Does Your Business Need iPads?

We all love Apple (well, OK, I do...I don't know about you). But does that mean we should run out and buy iPads for our firm?

Well, maybe not for our creative firms.

AppleInsider wrote last month that Apple is targeting the iPad for small businesses. The article talks about the capabilities Apple included to make it business-friendly and discusses the appeal of the iPad for business application designers. But as you read it, the benefits seem to mostly be about storing and moving information, rather than creating it.

Bruce Nussbaum, in his Business Week blog, wrote about how his students at Parsons were disappointed in the iPad. Nussbaum wrote,

Essentially, the Parsons School For Design students are saying that in an era of user-generated content, the iPad is about the consumption of media, not the creation of media. It doesn’t give you the normal tools to make stuff. It is so weird to them. And to me. What the iPad appears to be is a vehicle for traditional, main-stream media—movies, TV, books, newspapers. Which is OK, but maybe not for $1,000 (the iPad price for 3-G accessibility). Yes, there will be thousands of new apps that allow up to five people to work the larger iPad touch-screen. In that sense, it is social. But that’s not the same thing as enabling millions of users to do their own thing.

This is raises a critical point about your firm's IT strategy: in a creative firm, you need systems and components that are designed for media creators rather than for media consumers. Many people only want to look at what someone else has produced, whether on an iPad or their smartphone or at their computer or on TV. Your Creatives, though, are the ones who will create that content, and they need tools designed for that rather than just the new trendy thing.

For many companies, IT is all about information management, whereas for you, it's about information creation. So make your purchases accordingly.

As an Apple shareholder, I'd love it if everybody bought one (or two or three) iPads. But as a leader, I've got to think that my Creatives probably don't need them, at least not for work.

The Leadership Impact of Outsourcing

Outsourcing to free agents is common for creative firms, and more and more authors are encouraging it. Similar methods, which tend to be less expensive but carry more risk of intellectual property loss, include peering, sharing, and using ideagoras. Companies that can effectively collaborate outside their firm gain a huge advantage: they increase the creative talent available to them at little cost. It's tempting to reach out and take advantage of the huge talent pool that exists in the world.

But while creative talent can be gained this way, there's a cost in terms of leadership talent. The cost is felt in the long run, but your short-term actions can put you on a path toward that cost, a path from which you might not have an escape.

The problem here is that somewhere along the line, you need to be developing the future leaders for your firm. While you may feel comfortable in a leadership position today, someday you're going to want to advance, retire, or go work at Starbucks, and someone should be ready to step in. If you outsource the majority of your work then no one is left within your firm to build up experience and observe how your firm functions, key ingredients to a successful future leader.

Now, you might say "I'm not going to worry about developing leaders internally -- when I need future leaders I'll hire them, rather than selecting from my own pool of in-house Creatives." Fine. But if, as some authors are cheerleading and advocating, the wave the of future is external collaboration, then where exactly will those leaders be coming from? If no one is developing internally, if the emphasis is on free agent work and peer-to-peer collaboration, then who's going to be grooming future leaders? Obviously, not all business will be done this way, but as more and more of it is, the pool of effective leaders will shrink in the future and to find someone you'll have to pay through the nose to get them.

You're also hurting yourself in the near-term if you shift to an external collaboration business model. You benefit from having people who understand your corporate history, who know where you came from, how you've evolved, and what's worked in the past as well as what hasn't. You're not going to get that by reaching too much outside. External collaborators simply don't have the necessary knowledge of your unique history. Hiring people by the job is useful for that job but can hurt you when it comes to integrating different aspects of your work into a moneymaking whole.

How do you get the benefits of external collaboration without hurting your leadership? Consider keeping a core group of employees. Think of them as your regular team while outsiders serve as "reservists," called up only as needed. Develop that core group, not only with training in their creative field but also in terms of leadership. Give them incentives to stay with you if their performance is strong, and replace them if it isn't.

Also consider developing regular relationships with particularly strong outsiders, whether free agents or unpaid collaborators. Help them develop a better understanding of your firm. Not only can they provide some of that necessary foundation from the outside, they might also be a good pool of potential leaders, who have the benefit of already knowing a lot about your company.

New business models, such as those emphasizing collaboration with outsiders, can be very effective if you use them right, but can drive you out of business if you go overboard with them. You need to look at your industry, your competitors, your customers, and your own company's goals to understand how far to go when looking for outside talent. Moderation, as in many aspects of life, may be the best idea. Make sure that in your quest for Creatives you don't ignore your very real leadership needs.

