Horizontal perspective vs. vertical perspective
Somebody summarized today’s “intellectual milliue” very succintly like this:
” They read one book, write 10 and talk a 100″. We may call this horizontal perspective.
Horizontal perspective is based on an intellectual inertia that doesn’t challenge the fundamentals. It builds sand castles and packages them as fortresses. From another point of you, it’s purely quantitative: I give you data or information; e.g. this is how it’s done in this industry, it’s applicable to yours; here are the facts about your industry and the top three possible interpretations; research shows that customer preferences are changing; use this methodology, it always works! etc.
People build careers on horizontal perspectives: they notice a phenomena, prove its existence by numbers, they refer to leading “authors”, associating themselves with the leader, write a book on the subject, they do a ton of presentations or lectures, and then they consult.
The style elements are reminiscent of those of a street hustler: quick, opportunistic, aggressive yet engaging, always appealing to what people want to hear.
Once the book is out they are “focused”: they consistently eat, drink, think, dream and talk the message. It becomes their brand, so to speak. The more aggressive types even fight for the “first mover’s” title: e.g. ” I believe I was the first who coined the term paradigm shift 
. The messages are typically very simple and once they are no longer relevant, these horizontal consultants try to be the first at finding the next message (like the wisdom of the crowd, social media is a disruption factor, etc.), and follow the same pattern; the second time however they already have a leverage: they were the (self proclaimed) first ones before!
Vertical perspective is different. Since it stands “above” the horizontal plane where the actors operate, it is first of all incredibly difficult to grasp. It demands style elements that are opposit to the opportunistic “horizontal” ones.
Vertical perspectives do not try to appeal to everybody; only to those who are predisposed to grasp it: the elite.
They don’t try to explain in a way that “Even I can understand”. Their objectivity is immutable thus exerting an upward “pull”, essentially providing what it should: a higher vantage point.
Since the vantage point is high and difficult to grasp, on a more practical plane such perspectives require discipline, determination and an uncompromising courage, since once a higher perspective is reached how to act is a question of integrity; especially in small things.
Vertical perspectives are permanent and described in absolute term, since their foundation, relative to the “field of operation” is absolute: principles.
Since vertical perspectives are absolute, they are independent of industries, situations, etc. They always apply; so whoever “gives” these perspectives always talks about the same things
And last but not least: vertical perspectives can not be really “given”. Whoever seeks the perspective, potentially already has it. Support maybe given but that’s it. Vertical perspectives are typically not acquired by reading, but by writing.
Challenging indeed!
The expanded space
When the concept is checked, double checked, cross-checked, when it is crystal clear and approved, when the plans are in place, the tasks are laid out and it’s time to rock&roll, someone stands up and says: I don’t get it.
Maybe not literally, maybe with his/her actions or passivity. Everybody is aligned there is just this one or two guys…
What do you do?
The conventional way is the quick draw: confront the issue head-on: explain, perhaps ask how they’d do it different, explain again and if there is no improvement, get rid of them.
In this stage typically it goes about people who seemingly can’t add anything valuable to the process itself (if they could, they would already have). So the conclusion is relatively quickly drawn: the guy is not that bright, doesn’t belong to this project, etc. ; this maybe so. BUT
this is a clear anomaly, and you should not walk by anomalies: they could be viewed as windows to the truth.
Stop to reflect! Take time out! Take the guy out! Dig! What drives his resistence may not even be connected to the project, the proccess, etc. What drives his resistence may very well be connected to you!
Horizontal digging: don’t focus on the issue, look elsewhere. Dig with engaging conversation.
If you can’t produce results with this, you will probably remove these guys but always keep the perspective: there is typically way more depth under the surface that is perceivable at first glance.
Change the focus of your vision way behind what’s apparent, and operate continuously in this expanded space from a central position, observing events as intimately connected to and influenced by you.
Anatomy of bad discussions
The hierarchical difference between world views is the root cause of not only bad discussions but of bad conversations and bad dialogues as well.
There are of course millions of other reasons, too that may cause bad discussions, including attitude, personal limits (beliefs, emotions, etc.), but these factors could be managed if we adhere to certain protocols.
The difference between world views however is so decisive that protocols in such cases may only govern who should not be talking with whom; let alone running a discussion.
