Rick Baker Thought Posts
Left Menu Space Holder

About the author

Name of author Rick Baker, P.Eng.

E-mail me Send mail
Follow me LinkedIn Twitter

Search

Calendar

<<  November 2024  >>
MoTuWeThFrSaSu
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
2345678

View posts in large calendar

Recent Comments

Comment RSS

Don’t put the cart before the horse... - Part 1

by Rick Baker
On Aug 25, 2010
Another father-to-son note…
There are carts and horses and chariot drivers and chariot warriors.
 
I figure the Greeks, about 3000 years ago, looked at it this way:
  • Horses were horses and they were worked so hard they knew enough to drink when they were taken to water. If they didn't, then they died. Then the soldiers ate them. Horses also became eaten if the soldiers ran short of other meat.
  • War carts were chariots. Horses pulled these carts, these carts didn't get to go before the horses. If the carts broke then they were either fixed or taken apart and the pieces were used for other things. If fuel was in tight supply then carts could be burned to create warmth and to cook food.
  • Chariot drivers: chariots contained two men. One drove. He was either junior, less skilled at fighting or both. His key roles were to protect the other more-valued man, the warrior, to protect the horses and the carts because they were expensive, and to place the warrior in a position where the warrior could have a good shot (spear shot, bow shot) at the enemy.
  • The warrior. He was the leader. He got all the gold - the spoils of war. He also, as a general rule, took the largest risk and got to die first. He only drove the chariot when the driver was thrown, was too injured to drive or was killed. If a driver was injured or killed then, after the skirmish, the warrior would replace the lost driver. I mean: the warrior wouldn’t want to be the driver because warriors fought, while drivers drove.
Drivers and warriors didn't pull the chariots. If the horses were injured or killed and the chariot was immobilized during the battle then the driver and warrior either ran, or tried to hitch a ride on another ‘single-manned’ chariot...or they stood their ground and fought.
 
Carts were deaf. The chariots simply could not hear or think or do anything on their own. So, they required hands-on supervision and controls. Without horses the chariots were only as valuable as the adornments they displayed, the cargo they held, and the protection and the maneuverability they provided to the men. Without horses, the chariots just stood around and did nothing. With horses but no men, the chariots looked good but for the business at hand (warring or terrorizing or perhaps parading) they were absolutely useless. At best when men weren’t around the horse and cart ran around in circles or took off and got lost.
 
When a driver was added, the cart and horse did a lot better. As a unified group they really got places. And, as long as the path was simple, without obstacles and without treachery the horse and cart and driver got along just fine. When minor issues arose, including attack by lesser-skilled fighters, the horse, cart, and driver prevailed. They did some off-road stuff and they killed some guys, got some loot, returned to camp, and bragged to their buddies over some wine and roasted meat.
 
But, when the combo of horse-cart-driver met an unfriendly horse-cart-driver with a warrior the following happened: the driver without the warrior died and was stripped naked and left for the kites to pick away at, the horse and cart and the driver's armour and weapons all got a new owner. That new owner was the opposing warrior…he took their lives then their stuff. However, when there was a shortage of manpower or a real dirty job needed doing, sometimes the driver didn't die. The opposing warrior just stripped him down and took him into slavery.
 
Warriors had a wonderful, absolutely terrible life.
 
The horses had it pretty good. At least, they had it good as long as they could perform. Horses really didn't plan for the future. They didn't have to worry about planning their day, or next week, or next year. They just plodded along until they got whipped - then they ran. When their usefulness was over, and that is something they didn't worry about because they were pretty much thinking about a bag of oats, their life ended quickly. The only pain they had was the pain of the whip and the pain of injury sustained in battle. But, when the pain was extreme it was quickly ended when they were killed and eaten.
 
Carts: again, they were senseless. Just tools for the men and work for the horses.
 
Drivers: these guys were doers. They got to manage carts and horses and from time to time they got to fight. Of most importance, they had the vital job of protecting the most-valuable asset: the warrior. They succeeded when they managed the horses and chariots in a manner that allowed the warrior to do his job. Killing. They got to fight after the warrior had taken his best shots or when the warrior was injured. If they fought well then they received rewards (a bit of loot, plunder, and maybe even slaves). If they had sufficient skill then they might be able to become warriors.
 
What's the point?
 
