I could do it faster. See, time wasn’t as valuable to me, because I write so fast, but to them, time was the most valuable equation. They were happy to pay $3,500 or more for a faster delivery, because they knew from past experiences with me that they’d still get quality. Some customers, on the other hand, didn’t value length as much. “We’d honestly rather have something shorter,” they’d say. “We try to engage our audience more often, and with shorter pieces.” I’d offer to do a 2,000-word paper for $1,100, provided we could agree to a six-month contract where I’d deliver one of those each month. They’d be delighted! And if you do the math, I was making more per word than in my base rate, which I valued a great deal. We both won, because we both got what we needed. In that case, I added another “lever” to the discussion: rather than negotiating solely on length and price, I added a long-term commitment to it. I was willing to take less per piece, because I was getting more pieces total, which helped fill out my revenue needs over a longer term. See, one of my needs was to have a steady revenue stream, and those kinds of deals provided that.

Negotiating is really about understanding, not just blindly haggling. Becoming a good negotiator has, for me, been at the very core of my success in business.

PART 3: BUSINESS MATHEMATICS

Fully Loaded Salaries and Recordkeeping

Many employees have trouble understanding why their company isn’t always willing to just hire more people to help solve problems. After all, if another $100,000 salary (or whatever; I like nice, even numbers for examples because I’m not great at math) can increase productivity, output, efficiency, or whatever, why not just do it?

First, more hands don’t always equal “better.” Take a software development team – adding 2x more developers won’t make the team 2x more productive. More people on a team requires more overhead in coordinating activities and such, and so the more people you add, the less your actual output multiplier becomes. Second, many companies don’t always feel their team leaders and managers are capable of putting new salaries to the best possible effect. I’ve seen it happen a lot: A new person is brought onto the team but there’s no reliable way to get them on-boarded, trained, and productive.

However, a big reason is that a $100k salary costs a lot more than $100k. A lot. I’ll use a US-centric example here, but the logic applies globally.

In the US, we’re used to seeing taxes come out of our paychecks: Federal income tax, FICA (which is Social Security), Medicare. Possibly state, and even local, income taxes. You may have deductions for 401(k) retirement contributions, health insurance premiums, and other benefits. However, your employer pays a lot of money that never shows up on your paycheck.

Many employers match a portion of 401(k) contributions. Employers pay a payroll tax that’s around 8% of your salary to the Feds. They pay into state-run unemployment insurance, usually about 3% of your salary. State and local payroll taxes may apply. They’ve got to pay the employer’s share of health insurance and other benefits. There’s mandatory worker’s compensation insurance, which, again, you never see on your paystub. Moreover, there are costs just to running payroll, with some companies paying a few bucks per employee, per payroll, to run their payroll systems. It all adds up: Most companies in the US use a number between 25% and 40% as a fully loaded salary multiplier. That’s a napkin-math way to estimate what a salary will really cost: That $100k salary costs the company as much as $140k a year. Also, companies have to commit to those employees; start laying off people too often – because you maybe shouldn’t have hired them in the first place – and your contribution to state unemployment systems often goes up because you’re increasing the load on that system.

One of the things I think every forward-thinking employee should be able to do is calculate their nominal fully-loaded hourly rate. Ask your HR or Finance department what multiplier they use to estimate a fully loaded salary; I’ll use 40% in my example. Here’s the math:

[Base Salary] * .4 / 2,000

That 2,000 is the very rough number of working hours in a year. You’ve got 52 weeks total, right? Usually five business days per week. However, most employees in the US get at least 2 weeks’ paid vacation, and we have roughly 2 additional weeks of holidays (that varies a lot across companies; there are 8 “almost universal” paid holidays, but plenty of industries, like retail, only observe a tiny subset if any at all). So call it 48 weeks a year, times 40 hours a week – 1,920 hours. I round up to 2,000 because none of us only work 40 hours a week. However, with this explanation, you can modify the formula to fit your situation more precisely.

What do you do with that information?

Time, as this formula reveals, is indeed money. Let’s say you want the boss to spring for a nice new sit-stand desk. That desk will cost two grand or whatever, and it’ll save exactly … $0, setting aside the “soft” value of you being more comfortable and healthy at work. So the discussion gets into one of those “soft” values, which are always tougher, especially if times are tough and the company is watching its books closely.

(Incidentally, it’s also a good idea to understand when your company’s financial milestones happen, such as the end-of-quarter period that most publicly traded companies deal with. Nobody wants a bunch of unforeseen expenses at the end of a financial period because it increases the chances of the end-of-period report looking bad. On a company that observes a calendar-based fiscal year, nobody wants to hire a bunch of new people in November because that’s a sudden significant increase in expenses right at the end of the year, and you’re never going to have them trained fast enough to offset that expense with additional output. That fact is one reason most retailers, who often do hire more people in November, don’t use a calendar-based fiscal year.)

