The notion of “Crossing the Chasm” has been with us since the early 90s. Geoffrey Moore created this model of marketing and technology cycles that have stuck with us and entered our vocabulary. I recently had a conversation with a technical leader that prompted me to think about the hundred or so people I have encountered while mentoring and coaching in the tech world. There is a chasm that exists between the upper end of success in a technical role and becoming a c-level executive responsible for broader parts of the business.

Here is what makes up the chasm to be crossed. At some point, an emerging leader must leave behind what they know, and focus on who they are. Put another way, all the things that came before were the sorting mechanisms that every executive survives - the advanced degrees, the work as a team manager, all of those sifting out the people who can’t operate at strategic levels. The technical prowess that got you to the edge of the chasm will not serve you on the other side.

But what about Chief Technology Officer, I hear you cry. Yes, that is a c-level position. And it might be a transitional position for a broader responsibility, or considered key in a purely technology focused company. I’m sure there are outlier cases. But technology moves too fast for a strategic leader to keep up, and be a good leader. That’s why Chief Technology Officer roles were created in the first place, for strategic leaders to have a technology advisor.

This idea is not just something I dreamed up as blather. It’s based on research. In “Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence”, Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis & Annie McKee share their research on why emotional intelligence is key to leadership success. In the following I quote heavily from the Appendix of their book on this research.

To publish their conclusions a qualitative research process was followed. First, 500 competence models were created from cross industry examples. This was done to focus on the question, “What drove outstanding performance?” They looked in the areas of technical skills, cognitive abilities, and traits for emotional intelligence. Top performers were sought out and interviewed.

This process resulted in lists of ingredients for highly effective leaders that ranged from a few to 15 or so competencies. Analysis of the data from these competence models was dramatic. To some extent intellect was notable, but “emotional intelligence based competencies played an increasingly important role at higher levels. The higher you get in a company, the more EI emerged as the reason for excellence.”

“Selection pressure for IQ already existed in advanced degrees and at higher levels, differences in technical expertise was negligible. Our rule of thumb holds that EI contributes 80 to 90 percent of the competencies that distinguish outstanding from average leaders. …(consider) partner’s contributions to the profits of a large accounting firm. If the partner had significant strengths in the self-management competencies, he or she added 78% more incremental profit than did partners without those strengths. -and- social skills 110%, self-regulation 390%.”

So emotional intelligence was found to not just be good practice for employee satisfaction, it was found to directly affect the bottom line in dollars.

In my work with founders of startups I have learned that CEOs shift in later stages to spending the majority of their time raising funds and making sure that the company they founded runs smoothly to earn those investments. It is crucial in the early stages that they begin learning the fundamentals of leadership. While a great idea is key for a startup, making the team that develops and sells that idea work well together can mean the difference between life and death for the fledgling company.

Subscribe now

The Rainmaker

The Conductor

The Expert

Subscribe now

I have seen these roles described by different names in several resources. They all are basically similar. In this article I am using Born to Build from Gallup Press, written by Jim Clifton and Dr. Sangeeta Badal. I will draw heavily from this book because it is based on Gallup® research, and I am a Gallup-Certified Strengths Coach who works with startup founders.

If you decide buy this book you will find two offerings, one new at a retail price, and one used at a very low price. The new book comes with a code for an assessment that can only be used one time and it is highly likely that the low price used book will not have a valid code. Most of the value in the book is pairing the results of the assessment with the information in the book. You can buy the assessment separately from Gallup® here .

When I refer people to the BP10® assessment in Born to Build, they think this assessment will tell them they can’t be an entrepreneur because they are defective in some way. Nothing could be further from the truth. I start from the premise that we need everyone’s ideas, innovation, and leadership. Born to Build starts with the idea that we all have an urge to build, and helps the reader to understand what role they most uniquely play in the structure we call a startup.

The three roles are based on 10 entrepreneur talents drawn from Gallup® research. Like CliftonStrengths® these talents are unique and innate. These talents depend on skills, knowledge, and experience to be put into useful practice. You can improve skills and knowledge through study and practice, the talents are there for you to build on. “Every builder uses some mix of these 10 talents.”

The Rainmaker® is primarily focused on generating revenue through sales.

…You are boldly self-confident in your capacity to be to be successful, and you rarely miss a money making opportunity.

The Conductor® is primarily focused on operations and management.

…Like a conductor who unified and orchestra to produce beautiful music, you bring order and harmony to the chaos of a young venture. You build an organization by building its people.