Separating Work and Real Life

As a grad student, I was always thinking about school. I can remember having deep thoughts about organizational theory while in the shower (my water bills tended to be high as a result). I felt sorry for friends who asked how my dissertation was going because they typically got a 3-hour report in excruciating detail (but I warned them...). It was pretty much impossible to separate school from my "real" life when school was on my mind every waking moment.

One of the occupational hazards for your Creatives is a similar blurring of work life and real life. Many Creatives enter their field because it matches their passion for art, writing, the pursuit of knowledge, whatever. In many ways, they're turning their hobby into their work, and there are some great advantages to that from a job satisfaction viewpoint. But doing so makes it kind of tough to still have hobbies that are separate from work, when your favorite hobby IS your work.

Real creativity doesn't stop at 5pm, and you want employees who are passionate about their work, so the idea that they'll always be doing, or at least thinking about, their job can be pretty appealing to the leader who only has to pay them for 8 hours a day. But it's better if your employees can take a break from work. They need time to recharge their batteries, to put things aside so they can come back with a fresh look. Frankly, they need interests beyond the job they do for you, or they're going to get stale and burnt-out. They -- and any relationships they have with other people -- will be better off if they can draw a line between working for you and having their personal life. And ultimately, a happy employee is better for you, too.

This is particularly tough for teleworkers, both those who are regular employees and those free agents you bring in. A good friend of mine who worked remotely had a small apartment with his desktop in the bedroom. As a result, he couldn't even get away from work by sleeping...it was always right there next to him. He lived on the East Coast and the company was on the West Coast, so by following the office's schedule he could easily be working until 9 or 10 every night while his local friends were off from work. His sleeping was messed up, his social life suffered, and his work wasn't any better than if he'd worked a normal schedule.

You can't really dictate to your teleworkers (and even, somewhat, your in-house employees) how they should be working, and it's hard for you to know if they're spending too much time on work. But you can try to create a culture -- even remotely -- that encourages people to stop and have a personal life. Be clear about your expectations with new employees, and let them know you don't expect them to be continuously focused on work. Have "suggested" working hours in the office (with some flexibility) and for your long-distance remote workers, try to set "windows" every day for things like phone calls and e-mails, so they don't feel like they have to be up at 3am checking their mail.

Remember, all this applies to you, too. No matter how much you enjoy your work, get away from it. A nice philosophy is "work to live, don't live to work." It's easy to say "I'll just do one more thing, then go home" but after a while you need to realize no matter how long you spend on it today, something will still be there tomorrow. You want to do a good job, of course, but you'll do it better if you get away from it when you're supposed to.

Keep it Lean

I’ve spent my professional life in a large bureaucracy. The different organizations in which I’ve worked in that large bureaucracy have all been pretty fat, with a lot of “support” people. The logic behind a large support staff is that it keeps the worker’s doing the group’s primary function from spending time having to do mundane tasks, or from having to do specialized tasks that require unique skills they may not have. This makes sense…you pay your Creatives to be creative, not to configure web servers or process paychecks.

As I look down the road toward a major career change next year I’m inclined to go the independent route, and I think part of the reason is that I’ve grown tired of organizations that have grown fat with a large support structure that more often than not slows things down. I’ve realized there are things I can do myself, and even though they take up some time, in the end they’ll be done sooner and I can move on to more important things rather than waiting for someone else to “support” me. Of course, in these “fat” organizations, someone else has been given the responsibility and authority to do these things, so I’m required to wait on them.

Another option is outsourcing specific jobs rather than having in-house support. If someone is getting paid per job they have an incentive to get it done quickly (so they can move on to the next paying gig) and do it well (so they generate repeat business). If you have an in-house staff that’s going to get paid the same no matter how quickly they work, their motivation to get things done in a timely fashion is much lower.