However, let’s say you’ve found some fantastic new piece of software that you claim will make your entire team of five more productive. The software will cost $10,000 a year in maintenance. Suppose you all make $100k in salary and your company uses a 40% multiplier since I’ve already got that math done. You each make $70/hour, or $3,500/hour as a team. If this new software saves each person on the team 4 hours a year, it’s paid for itself. That’s the kind of math many companies are willing to engage in discussions about. Now, there’s a bit more to the discussion. Those extra 20 hours a year (remember, 5 of you saving 4 hours each) can’t just go to more water cooler time, right? You’ve got to show how the extra 4 hours apiece will generate more output.

Showing that is often a problem because I feel most employees do a crappy job of keeping records.

Everyone talks, all the time, about all the things they don’t have time to “get to” at work. Nobody writes it down, and nobody estimates how many hours it would take. Nobody keeps track of tasks they regularly perform, and how long they require to do. However, you need those records if you’re going to make cogent arguments.

“Boss! You know how this one task always takes us an hour, and we do it roughly this many times a month, every month? Well, I’ve figured out that we could spend $X to cut that in half, and that would free up this many hours! So you know this other thing that we keep putting off? It’ll take roughly that many hours! So if we spend the $X, we can keep doing everything we’re doing now, but also do that thing we keep putting off!”

In this case, $X is the investment, and being able to do that put-off thing is the Return on Investment, or ROI. It’s an investment and a return that has been stated in objectively measurable terms, too: We can quickly determine whether we spent exactly $X or not, and we can easily track if the put-off thing did indeed get done. We have a plan to spend, a plan to get a return on that, and we can monitor if we’re performing according to plan or not. That’s how good businesses are run.

Also, if you do spend the money, and you do get the return, write that down. For yourself. Personally. Because that should be the lead on your resume: “Experienced professional who created $X in additional output, and $Y in savings, over a Z-year period at my previous employer.” Screw the bit where you open with your “career goals” or whatever; why would a prospective employer care about that? Open with evidence of how you’ll benefit that potential new employer, with hard numbers. That creates a robust conversation.

Reading a P&L

A Profit & Loss Statement, or P&L, is one of the high-level tools that you can use to understand a business. Now, I want to point out that I’m going to be really glossing over some fine-print details in my explanation of these things. This isn’t intended to be a CPA-quality explanation; it’s meant as an orientation.

Sample P&L

Every business does these a little differently, but broadly speaking, the top section will usually include what I call the Good News. That is, revenue.

You first want to understand if the company operates on a cash basis or accrual basis. Most small companies use cash basis, which merely says that the cash they have in-hand is real cash and counts toward revenue, and the actual expenses they’ve paid are real and count as expenses. This is how every private household operates, and it’s the easiest to understand. Accrual basis is a little stranger, and it’s what most big companies use. Something counts as revenue when you’ve invoiced for it, or billed for it, even if you haven’t gotten the cash yet. Something’s an expense when you receive an invoice or bill for it, even if you’ve not yet paid it.

There are different types of revenue, too. The most common one is ordinary income. This is, quite simply, the revenue you make from most forms of business, where you sell a thing or perform a service and then get paid for it.

Subscription income is a wee bit different. Let’s say you run a service that charges $10 a month, but you actually bill for it a year at a time. So you’ve sent a $120 bill to a customer, and they’ve paid it. You can’t actually “recognize” all $120 of that as revenue as soon as you get it; instead, you have to recognize $10 per month, because that’s what you’re actually earning. This is all due to a set of rules called the Generally Acceptable Accounting Practices, or GAAP.

_Cost of Goods Sold, or COGS, is also a little different and often shows in the Good News, or revenue, section. COGS itself is frankly a little weird. Let’s say you buy a few thousand small, empty cans, and a few tons of raw nuts. Your company then fills the cans with raw nuts and sells the completed package. Both the cost of the nuts and the cost of the cans are COGS, or “the cost you need to incur to sell the goods that you sell.” From a tax perspective, you can’t write off those costs until you’ve completed the accompanying sale. So if you sell half the nuts in the year you bought them, then you could write off half the cost of nuts and cans in that same year. If you sold the rest the next year, then you couldn’t claim those expenses until that year. This is why some companies hate inventory so much: you’re basically paying income tax on the money you used to buy the inventory until you actually sell it. It’s why car dealers have end-of-year blowout sales – so they can sell the inventory and write off the costs.

Many companies have other kinds of income, like interest on bank accounts or investments, recovered debts, and that kind of thing. It should all show on the P&L.