To keep it simple, let’s divide world views into just two categories:
-world views that are fundamentally materialistic
- world views that transcend materialism
When a guy who identifies with materialistic world views gets smacked, he’ll be occupied with the following:
- How big was it? If he’s well educated, he can dive pretty deep into this question alone. He could come to rather accurate conclusions
from the print that’s left on the face,
from direct observations (e.g. if the guy was leaning into it with his whole body, or he was sloppy, initiating it just from the shoulder),
or from historical data regarding how fast the hand was coming and with what force it connected with the face.
- how painful it was physically or perhaps even emotionally
- how the body reacted to it. Did the aftermath go beyond the head area and if yes, how far did it go: e.g. did it reach the knees, causing the man to wobble. A significant factor in the analysis is if -due to the impact- body fluids were released on the head area (nose, ear, mouth) or on the body.
For those representing world views beyond materialism these questions are, although not insignificant, by no means essential. For such a person it’s much more important why he received the hit. What specifically caused it, and if what seems to be the direct cause could be the part of a much larger context.
Such a person is focused on the ultimate cause in it’s original stage, as pure power/potential, before it manifests itself as an impulse; he is focused on capturing this power and controlling it.
The communication between these two very different types of people should be rare, limited and controlled.
Very long time ago there was more or less one world view, which was internalized to different degrees by different people, which ultimately determined their hierarchical position. Since their orientation pointed in the same direction, communication between various levels followed logical protocols that didn’t have to be enforced, since they were natural. As opposed to organizations today, the role individualistic factors played within such an (organic) organization was minimal. Today there are no organic organizations.
Company values, individual values
Prelude
It never triggers positive response from me when I hear people making statements about themselves (just for fun a few examples: I am tough, I stand up to anybody, I never get intimidated, I couldn’t care less, I believe in diversity, I don’t care about money, I never give up, I do whatever it takes, I am smart, etc. etc). The impulse or the intention to do this, quite logically, is to cover something up, most likely the reality that is opposite to the statement; otherwise the statement wouldn’t make any sense, since stating the obvious does not make any sense; there is no healthy impluse to make statements about obvious things. An obviously successful body builder for example would never make the statement: I have larger than average muscles (unless he/she has complexes, or issues).
Now the point
There’s so much talk about aligning personal values to company values, that it’s worth adressing this in a few lines.
Making statements about values have become a business agenda. “We value integrity”. “We stand up for what we believe”. “One word: honesty!” “We are courageous”. “We treat people fairly”. Why do you tell me that? Do you think I don’t? Or if you assume I don’t do you think this will surely scare me away? Or do you perhaps hope that this will make me decide buying your products? What makes you want to state values? What makes you believe these values are yours? Do you really believe that this differentiates you from other companies? By the way, what do you mean “we”? Your company name? Who came up with the value statement idea in your company ?
Values existed before individuals and companies did. They don’t come from companies or individuals; it is non-sense to talk about company values vs. individual values. Quality people align themselves to values, this is what gives them quality. Period. Fact is: there are many people working in any organization who don’t align to any values, or who are ready to compromise their stated values as soon as the conditions become disadvantageous. And there are many organizations who operate solely by quantitative rather than qualitative considerations; when they do consider values, they use them only to improve (quantitative) performance.
The point is to throw away the pink glasses, gather the brute strength you need to face reality. Do you really want to transform your organization around values? Do you want to turn the table and use/leverage performance measures to preserve value systems?
Instead of making value statemenets, put 1-2 stories on your websites about big moments, when you decided to sacrifice money/profit to accommodate, encourage, sustain values, perhaps principles!
The role of pricing in executive search
Few other industries polarize perceptions about value as much as retained executive search. The industry has been around for over 60 years and is in a constant state of flux; its value is perceived differently by mature and emerging markets, by clients who run multinational corporations, mid and sometimes even small sized companies and of course by executives who inevitably get into contact with search firms.
The search guys themselves represent a broad variety, from top tier global search firms, through successful sector and/or geographical niche players to recruiting companies who are trying to go “upmarket”, or even one man operations. Since barriers of entry are low, the industry attracts both highly professional elite players and opportunistic survivors who just want to “make a quick buck”.
Here we’d like to take a quick look only at one aspect of the executive search business and attempt to provide some perspective to it: pricing.