Let me offer an example: a friend of mine is a software developer from overseas who came to the US for a few months to work. He had some immigration stuff to take care of that would lead him to spend about half a day away from the office. Rather than having him do that, his employer is sending one of their clerical workers to drop off and pick up the paperwork. So on Tuesday my friend handed his passport and paperwork to the HR person. On Wednesday the office worker headed downtown with it. Rather than picking it up again at the end of the day, she instead went back downtown on Thursday afternoon to pick it up. On Friday my friend got his passport and his employment paperwork back. During this time there were other things he needed to do – setting up a bank account, arranging the utilities for his apartment, giving some information to his apartment managers – that he couldn’t do because he was waiting for someone else for four days rather than just getting it done himself in one. Much of his “settling in” was on hold because he wasn’t able to do this simple administrative task on his own. While it was nice of the HR folks to try to spare him the hassle, and while it’s true there are plenty of people who would prefer to have someone else do such tasks for them, the truth is he would have been much happier if he’d just had the option of doing it himself.

You no doubt want to keep your Creatives focused on creative work, because that’s why you hired them. Administrivia can be a hassle and can pull them out of a creative fog just as they are about to develop a cure for cancer or come up with a slogan that gets people to buy more Red Bull. But is a bloated bureaucracy the answer?

First, consider what you as the leader can do yourself. Are there financial, personnel, or business development tasks that you can do as part of the “management” piece of your leadership job?

Second, are there things your Creatives can do themselves without spending too much time? If people know they’re responsible for something they can plan for it, minimizing the effect on their regular job performance.

Next, are there functions that can be outsourced? Things like bookkeeping, IT support, training, file management, and other functions might be better performed by an outsider who is paid by the job. It’s worth noting that if you have a full-time in-house staff performing a function that’s not needed on a continuous basis, they’re likely to come up with things to do just to keep busy, and that has the potential to slow down your operation.

Ask yourself, are all these support functions even necessary? Do you have administrative tasks that really serve no purpose? If so, get rid of them!

And finally, are there tasks that really do require in-house support? If so, then hire the right people, and make sure they do their jobs well.

Getting the right people performing your support functions can keep your organization lean, which in the end can reduce costs, improve efficiency, and increase overall effectiveness. If you’re going to hire a support staff, make sure it’s because you really need them, not just because you assume you do.

Creative Opportunities in a Troubled Economy

Grim economic news makes business leaders nervous, and rightfully so. The tightening of the credit market makes it tough for businesses to get the resources they need to conduct their day-to-day operations. Customers are liable to cut back on their spending, hurting your bottom line. Your employees are likely to be nervous about their homes, their bills, and their jobs, and may not put as much focus onto their work as before.

You're going to need for change how you do business. Smart leaders will reposition their firms by identifying their customers' new needs and being ready to meet them, while using any "downtime" as an opportunity rather than as a waste. You can keep yourself going in the short-term, and set yourself up for the long-term, if you take some steps now. The discussion below isn't meant to be a comprehensive list, but merely a demonstration of some ideas for navigating the months ahead. Some of these steps may be challenging, but if there's no challenge, then where's the fun?

Advertising Advertising firms large and small need to understand how their clients' needs are changing, which can be tricky, since very often the clients don't even understand those changes. New campaigns may need to emphasize value over performance. Graduated campaigns that start with brand-awareness and evolve slowly may need to be sped up, and producers might need to focus on existing products for now while waiting to introduce new products when customers have more disposable income to try new things. Copywriters and artists need to find better ways to sell to customers with less to spend, and ad firms that can do this will be successful.

Fashion Everybody needs clothes, but not everybody needs new clothes. Designers need to look at creating new looks that are not only stylish but that can also be produced and sold for less. Whether this means changes in material or less accessorizing, the need exists for less expensive clothing lines. People will be buying less in the near future and high-end clothing may well be viewed as a luxury item that needs to be put on hold for now, so an emphasis on practical business wear may make better business sense than couture. People will still be buying clothes, but whether or not they buy yours is up to you as much as it's up to them.

Interior Design Ever wonder why Design on a Dime is such a popular show? People want their places to look great but aren't always interested in paying a lot of money for that. During a recession that's just going be more true, so consider changing your approach to something more affordable. If your style leans toward high-end furnishings, you might want to lean it another way temporarily. This isn't to say you should undercut your artistic sensibility, but instead that you should focus on the overall look more than usual and de-emphasize the characteristics of the pieces involved. Homeowners and businesses will still be looking for nicely designed spaces, but they'll also be looking to spend less. If you can meet that requirement, then you can be designing for them. If not, then not.