The Expert® is primarily focused on product development and research.

…Being the best in your field is crucial for you. You set the bar high for yourself and focus on breakthrough discoveries. …You are part artist and part scientist - and comfortable working at the intersection of both.

I am a Conductor® and my top 4 in order are:

1. Disruptor®

2. Delegator®

3. Knowledge®

4. Confidence®

My identification as a Conductor® tracks with what I know about myself from my CliftonStrengths® assessments and my MBTI®. I seek harmony and make order from chaos because of my people and relationship focus, and I am full of ideas and know how to funnel those ideas into a workable strategy.

The real magic is in combining the three roles into a team. There are two kinds of teams, an individual contributor team, and a problem solution team. The individual contributor team is found at the edge of an organization and has a single purpose. These are Sales teams, Customer Success teams, Code Writing teams, etc. These teams have similar talent strengths and skills and are an organizational creation. The problem solution team is a combination of complementary talents and skills, focussed on solving a problem. Early in a startup the teams are of this nature, calling on very different talents and skills to be successful. Problem solution teams require a leadership with a keen awareness that the strength of the team is its differences. These differences can collide in the moment, so scheduling a “kiss and makeup” session where team members bring focus back to the success of the whole team is essential.

If you are a solopreneur you must time slice into each of these roles. Understanding these roles may help you organize your time. Your alpha role, whichever one of the three it is, will be where you are most comfortable. There will be one of the role areas that you will hate to do because it will call on talents that are not in your wheelhouse. Knowing what you hate to do will help you find your best co-founder, the person who has what you hate to do as an alpha role. If you remain a solopreneur you must maintain the discipline to do those things you do not like to do, so you can succeed in business.

Note: Gallup®, CliftonStrengths® and each of the BP10® theme names are trademarks of Gallup.

The non-Gallup information you are receiving has not been approved and is not sanctioned or endorsed by Gallup in any way. Opinions, views and interpretations of CliftonStrengths® or BP10® results are solely the beliefs of David Jackson.

Share

Imagine an athletic team who come together with their hearts set on league competition. They really don’t have a plan but they think if they play hard enough they will be successful . They play the season and get crushed, so they regroup for another season and try again with similar results. They toil on, but enthusiasm falls off and people soon quit.

Team number 2 hires a coach. The coach brings a playbook and knowledge about each position. The coach identifies the best players for each position and teaches the team the plays in the playbook. In a few weeks the league play starts and they have a strong season. The team has the right people in the right place, and they are ready to be successful faster because the coach has taught them the plays in the playbook.

Even in solo performance sports coaches are almost as well known as players. Coaches help skiers, golfers, and tennis players with their head game and strategy for competition. Why would your startup be any different?

In the early days of a startup there is great energy for an idea that has come to someone. Perhaps they are top in their field and understand how part or all of that business could be better. Perhaps someone has a blinding flash of insight, or maybe a side hustle that friends say, “you should do this for a living”.

There it is *bling*!

Subscribe now

You might tinker with it a little. It solves a problem you had, or have, so everyone will want it. You talk to your pals and get a WOW.

You have an idea, and you have no idea what you are facing. In the fog of uncertainty you ride on the adrenaline of discovering your idea like it’s a Million Dollar Scratch-off Ticket.

This is where I like to engage founders as a startup coach. I know the positions needed and I have a playbook.

My friend once told me the 12 rules of combat. Three are important for startups:

4. The important things are always simple.

5. The simple things are always hard.

6. The easy way is always mined.

A good coach will not give you advice, they will ask questions. They will not give you advice because advice coming from someone else will be the answers for their business, not yours. A well meaning advisor will give you their favorite tactic, and while it may sound good, it is their easy way from their biased viewpoint. The fastest way for founders to wander around lost is to hear conflicting advice.

Coaching won’t work if you are not coachable. You will find a coach leading you in questions about topics that seem to distract you from your mission of getting your idea out to the waiting world. The coach is pointing out where the mines are buried, and you ignore the coach at your own peril. It is the coach’s work to know the bias pitfalls and lead you around them, like the confirmation bias I started with above “It solves a problem you had, or have, so everyone will want it.“ A good coach also keeps perspective on their own biases.