No matter what market we look at pricing is an “either or issue”: either high or not. High is easier to define, although it varies depending on whether we look at mature, emerging or young markets.
In mature markets high price may mean 200-300K and up (in dollars or euros). In emerging markets high maybe 60-100K +. The high price is typically in proportion to the salary level of the position to be filled.
There are special cases where we talk about prestige rates; these are well known cases where the search fee is $1M or close.
How a search is priced in the “not high” category (good, average, low) is relatively well known and thus not so interesting here.
Pricing is typically determined by the :
- the client
- the search firm
- the market (including level of position in question)
High pricing is fundamentally determined by the client and the search firm and of course: by the search consultant.
What makes the question of high-pricing in search interesting, is that in a way it’s an anomaly. Conventionally, in most industries, price is something that’s being talked down (in context of optimization and other frameworks). Exceptions are areas where perception (premium luxury brands, real estate, etc.) time (wine, vintage furniture, etc.) and real and company related political considerations play a role.
The real anomaly and thus the real interesting phenomena is when the high price is determined by pure principles that bind the client and the search consultant. Pure principles means that no or minimal quantitative considerations are present.
The client and the search consultant connect outside, in a way above the business domain. Not only do they view the principles of supremacy, elitism and control similarly, but because they actualize such principles to a similar degree in themselves, they actually live in a reality determined by such principles. The reality of values is rooted in principles; without operating in such a principle-based reality, articulated values are hollow, and always compromised. Values such as honesty, integrity, fairness, tolerance, etc. are all illusions without the underlying principles. Style elements like empathy, kindness, opennes, etc. all lack consistency, and may easily transform to hostility, aggression and stubbornness once conditions change.
People who give meaning to supremacy, elitism and control possess a position of power that is not situational (not rewarded) and they attract others whose orientation is similar, while naturally repelling those, whose orientation points in the opposite direction (opportunistic, populistic, highly rational, but hardly intellectual).
If the client and the search consultant operate in realities that are based on true principles, the hierarchical reality of principles/values/qualities is established, and the price reflects the true quality of the time the engagement demands from the search consultant, the client and the leader who will be attracted into such an organization. Since quality time is priceless, no matter how high the search fee, the price is always nominal and symbological.
There is no leadership in compromising on principles and values and there is of course no leaderhsip in subordinating qualitative to quantitative considerations.
3 fatal mistakes managers make in a new role
Very often highly competent people fail in the first 6 months when they move up into a top role (C, GM, MD or perhaps to a second line role). The following three, high level tips should help you ensure you will avoid the most common pitfalls.
1. The interview process.
It’s often overlooked that top leadership roles are not jobs in the conventional sense; at least they shouldn’t be. The success in top roles calls for business leadership. From this aspect the so called interview process is not an interview but a transaction where synergies, opportunities and risks are identified, strategies and sometimes even plans are outlined and expectations are carefully managed. The contract should only be signed when the objectives on both sides are clear and deal is favourable. This is often forgotten and the transaction never transcends the interview level, focusing only on conventional SWOT analysis from both sides.
2. The proverbial first 100 days
It follows from the previous point that by the time you start, chances are you already have a good idea about objectives into the next 2-5 years (depending on industry), and perhaps you even checked a few important assumptions. The context for your action plan for the first 100 days is obviously your mandate and your strategy.
At the beginning of your first 100 days you should be very clear about the top 3 issues you need to address about yourself, in context of your Identity Map.
By the end of the first 100 days you want to have a clear understanding of organizational and business/customer issues, know what you’ll need to change, have a clear idea about the dynamics in your team (who wants what and why), have an approved strategy to move forward by. It doesn’t hurt either, if, once you identified some top priority issues, you manage to gain some important quick wins.
3. Communications & decision making
In addition to all of the above, you also need a clear communications strategy that also makes clear to all your direct reports what questions you want to get involved in; in the same token, you must be clear about what issues deserve the immediate attention of your board/superiors.
Ideally, and in addition to what you find in the literature about this subject, the communications strategy considers the functions and roles of the 4 main players of an organic organization (organic organization dna: main integrator, specialized integrator, integrating specialists, specialists). All 4 players must exhibit the appropriate style elements in their communications, and to some degree, their interaction between each other should also be coordinated and controlled. The coordination and control of the interaction between them should reflect the articulated style elements of the company culture.