All your revenue, minus the cost of whatever it was you sold, results in your gross profit. So if you spent $1 million on nuts and cans, sold them all in a year, and generated $2 million in revenue, you’d have $1 million in gross profit, and a 50% gross profit margin, or gross margin. Most industries have more-or-less standard gross margin goals, and it’s one way to compare your basic profitability with your industry peers.

Next is the Bad News section, or Expenses. This is money you spent aside from the cost of the good you sold. This includes stuff like advertising, payroll, taxes, office supplies, and pretty much every other penny you spent. This also usually includes discounts you’ve offered to customers, which is why so many CEOs hate discounts: they’re like this vast negative number on the “bottom line,” right before you find out if you’re bankrupt or not.

Gross profit, minus total expenses, is your net profit or net loss, which is where a P&L gets its name. Again, most industries have benchmarks for their net profit margin (expressed as a percentage), and most companies try to meet or beat their industry norm.

A P&L can tell you a lot about a business. So much that most businesses don’t want them floating around in public (and publicly traded companies often aren’t allowed to share them broadly outside of certain legally specified engagements). Even a high-level P&L will show you where most of the company’s revenue comes from, and where most of it is spent (payroll is often an enormous percentage of the overall expenses). A detailed P&L can reveal much more, and help you truly understand how a company runs.

It’s worth asking if your company is allowed to share a high-level P&L with employees. If they are, consider showing an interest and reviewing it. You’ll often run across stuff that doesn’t seem to make sense, and that’s where you can truly dig into the details that a company deals with.

Take Apple. In 2007, they introduced both the first iPhone and the first iPod Touch. Both devices ran iOS v1.0, but when Apple released the first iOS update, iPhone users got it for free, while iPod Touch users had to pay $20 or so. How come?

At the time, Apple was getting monthly payments from AT&T, and so there was a small amount of monthly revenue attributed to each iPhone. Apple could say that the iPhone was complete as initially shipped, and that the monthly incremental revenue was what paid for the subsequent “improvements” in the form of a new iOS. But they couldn’t say that with the iPod Touch because they’d charged full price for it up front. Releasing an “improvement” meant that they’d increased the value of the product, which meant having to go back and re-state all their revenue. Much like on a subscription service, they couldn’t claim that the original $250 or whatever was all revenue when the product wasn’t “complete” at the initial release; some of the “new value” from a new version of iOS would have to correspond to revenue. To simplify the bookkeeping, they just charged for the update so that the update was “paid for” by its own revenue. It was a few years before Apple revised the way they handle bookkeeping and how they attribute revenue so that they didn’t have to do that anymore. A glance at their earlier P&Ls would have revealed the oddity and driven questions that revealed all those interesting behind-the-scenes details.

P&Ls are awesome.

Understanding Averages

Averages are useful things in lots of pursuits, and business is certainly one of them. But people really misunderstand averages. I once read an article about men’s razor blades. The reporter asked a representative of Gillette how long, on average, a blade lasts. The person’s reply was along the lines of, “Well, everyone is so different that an average isn’t meaningful.” Which will come as a huge surprise to every statistician ever because that’s the whole point of averages.

There are actually three kinds of average. All of these seek to take a set of numbers and come up with a “middle ground” that represents the entire group. A mean does that by adding up all the numbers and dividing by the quantity of those numbers. Also called the arithmetic average, it’s the one most people are thinking of when they say “average.” Its downside is that it can be artificially dragged one way or another by outlier values. You might have 99 values at 50, for example, and 1 at 7,000,000. That’s a mean of over 70,000, but 70,000 is in no way representative of a group of numbers that are mostly at 50. So in looking at averages, you really need to look at the underlying data to understand how many of the values are actually clustered around the mean.

The median is the middle point of a sample, where half your values are above the middle and half are below. This is good for finding a literal “middle ground.” It’s actually a bit better of a value than the mean for a lot of business situations because it automatically takes outliers into account. It does diminish those outliers, though, because a far-flung outlier value won’t “move” the median any more than a “closer-in” outlier.

The mode is simply the most common number in the sample set. In a set with 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the mode is 2, because that’s the most common sample value.

There’s a fun book called How to Lie with Statistics, by Darrell Huff, that I recommend. It’s a great look at how people bend numbers and psychology, and can make you a lot smarter at business math.

Selling It

When I was brainstorming the outline of this book, I asked some of my friends on Twitter (I’m @concentrateddon, by the way) what topics they thought would be valuable. One reply was along the lines of “don’t sell it.” In other words, if you’ve got something to take to your boss, don’t go in with a shopping list of reasons why it’s needed. Trust that your boss trusts you.