I am realistic about my engagement with startup founders. At the times they are most needing my help, and the help of other skilled guides, they don’t know how they can afford us. Pre-seed startups are in bootstrap funding mode. It’s easy to think they are working on their startup project and it’s not costing them anything. But time is the most priceless jewel you own. Money you can get back. Once your time is gone, it’s gone. If I can coach founders to test business models ten times faster to find the business idea that works, what would that be worth?

I consult with companies who can afford me, because innovation never stops, to give me the time to help founders. I do not work for free. I do invest in people who need and want my help.

Share

In Part 1 I discussed the shift in mindset for Enterprise Architecture (EA) Practices from a goods-centered view, considering EA development as a product, to a service-centered view, considering that value is co-created with the client/customer. I also showed this Lean Canvas for Enterprise Architecture Practice as an example of a way to look at an EA Practice as if it were its own company, working to deliver value to its “Customer Segment”. I encourage you to get your own Lean Canvas for free at leancanvas.com and fill it out for yourself. Think about how you can more directly engage those to whom you want to deliver value.

Value is created in the Customer Segments and Early Adopters box, the Problem and Existing Alternatives box, and the Unique Value Proposition box. The key is knowing and validating the problem you solve (jobs-to-be-done) for each of your Customers (people who pay you money). Value is delivered through the Solutions box and the Channels box. The key metric is the Unique Value Proposition box and the Revenue Streams box. Make multiple canvases, maybe one for the whole practice, and then one for each key stakeholder. Lean Canvas is geared toward startups and I believe the EA Practice is just that.

Customers (and employees) are human too

A shift in focus to a service-centric perspective might be a nice thing to do, but at the end of the day does it make an impact? This, and other questions are answered in the culmination of research done by the Gallup organization on managing the customer-employee encounter, Human Sigma (Fleming & Asplund, 2007). This book lays out the case for employee engagement, customer engagement, and the amazing synergy that occurs when you work on both at the same time.

“In a recent study of 89 companies, we found that the companies that built this critical mass of engagement grew earnings per share (EPS) at 2.6 times the rate of companies who do not.” (Fleming & Asplund, 2007) Signaling the move to value creation at the employee-customer encounter, Fleming and Asplund call it the new “factory floor”. Of course their explanation that an emotionally engaged customer spends more with a company than a merely satisfied customer is aimed at the commercial firm in total. However, understanding the difference, and putting to practice the insights from their study can only improve the standing of the EA Practice in an enterprise.

The whole idea of focusing on the customer encounter might not be the forte for the average Enterprise Architect. Common anecdotal evidence suggests that EA Practitioners like to work alone, create elegant solutions with little regard to deadlines, and are in general, a prickly kind of person. Executives like the skills architects have, and often don’t like the way they come across.

The impact of innate preferences on practitioners

Commonly observed frustrations with EA Practitioners may be understood as behavioral expressions of the preferred Jungian personality type of people attracted to EA Practice. These behavioral expressions can tend to alienate the executive champions needed for continued political support of the practice.

As indicated through multiple instances of research, technical professionals tend to cluster as NT types, as indicated via the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. Further, David Keirsey (Keirsey, 1998) calls the INTP “The Strategic Architect”. According to their type description, INTPs like to work by themselves, focusing on an inner world of thinking, perceiving the outer world through intuition. Their perceiving preference tends to hold off decision making, while they work on many variations of scenarios in an endless search for a right answer. They value competence and may be irritated by others they do not believe measure up to their standards. They continue to seek elegant solutions while not actually delivering information to decision makers because they haven’t yet covered all the scenarios. They are quick to point out variances from their optimum solution as wrong, even though they may have never communicated that strategic picture.

Understanding these behavioral expressions of preferred type and teaming them with complementary typed people, may make leveraging their value easier socially and politically. Adding the understanding of a focus on the individual strengths of an Enterprise Architect, via the Gallup® CliftonStrengths® assessment and coaching, is the best way to encourage employee engagement. Understanding the psychological type and individual strengths of members of an Enterprise Architecture team will enable a team leader to compose a team of complementary strengths, and supplement missing strengths by sourcing them appropriately. The key to making the team function with a focus on customer engagement is a leader who is type and talent aware.

A move away from the G-D logic based creation of an Enterprise Architecture “product” to a S-D logic, service-centered mode of operation will call for constant conversation and interaction among the EA Practitioners and their stakeholders. It will call for a moderation of the desire on the part of the Enterprise Architect for the solution to be technically optimal, and will lead to a more rapid sub-optimization based on the requirements of the stakeholders who are brought more closely into the architecture development process. The client will take the role of the designer, and the architect will more appropriately support the design. The Enterprise Architect might also have knowledge of other developments or strategies that might impinge or enhance the needs of the client organization. In any case, the Enterprise Architect will need awareness of the behavioral expressions of the perception and decision making preferences that make them so effective as EA practitioners, so that they can moderate them to ease the give and take with their stakeholders.

