An Bui, Spelled An With 1 N

Seattle Bike from Specialized - Complete w/ wood fenders & coffee cup holder

University Bicycles, in Boulder Colorado, gives great customer service. The quality of customer service there makes me wish for the impossible, just so I can hand over more of my cash.

Let’s Start at the Beginning

An is SHORT. Not 5′2” short, but not even 5′ tall. My stature is such that I ride a 38cm bike with 650c’s*, a kid’s bike. Bikes are great - they can be used for recreation, transportation and recreational transportation. Well, knowing I was going to be in Boulder for quite some time, I wanted a greener way to get around and a bike addresses the need for speed in a way that feet just can’t.

So I march myself down to University Bicycles - I’d been down there previously and like the staff. So far, so good - I drool over bikes, oohing and ahhing over the Specialized Seattle edition bike - complete with wood trim fenders (for the rain) and a cup holder on the handlebars (for the coffee). Bicycle deliciousness time ended and I needed to grab a bike. The guys at the shop showed me the smallest size they had - a 44cm with 700c’s. Previous experience taught me that a bike that size fits most petite women, but not me not matter how much I pray for a few extra inches of height. There are small bikes and then there’s an An-sized bike.

What does a bike have to do with Customer Service?

I went to University Bicycles to rent a bike. They had no such bike for me (as Tim Jackson would say, it’s a tiny market) but they did something unexpected - they called other bike stores in Boulder to see if I could find a bike. University Bicycles exceeded my expectations by seeking to solve my problem, even if it did not result in a bike rental or sale for them.

I’m sure the other bike stores in Boulder are amazing as well, but I’ll support Boulder’s University Bicycles when I can because amazing customer service matters to me.

*The first number refers to the frame size; the second number refers to the wheel size.

Red Rose from flickr user Hamed Masoumi

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

– Juliet, Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

William Shakespeare had a point - you can call a rose a flower and it would still smell as lovely.*

Well is that true with job titles? Does title matter?

Some titles provide a clear, common understanding - CEO, Quarterback, and Host are a few examples in which people know what those roles mean. They may not necessarily know what they do and indeed, some with the same titles may do different things, depending on the organization.

For example, some quarterbacks like scrambling, getting out of the pocket, and throwing the long ball. Others prefer to throw underneath the secondary and use short passes to move the ball down the field. What they choose to do depends on many factors - their skills, strengths, weaknesses, injuries, ability to read the defense and so on. The best quarterbacks have a clear understanding of how their team works together and leads them down the field.

Other titles are much less clear - Customer Service Specialist, Administrative Specialist and Analyst come to mind. What do these titles mean? What kind of career path can they lead you on? Do you start as a Customer Service Specialist before moving on to a Senior Customer Service Specialist? What happens after that? Can you become the Customer Service Manager? Then on to Director of Customer Service?

In smaller organizations with a clearly defined, hierarchical org chart, what happens to people who start as functional specialists? They move up or they move OUT. There’s only so much room at the top, and by clearly defining them as specialists in one area, opportunities to grow in other disciplines become limited. Not only that, each person’s identity is tied to his/her job title. Reframing an identity is hard.

Select for fit, both short and long term

People moving out creates waste, in the form of lost institutional knowledge, including ways to be effective within an organization. Hiring the best and underutilizing them is another form of waste as well - you don’t want to be over human capitalized. Instead, you should hire the best person for the role and see multiple ways he or she can fit into your company long term.

*I know his real point refers to the Montague/Capulet lineage and history that resulted in the death of two young lovers, and that the female party was making the point that names shouldn’t matter

Hat tip to Adina Levin and Jim Benson for inspiring this post.

Trains, Planes & Automobiles

City planners must consider [insert core competency here]. How transportation systems work together, how traffic light systems work together or whatever it be, take your pick.

“City planners must…” polarizes; it pits the speaker against city planners. It implies that city planners don’t consider a core part of city planning. By choosing a position and stating a conclusion without stating the reasoning, does the speaker leave room for a positive interpretation for why something isn’t happening?

Polarizing statements are great - for some things. They’re effective to create controversy and to reinforce an us vs. them mindset. The us vs. them mindset is valuable for reinforcing group bonds at the expense of a them or other.

However, is this the best way? What if you look into the face of your enemy and you see yourself? Might that lead to a crisis of mission and perhaps even identity, as constructed on the (perhaps false) premise of an “other”?

Team Cohesion via Collaboration

What would be a better way to create team cohesion? Perhaps aligning your team around common goals and an understood mission. Fundamentally, the speaker above didn’t want city planners to consider how various transportation modalities worked together - she wanted to optimize transportation access for all community members.

Could collaboration help? YES! By stating a desired outcome and identifying action items necessary to achieve an outcome, the opportunity becomes about value creation, not finger pointing. The process is collaborative, not polarizing.

I’m sure city planners, as a group, want transportation systems to all work well together. I think the question should be: What challenges do planners face in creating a coherent transportation system in any given city?

What do you think the question should be?

image courtesy of Flickr user Atwater Village Newbie used under Creative Commons

Joe Johnson, one of my tweeples

Joe Johnson (@joerjohnson) asked me an interesting question:

What social technology do you find most useful? Twitter, Facebook … ? And why?

Well… it depends. It depends on the context of use.

Facebook is a useful tool for organizing information about people you’ve met and/or know. I miss the days when users were grouped by affinity, such as which college they attend or attended.

• Newsfeed and status updates allow you to have ambient awareness of your group of friends who use Facebook regularly.
• Instant messaging and email-like functionality provide “private” synchronous and asynchronous communication.
• Pages and  groups give users places to signal affinity - be it to a business, service, or by common interest.

All of the above, in addition to link sharing, note sharing, social commenting, and ninjas, what more does anyone want in a social network?

All of the above functionality is useful, but sometimes it’s too much. The time and number of screens it takes to click around to accomplish goals can get frustrating.

Sometimes you want something a bit more lightweight.

Enter Twitter.

Twitter is  a water cooler or cocktail party. Individual tweets may not say that much, but when taken in the aggregate, can paint a picture of the user. The 140 character limit drives brevity and makes it lightweight to use. The ability to update via 3d party application, SMS, or web provides users with options for what makes sense for their lives.

Apps such as TwitterSync allow you to update Twitter and Facebook status at the same time.

Ultimately, the tools I find most useful allow me to connect with my community - if they’re using Twitter, I’ll use Twitter. If they’re on Facebook, I’ll be on Facebook. The ability to use them all together is really what drives the value. And this is just from a consumer facing perspective…

I’ll leave the Enterprise 2.0 discussion for another blog post.

What motivates you? Recently, a good friend Craig Sutton asked me: “What gets you really motivated and excited?”

I thought it a valuable question.

Why?

Motivations matter - they matter to employees, managers and leaders. Great leaders understand what motivates their team and have the ability to drive the team in the same direction. When everyone works towards a common, understood outcome, the thinking is no longer “what are my tasks?” or “what is my job?” but rather “what can I do to get us closer to achieving the desired outcome?”

This thinking is one of the reasons why kanban systems work. This thinking also enables individuals to use (and/or develop) good judgement to make decisions that move a process forward, minimizing cycle time. Autonomy in knowledge work is necessary to value creation, as much of the value comes from integrating ideas in new, innovative ways to cut costs or drive revenue. Autonomy also drives trust. Without trust, the organzation’s environment is not about cutting costs or growing revenue - it can become about fear, an unsustainable motivator.

Sustainable motivations help teams build trust, execute, and learn from their mistakes.

I ask again - what motivates you?