I’m not entirely sure I agree with that statement as-is (and that’s not precisely how it was communicated to me anyway), but I do feel there’s a sentiment in there to explore.

Back in the day, I lived in a 40-foot fifth-wheel recreational vehicle. We traveled the United States for a bit over two years in the trailer, and it was “home base.” We had no other place to live. We hauled the trailer with a Chevy Silverado 3500. That’s a big pickup truck with the dual rear wheels – perfect for trailering. Well, almost perfect: our truck had a gas engine, which was kind of a pain in the neck. A lot of gas stations don’t have their pumps arranged in a way that a vehicle 60-some feet long can navigate through. We’d often end up parking off to the side, unhitching, fueling up, re-hitching, and going on our way. Painful. We’d wanted the diesel version of the truck, but Chevy had just switched to a new engine style, and diesels were hard to come by.

A year or so in, we happened to be driving by a GMC dealership. They make the exact same trucks as Chevy; they’re all owned by GM. The GMC versions sometimes offer a few more creature comforts, or maybe stiffer body panels, but they’re all basically the same. We noticed a Sierra 3500 – the GMC version of our Silverado – on the lot. With a diesel engine.

So we pulled in and started talking to a salesperson. Here’s the point I’m trying to make:

I’d already decided to buy the truck if the difference in price between it and my trade-in was under a certain figure I had in mind. I had made this clear to the salesperson. “I am buying this truck,” I said, which I thought was fairly concise, “and I wish to know how much it will cost me.”

The salesperson wasn’t on the same page. Ten minutes later, he was showing me how the sun visors could extend to the side and provide more coverage. I am not joking: he was still selling me the truck I’d been trying to buy for ten minutes. So I walked away from him, into the dealership’s office, and up to the “tower” where the guy in charge sits. “Would you please sell me that truck?” I asked. “Your guy won’t quit talking about it. I just need to know how much I owe you,” I added.

He got on it.

You will absolutely have experiences in business where you need to convince a superior to do something. That might be approving a project, spending money, or something else. Convincing is the same as selling it. And the takeaway from my truck story is that you need to sell things to people in the ways those people want. Don’t sit there telling me about sun visors when I’m trying to get a dollar amount from you.

Don’t tell your boss how much time such-and-such is going to save if your boss isn’t concerned with saving time. Don’t explain how much less expensive this-or-that is going to be if the person you’re explaining it to isn’t incentivized by savings. In other words, know your audience. Know what matters to them. Convince them on their terms, not yours. Help them understand why whatever you’re pitching is good for them and is going to help them.

Ever walk into a high-end clothing boutique and have the salesperson tell you, right up front, how much commission money he or she needs to make that day in order to pay their bills? Probably not, because that’s not a huge motivator for you. Good salespeople will ask about you. What do you like? What size are you? Is this for a particular occasion? Retail, obviously, tries to do a really good job of “selling it.” I find that other businesspeople don’t get some of those basics, though, and it’s a shame.

Here’s why: If you really took this chapter’s advice to heart, it would force you to find out more about what motivates your boss, or her boss, or his boss. In doing so, you are automatically learning more about how your business runs and why it runs that way. You’re becoming a better businessperson all-around.

And how’s that not a great thing?

PART 4: THE PART ABOUT PEOPLE

A Measured Response

Once upon a time, I worked for a technology training and consulting firm. I was placed in charge of the training bits, meaning the trainers reported to me, and I was responsible for the training schedule. We also had a sales team, of course, and we had a person who was responsible for developing new business for the company.

Running a training group is a little tricky. When a new course comes out, a trainer of course needs time to prep before they can teach it for the first time. They need to read through it and run through the hands-on labs, so they know what to expect when they’re working with students, and so on. They need to think about the things they’ll demonstrate and come up with analogies to explain complex concepts. Prepping to teach a one-week class can easily take two or three weeks, so of course, the trainers usually wanted three or four weeks at least because they’re people who like to take their time, do it right, and round up a lot. Putting a new class on the schedule is a huge investment.

My jobs, to that point, had been about doing, not about managing. I’d worked as an aircraft mechanic, and when you were told to do such-and-such, you didn’t question the need to do it, you just got your toolbox and did it. As a LAN Manager for Bell Atlantic Network Integration, my job was much the same, although my toolbox was different: When something broke, you fixed it. When someone said, “We need to migrate off of cc:Mail onto something more modern,” you went and figured it out. See the problem, fix the problem was very much my mental state, and so when the training company’s business development person started firing over emails about new classes she wanted to add to the schedule, I went into a full-on panic. Microsoft had come out with a half-dozen new courses, and I only had two trainers who could teach those subjects. I’d need to offline them for, like, eight years (exaggerating due to panic) to get prepped! Worse, I knew that half or more of whatever we put on the schedule wouldn’t actually run because Microsoft coming out with courses was not the same as customers caring about them. We were throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what would stick, but that spaghetti was extremely expensive in terms of investment. I’d get emails like this:

Don: I’d like to add the new 55039, 55040, 55041, and 55053 to the schedule. Those are the new Microsoft Shiny New Software courses and MS will be heavily promoting them in the channel. Can we put those on the schedule for next month and start selling them?