There are several:
  • horses are horses
  • carts are carts
  • drivers are drivers
  • warriors are warriors
 
Don't get them confused.

Tags:

Family Business and CFFB | Father-to-Son Lessons | Personalities @ Work

Sales Tweet #28

by Rick Baker
On Aug 25, 2010
Sales Tweet #28 Ask sales-role candidates how they buy (1) shoes, (2) a big TV, and (3) a car. So - how will they sell?
 
The Thinking Behind the Sales Tweet
I believe there is value in analysing how sales people buy. Sales people's approach to buying will impact on their approach to selling. There are many specific things to look out for. For example, is the sales person an impulsive buyer? If so, then is the sales person as impulsive as the price of the item to be purchased increases...i.e. from shoes to a big TV and from a big TV to a car? Another example, does the sales person involve others or go it alone for purchasing? The self-image of the sales person will influence how the sales person perceives buyers.

Tags:

Questions?: The Art of Asking Good Questions | Sales | Thought Tweets

The Art of Recruiting - #2

by Rick Baker
On Aug 24, 2010
In an earlier blog I described some of Guy Kawasaki’s thoughts about - The Art of Recruiting.
 
In his book Reality Check, Guy presents thoughts he obtained from a colleague, Craig James of eMolecules.
 
Craig James is a former Hewlett-Packard employee. Craig describes how his unit of H-P achieved noteworthy success using a project-management approach to recruiting. They treated recruiting like a project. They used a project-team approach, with a team leader. They used the same interview process for each candidate. They worked to perform the recruiting under a short time frame…i.e., they worked to reduce the variables so each candidate was treated in a very similar way.
 
The H-P interview process steps can be summarized as:
  • Host: greet candidate, give tour, explain interview process [20-30 minutes] 
  • Technical interview #1: tough, detailed, technical grilling [60 minutes]  
  • Project manager interview: the hiring manager, non-technical interview with focus on the job [45-60 minutes]  
  • Lunch: with the project manager and one other project team member...informal 
  • Human Resources interview: details about benefits and the company...reference checks [30 minutes]  
  • Technical interview #2: like technical interview #1 but less intense...explore candidates prior work…dig into the candidate’s explanations of his/her successes and failures [60 minutes] 
  • Host (reprise):...follow up questions and discussions of the next step...thank candidate [15-20 minutes]
Ultimately, the H-P team would reach a decision. Regularly the team members reached similar decisions so when the met as a team to discuss the candidates, consensus was, in general, easy to achieve.
 
As usual Kawasaki provides lots of good ideas, including many more helpful pieces of advice provided by Craig James.
 
More on the art of recruiting in future blogs…

Tags:

Leaders' Thoughts | Entrepreneur Thinking

Sales Tweet #27

by Rick Baker
On Aug 24, 2010
Sales Tweet #27 When you buy things observe the sales people. Some are quite amazing. What are they doing right?
 
The Thinking Behind the Sales Tweet
Sales people will do better if they observe like Sherlock Holmes and ask questions like Lieutenant Columbo. If they must make a choice then they should choose to act more like Columbo because he was observant and he always managed to get the criminals to trap themselves. Links to learn more about these famous detectives.

Tags:

Sales | Thought Tweets

Sales Tweet #26

by Rick Baker
On Aug 23, 2010
Sales Tweet #26 Ernest Seller thinks It could be a Manic Monday. Those coffee spills. He packed some extra clothes.
 
The Thinking Behind the Sales Tweet
I guess you could say Ernest Seller is an 'old school' salesman. He fancies himself to be a sharp dresser. Ernest has a full wardrobe of bright plaid sports jackets, flowery ties, and patent leather white shoes. It's his fashion statement and it's his sales statement.

Tags:

Thought Tweets | Ernest Seller

Sales Tweet #25

by Rick Baker
On Aug 20, 2010
Sales Tweet #25 If your boss is all over you then the best wrestling escape move is called 'Closing Some Sales'.
 
The Thinking Behind the Sales Tweet
Often very good sales people forget to close deals. There are many reasons why this happens. Regardless, it tends to trouble both the sales people and their sales managers. Sometimes, sales people place the majority of the blame on the boss rather than on themselves. Actions, successful sales actions like closing sales, are the best way to succeed in the sales role.

Tags:

Humour | Sales | Thought Tweets

Copyright © 2012. W.F.C (Rick) Baker. All Rights Reserved.