Hairstyling Getting your hair done is very "income elastic," meaning that changes in income have a strong impact on a customer's demand for a service. If you're at a salon you'll probably see clients going longer between cuts and colors, and there's little you can do about that beyond lowering your prices...and even that won't help much, since demand for your services is based so strongly on income, not just price. Your stylists will likely have a little more free time on their hands, and new clients might be hard to generate in tough times. You might take this opportunity to invest some more in your stylists and get them some training so they'll be even better and can offer more services when things turn up again. You could also get them involved in volunteer work: offering free cuts for a battered women's shelter, for instance, does something nice for people who need it and also gives your stylists more practice instead of sitting around, or maybe you could hold a "cut-a-thin," which not only raises money for a worthy cause but also raises awareness of your salon for the future. Don't let "dead time" be wasted time.

Entertainment The entertainment industry, whether national or local, can benefit from economic downturns. During the Great Depression people used to enjoy going to the movies because the fancy lives on the screen were a welcome escape from their own hard lives. These days, movies and other entertainment like professional sports or Broadway shows, tend to be a little more expensive, so you probably won't see a big upsurge in attendance any time soon. Free entertainment like television will become even more appealing, so writers and directors might take this chance to try new things and experiment with their creativity, since more folks are liable to be staying in rather than going out as much, and might be up for something new. Local theater groups and other relatively low-cost entertainment could also see an upsurge in attendance since other higher-cost venues and travel to exotic locales might not be on as many people's agendas as before.

There are some economic potholes up ahead but if you play it right and aren't afraid to change how you do business, you can keep your firm going now and position yourself to do even better in the future, especially if some of your competition doesn't adapt and subsequently goes out of business. You have a couple of things going for you. First, in creative fields, you can be less tied to traditional ways of doing business than someone in, say, accounting. And you have a great advantage: the creativity of your employees who, if you turn them loose on your problems, can find far more solutions than the few examples suggested here. As your business environment changes you need to change with it, and if you're a good leader, you and your Creatives can find some great opportunities in the cloudy days ahead.

What's the Role of Management?

Very often, in discussions on leadership, someone will use the word "manage." Invariably this leads someone to erupt, "I'm not a MANAGER. I'm a LEADER!," or something along those lines. My suggestion: relax.

Yes, it's true: management and leadership are two different things. But management is part of successful leadership. Every manager may not be a leader, but every leader needs to be a manager.

Leadership is about people. It's about getting them to do what you want them to do and having them think it's their own idea. It's about helping them motivate themselves. It's about giving them a vision of the future and taking them down the best path. Leadership is, frankly, much more interesting than management (for most people, anyway).

Management, on the other hand, is about...stuff. It's about resources, like time, money, or office space. It can also be about people, in the sense of people as resources. Largely, it's about overseeing the process rather than the final product. Sometimes it doesn't seem as exciting or sexy as leadership (Is leadership sexy? That's a subject for another post.) but if you don't do it right, even the best leader will fail.

Why? Well, consider a situation where you've brought together all the right people, you have a common vision, everybody's motivated to make it work, and all of you are excited. Then, you don't pay them. The fact that you got these people all excited about something new means nothing if they leave because they can't feed themselves. Or let's say you have everyone all motivated to move forward on a project, but you've only got one week in which to do three weeks of work. Ooooooh, bad scheduling...and ultimately, a bad outcome.

Or let's say you've got a project, you've brought together some highly talented software developers, you have the money to pay them and the space in which they can work...and then you put one of them in charge of the budget, and one is out there doing sales, and another is making PowerPoint slides to show your investors. Not good. What was the point of getting all that talent together if you're going to use it to do the non-software developing tasks?

In one government office I suddenly found myself in a strategic planning division that I'd helped create. My supervisor, unfortunately, started out as the stereotypical government bureaucrat. He told us on Day One that we'd probably have 2 or 3 meetings a week to take care of "administrivia." I went back to him later and suggested that from now on, his purpose in life was to take care of the administrivia so the rest of us could focus on what we'd been hired to do. He was already slipping into the same bureaucratic mode that we'd been created to get out of. I suggested to him that all I really needed from him was a "lane" in which I'd work and the resources to get my job done, and if he could take care of that minimal guidance and that resource management, I'd give him the best product possible. He didn't entirely get it, but at least we went down to one 1-hour meeting at the start of each week.

So yes, there's a role for management, an important role at that. If you can't get the resources your people need, and if you can't oversee those resources, you're wasting a lot of talent. Leadership is all about creating a goal and the path to get there, but management gives you the tools to do it.

Anyone who says they're a leader, NOT a manager, probably isn't either one.