NO! I wanted to type. Now look, I’m a writer. Always have been. I wasn’t going to just hit “Reply All,” type “No,” and hit “Send.” No, I hit “Reply All” and typed something like this:

Person,

Those courses are not even available for us to order until next month. Two of them are one-week classes, and two of them are three days. We have two trainers who can teach that content, and both of them are engaged full-time in classes for the next three weeks. If we divide those courses between them, they will need at least 3x the number of days to prep. We can maybe get it down to 2x, but they will be stressed, and the first delivery will not be good. So we are looking at 16 to 24 days of prep time. That will have to be spread out because we already have them scheduled for classes during that time frame in the coming months. It will be at least next quarter before we can be even close to ready to teach these. In the meantime, are we sure this is where we want to invest prep time? The last time MS produced courses on this topic nobody bought classes, and we wound up canceling them. Have you done any calls to customers to see if this is something we should even do?

Don

This is very much my “engineer brain” approach to problems: Explain in detail why the request is logistically impossible and point out some of the very valid business reasons why even pursuing this might not be a good idea.

Business Development Person went off the hook. I was, according to the complaint lodged with my boss, obstructing all future progress of humankind, preventing the company from making money, holding Person back from Person’s sales bonus, you name it. Basically, the Fall of Mankind was on my shoulders. Boss called me down to his office. Boss sighed a bit and relayed what Person had said. I immediately started my rebuttal: logistically impossible, impractical from a – he waved me down.

“Next time, just don’t hit Reply.”

I blinked.

“I’m not saying ignore it,” he added, “but maybe a staged response. You know Person does this all the time, and half the time it goes away. So maybe give it a day. See if it’s real, and then maybe negotiate on just one class, or maybe two. Something achievable, and force us to decide where we invest, and how much we invest.”

That (paraphrased) paragraph probably changed my career trajectory forevermore. Don’t hit Reply. Not everything in front of you is a problem that needs immediate addressing. I recalled a time when, at a previous job, we’d been looking at new messaging systems. We’d been Lotus cc:Mail users and were debating between Microsoft Exchange Server and Lotus Notes. My team and I had investigated a lot and eventually decided on Exchange. One of our field consultants, who did similar work for our customers, sent an email:

I’d have voted for Notes.

The next morning, I sent a 3-page email about why our company wasn’t a democracy and outlined all the failings that our investigation had turned up about Notes – at least as it applied to our implementation of the product and our needs. I went on and on and on, ensuring I justified the business decision we’d made and so on.

I should have just not hit Reply.

My 3-page email didn’t matter. It didn’t change his mind, and it didn’t change what we were doing. I was being defensive and felt that I’d been called out. I hadn’t. That field engineer was just saying things. His email wasn’t a problem that I needed to address; it was just noise, and I could have – should have – just let it go.

It was a difficult and revelatory moment for me. I’d always been in a position of “see the problem, fix the problem,” but now I was encountering things masquerading as problems that weren’t. They didn’t need solving. They didn’t need addressing. They needed ignoring, in some cases. Other times, they needed a quiet period. They needed, perhaps, negotiating. I was no longer in a position where I was told to make things happen; I was in a position where I was asked to make things happen, and where the business trusted me to decide if I could or not, and to what degree I could. It was no longer break/fix; it was “analyze and make the right decision.” I’d moved from the world of binaries (broken/working) to the analog world of gray shades. Ask me for something, and I don’t need to say “yes” or “no” outright; I need to see if there’s a place in the middle that we can agree on.

This is also where I learned about tension in business.

“Healthy businesses have built-in tensions,” Boss said. “You’re in charge of delivering a product to our customers. You have certain finite resources to work with, and a certain ability to invest in new product. Person is in charge of sales and business development. Person doesn’t care about your limitations or abilities; Person’s job is to bring in money. Person will do anything, try anything; Person is pushing. You can push back.”

I was, in other words, in a position of professional antagonism. Person and I weren’t enemies, but we had different motives, different goals, and different needs. Neither of us could have everything exactly the way we wanted it. I obviously couldn’t say “no” to all new course deliveries, or we’d eventually go out of business. Person, however, couldn’t have everything, either. We weren’t going to put twenty new courses on the schedule because we couldn’t deliver on that promise. Person and I played a professional game of tug-o-war between us, and between the two of us, we came up with what was probably the best answer for the company overall. I was forced to stretch a bit to make things happen; Person was forced to pull back a bit and keep to what we could actually deliver. Neither of us got a full “yes” or “no;” we met someplace in the middle.

These two ideas – waiting a bit and then adopting a measured response as needed, and understanding the professional antagonism inherently present between certain colleagues in the same business – were game-changing for me. I was no longer mentally in a win/lose world; instead, I was in a “let’s find out what we can do, but we can’t do all of that” world. That basic understanding of resource contention is a fundamental law of the universe of business, and once I understood it, it significantly colored the way I approached conversations going forward. I fully attribute this lesson to my ability not only to better communicate with and about the companies I worked for but also in my ability to eventually move into senior leadership myself.

Communicating

I am a writer. Anyone who knows me knows how much I actually love to write. As such, I get tremendously depressed when I meet people who don’t like to read.

I live in a condominium building called The Ogden. Recently, we decided to work with some of our struggling local restaurants to come up with a kind of “dining scavenger hunt.” The idea was to get more of our fellow residents trying new places, and we came up with a simple, one-sheet (front and back) explanation of how this would work from the restaurants’ perspectives. We know people are always after them for advertising dollars, so we wanted to make it clear that we weren’t asking for any money up front, and that we didn’t want anything from them if we weren’t driving people to their business.

The Front

The Back

I felt that was fairly concise. And here’s what one of the local restaurant owners – who is actually a friend – told me:

“Yeah, so we read that flier. Whoever wrote that is terrible. We read the first bit and we’re like, ‘no way.’ And then the next bit, and ‘no.’ And then the next bit, and it just goes on. And then we finally get to the end, and we see it’s you guys doing this, and we’re like, ‘okay, fine, yeah, they’re family.’”

I was wounded. But there’s a dual lesson here:

First, be concise. Like I said in the chapter on “Selling It,” you need to know your audience. If you’re dealing with short-attention-span people, communicate accordingly. “This is Don. We would like to send a lot of our neighbors to your place to buy food and booze. If a lot of them do, we’d like to raffle off a gift certificate to them as incentive. Are you interested?” And probably do that in person, in this case, not in writing.

Second, don’t be that person yourself. Don’t be the person who reads the first two lines of an email and develops an opinion, attitude, and response. It’s fine to acknowledge that some people aren’t going to receive your communications well, and it’s superlative to frame your communications to them appropriately. But when it comes to receiving communications, you need to rise above. You need to have a long attention span. You need to remember that not everybody is good at injecting emotion into their writing, and that they maybe don’t mean to seem mean.

Really think about communications. I am, again, a writer; I prefer to communicate in writing. And while I feel I do a good job of injecting the correct emotional cues into my writing, I am not every reader. Different cultures read things differently. People with a different upbringing can read something entirely unintended into a message. So whenever I have something difficult or complex to communicate, I’ve started getting into the habit of asking for a video call or an in-person meeting. I know – how 1980s, right?

But here’s why: If you’ve read Freakonomics (and I suggest you do, if you haven’t), then you know how important body language is. How you sit or stand, the tone of your voice, the way you tilt your head. The amount of blood in your face – seriously, this is a thing, because our skin is translucent. These cues are all automatically ingested by the brains of the people you’re with. They don’t know they’re doing it, they can’t help it, and they can’t stop it because it’s all baked deeply into the oldest parts of our brains. All those cues let you deliver a harsh message less harshly or, conversely, really load some evil into an otherwise innocuous message.

Cues that are all missing in an email or instant message.

Give some thought to what you want to communicate, and think carefully on how to best communicate it. Recognize that everyone else isn’t putting as much care into it, and make appropriate allowances. Don’t be as good a communicator as those around you; be better.

One Team

A lot of companies like to use the word “customer” a lot. The IT department’s customers are the other users in the company. The Marketing department’s customer is the Sales team, or whatever. While I comprehend and appreciate the sentiment – we all want to treat our customers right – it’s never been a thing that I’ve especially agreed with. You see, while I realize that all analogies break down at some point, I feel the “internal customer” analogy breaks down really fast.

Ever been to a restaurant where the customers are asked to bus their own tables? No. And that teaches us that customers aren’t expected to work with us; they expect to be served by us. Customers aren’t team members.

For IT to call a salesperson a “customer” ignores the fact that the salesperson also has a “customer.” An actual one, who pays money to the company. It gets easy for IT to believe that the salesperson is the end goal, when in fact, the salesperson is an enabler for the actual customer. When we need to fix the salesperson’s laptop, we’re not doing it because the salesperson is our customer, we’re doing it because the salesperson needs that laptop to serve the actual customer.

We’re not each others’ customers inside a company; we’re teammates.

It is incredibly easy for teammates working in different silos to build up attitudes about each other. Salespeople are irritating. IT people are arrogant. Marketing people worship unicorns. Human Resources people live to create paperwork and enforce stupid rules. This happens in every single company that’s large enough to have “departments” or – and here’s a word that truly communicates what’s going on – divisions. It’s impossible to build a company of any size without these divisions (to use the word deliberately) between people. And once you have those divisions, it’s very easy to forget that we’re all supposed to be on the same team.

As you move through the world of business, I think it’s important to remember a small litany:

- Neither I nor my job are more important than anyone else’s; we’re all here for a reason: the Actual Paying Customer (APC).

- I may never see the APC, and so I need to take extra effort to understand how my daily job tasks fall through to create a benefit for the APC.

- My best suggestions are those that can be tied to a benefit that we can deliver to the APC.

Try not to look too hard at money as a driver. For example, I once worked for a software consulting firm that did contract software development for customers. Our customers obviously paid us for that work, and that particular company, like many, billed by the hour. The owner of the company made a huge point of bringing in lunch every day, providing free sodas, and all that. Typical Silicon Valley behavior, except that we were in Eastern Pennsylvania. Some grumpy employees would complain that he only provided all that so that they’d work longer hours – and they did work longer hours, for the most part. They’d say that the longer hours were just so that he could get more billable hours from customers, which was also true. But look at it from the APCs’ perspective: They paid us to do a thing, and we got that thing done faster because we worked harder, and the free food and soda is part of what helped us work harder. Those same employees rarely complained about the four- and five-digit bonus checks they got around the end of the year, which were funded mainly by those extra billable hours.

I used to work in a desktop support organization where we had to deal with all the “my laptop is broken” issues that users would bring to us. I did not enjoy it because I am not, by and large, a people person, especially when the people are upset that something is broken. Shortly before I left that organization was the first time that I realized half our users got so grumpy just because they had to come see us and they knew how we’d behave toward them. They knew we’d be arrogant and irritable, and they just didn’t want to deal with it. It’s like heading into a store without a receipt to try and return something you just bought yesterday: You know the runaround you’re likely to get, and you get all worked up beforehand. See, we were treating our users like customers, only not in the pleasant way that most people mean when they use that phrase.

Ever been backstage at a Cirque du Soleil show? I have – I got to be backstage at “O” at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. It’s an amazing amount of coordination back there, given that the entire show takes place in a 20-foot-deep swimming pool that sports a half-dozen movable platforms. The APC is there to see the acrobats and clowns, and those guys and gals did a wonderful job. Way backstage, off to one side, is a machine shop where they repair the many props used in the show. Imagine being a machinist back there. Literally all that happens to you, all day, every day, is a bunch of acrobats and prop masters and actual clowns come to you complaining about broken stuff. It’d be super easy to get bummed in a job like that because you never get to see the APCs that those props are for. But Cirque spends a lot of time making sure everyone is connected to what matters: the APC. Everyone gets held to Show Standards because Show Standards are what the APC experiences. Just as every machinist is getting told to bring props up to Standard, so are acrobats being told when they missed a mark by a second, or when they didn’t smile at the right moment, or when their waterproof wig was slightly off-kilter. Everyone is on the same team, and that team is named Deliver the Show Standards.

The further removed you are from the APC, the harder it can be to feel like you’re actually on the same team as the people who deal with the APCs. That’s the goal of being in business, though: Keep the APC in mind. Help everyone else on the team keep the APC in mind. Remember that everything is about the APC. Without the APC, nobody wins. Nobody gets paid. You don’t want to be the backstage machinist whose broken bolt is what wrecks a show for the APCs.

PART 5: BUSINESS TERMINOLOGY

Functions, Processes, Services, and Capabilities

There’s an essential part of business architecture – how you think about businesses, and think about building them – that I think many people don’t get. There are many ways to express this thinking, but my personal favorite is functions, services, and capabilities. Way too many people use these terms, along with others, as if they’re interchangeable, but in the real deep-thinking world of business design, they each have a distinct and vital meaning.

Perhaps the most granular level is a capability. A capability is just something that someone, or some group, within the company can do. Capabilities can include things like loading boxes onto a truck, processing the data needed to underwrite a loan, booking a hotel room, and so on. On their own, most capabilities aren’t things you could sell directly. Like, being able to make a good hamburger is an excellent capability, but you can’t make a restaurant out of that one capability. Making a burger isn’t merely being able to take an order for one, accept payment for it, clean the table when the customer leaves, and so on; those are all distinct capabilities.

A business function is … well, think of it as a kind of definition for something a customer might want. A customer might want to ship a package, and the function defines things like shipping speed, origin, destination, package details, and the like. A function is like a menu item: For a burger, we need to know meat temperature, toppings, bun type, and so on. Merely having a menu – a list of functions, really – doesn’t mean you have a business. You can have a menu without even owning a restaurant or having a working kitchen. The function is the customer-facing definition of what the company does.

Internally, services combine capabilities, usually in a specific order as defined by a process, to help fulfill the promise the functions have made to customers. Shipping a domestic package is a service: It requires specific capabilities, like calculating a cost, selecting a transportation modality, planning the logistics, and executing the actual movement of packages, and it requires that you perform those capabilities in a particular order. The business process defines that order. So capabilities, executed in a specific process, create a service; services usually correspond to functions so that when a customer orders a function, the service executes and the customer is served.

It is possible, and quite common, for higher-level processes to exist. These should call upon distinct services in a particular sequence. A service, then, is some standalone, self-contained set of capabilities that may be called upon by multiple processes. For example, a “clean-up” service might be called upon by multiple different processes, including processes like “respond to spilled beverage on aisle 4” and “respond to severed limb on the loading dock.” Those processes might include other services as well, such as “call an ambulance.”

Functions – because they’re an abstract, customer-facing definition of something the business offers – can often serve as a clue to what an organization’s org chart should look like. I’ve often said that customers should be able to impute at least the top layers of a business’ org chart simply based on what the business appears to sell. In a Las Vegas casino-hotel, for example, I would expect top-level org chart divisions to include things like Hotel Operations, Gaming, Entertainment, Food & Beverage, and so on. If I were to find a resort whose org chart didn’t basically line up with that, then I’d expect that resort to operate inefficiently and to have a difficult time providing customers with a great product. If your functions – your menu of offerings – are what you sell, then almost by definition your org chart should be designed to facilitate the delivery of those corresponding services.

If you want the short version:

- Functions are an abstract, customer-facing definition. The only thing they call upon are processes.

- Processes combine services in a specific sequence to deliver on a function.

- Services combine capabilities, usually executed according to their own internal process.

- Capabilities are the granular, individual tasks that, collectively, make things happen.

All of this implies a level of modularity: A well-designed service can be used across high-level business processes. For example, if your company has four different departments that ship things to customers, they should ideally all be using the same internal service to do so. If they’re not, you’re likely less efficient than you could be, and you’re probably wasting time, money, and effort, as well as creating inconsistent outcomes for customers. That is why “business architecture” is a thing: analyzing a business to understand where unnecessary service duplication exists (which happens all the time in companies that have grown organically) and deliberately architecting the situation into a more efficient and consistent model.

I fully acknowledge you’ll see other definitions for these terms, but by and large, the most common ones align roughly with what I’ve described here. Even if your business uses these terms, or others, somewhat differently, just understanding that there is a structure to these things can make it easier to learn the structure of your business. The “rightness” or “wrongness” of how I’ve used these terms should be less critical to you personally than knowing that they are essential terms that relate to essential concepts of business.

So what’s this mean to you?

If I make pizza for a pizza shop, I should understand actually how my capability contributes to the services my business executes, and I should understand the processes in which my capabilities are performed. I should understand how the corresponding functions are presented to our customers. I should, in other words, start by reading the menu customers see. I should understand the process of how the kitchen works. All of that information helps me to understand the full context of my job and helps me make sure I can perform it smoothly. I should understand that changing how I perform my capability will impact other people who perform other capabilities within the same processes that I do: sticking a pizza in the oven at the wrong time is going to disrupt the entire down-chain process, resulting in a lousy delivery to the customer. My pizza-making service, combining as it does capabilities like dough-making, topping-applying, and cooking, is a service that should be consistently usable by multiple processes, such as “make pizzas to sell by the slice,” “make pizzas for dine-in customers,” and “make pizzas for delivery.” The function “order a pizza,” which is what customers see, can then call on any of those processes as appropriate, knowing that the outcome will be consistent.

CONCLUSION

Well, that’s it. For now, at least. The world of business is always changing, and I’m always changing with it, so it’s entirely possible there’ll be a future edition of this book with even more.

My hope with this book was to simply give you a new perspective on businesses themselves, and your role as an employee of a business. Hopefully, when you go to work from now on, you’ll have some of these things mind, and they’ll either change how you see things a bit, or perhaps reinforce how you’ve always seen them.

If you have suggestions for stuff I should include in a future edition, or if you have questions about something you read here, I hope you’ll contact me. The “HMU” (hit me up) page at DonJones.com is a great place to do so.