Conclusion

TOGAF ® (The Open Group, 2011) recommends that the EA Practice in an organization be created and managed as a distinct business entity. Its wording and approach to Stakeholder Management can lead to objectifying stakeholders, rather than encouraging a closer, more engaging relationship. Employing a service-centered mind-set and a customer engagement focus will enhance the brand of the EA Practice in a firm. Understanding that value in Enterprise Architecture Practice is co-created by the architect and the customer will make the transition to a customer engagement focus clearer in the minds of everyone.

Recognition of the shift in locus of value creation should affect the way architects are measured as employees. Creating an environment of employee engagement through Leadership Development and Coaching will enhance the synergy of the architect -customer encounter. Individual Leadership Development and Coaching will help architects in their interactions with executives and enhance their career movement to executive roles as well.

Note: Gallup® and CliftonStrengths® are trademarks of Gallup.

Works Cited

Fleming, P. J., & Asplund, J. (2007). Human Sigma - Managing the Employee-Customer Encounter. New York, NY: Gallup Press.

Keirsey, D. (1998). Please Understand Me II. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.

Lusch, V. a. (2008). Toward a conceptual foundation for service science: Contributions from service-dominant logic. IBM Systems Journal , 47 (1), 6.

The Open Group. (2011). The Open Group Architecture Framework (9.1 ed.). Reading, U.K.: The Open Group.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing , 68, 1-17.

I start with entrepreneurs wherever they are in their journey, and I always start with a Lean Canvas. In a dozen interconnected questions an entrepreneur can get to the heart of the matter. This is much easier if it’s early in the idea formation stage because of the “sunk cost” trap. Founders are often so in love with their solution they make the fundamental error that kills new companies, they build solutions no one wants to buy. The Lean Canvas focuses on the customer problem that the customer will willingly “hire” your solution to solve. If you have not built your solution it’s easier to examine the customer problem question than if you have more time and money into it. The new entrepreneur wants to skip past all the planning and an entrepreneur a couple of years in can’t stop to take a perspective on their business because they are too busy. There is a necessary drive that powers entrepreneurs to make their idea succeed, but that drive can also be a trap of pushing a bad idea because the entrepreneur is so invested in it. It’s hard to think you began in the wrong direction at the start.

There’s an old story I use to illustrate this dilemma. There is a lumberjack in the woods sawing way. He’s grunting and sweating. The foreman comes along and watches him for a minute. The foreman says, “Why don’t you stop to sharpen your saw?” And the lumberjack says, “Can’t you see I’m too busy cutting down trees to stop what I’m doing?” It’s very hard to admit to yourself what’s not working because we have this little voice inside urging us on to work a little harder.

There is another reason it’s good to step back to the Lean Canvas and that’s to re-focus on the Unique Value Proposition (UVP) and the Customer Problem(s). About 20% of your customers are fully engaged in your business, that is, they can’t imagine a world without your solution in it. Then there is 60% of your audience that will come back to you if there’s not something better around, in diminishing loyalty from people closest to the top 20%, down to the bottom 20%. Then there is 20% at the bottom who are haters. They will not ever do business with you because of some reason. So where is the first place you need to go to expand your audience? It’s in the top of that 60% that is closest to the engaged customers. These are the people in closest alignment to your UVP. Where are we most likely to go looking to get more customers emotionally? In the Bottom 20%. We know we can win them over if we just fix a few things. So we respond to their comments and we shift processes or times, or what we charge. And how many of those bottom 20% are we going to win? And if we do move them, they go into the bottom of the 60% that will only give us a look if nothing else is available. In the mean time you have eroded your UVP for the top 20%, and they fall into “I really liked this product, but it has slid in the last little while, so maybe I’ll look around”.

If you have a good system for getting customer feedback about the problems customers are encountering in your area of expertise, you can find the common story threads to hone your customer problem set to see if there is good problem/solution fit. Whether you are starting your business or are a couple years in, you can shed that light on your value proposition to see if your solution makes sense. People’s needs change, but you can’t abandon the people who love your business to satisfy the haters. If you are just starting, this is where you will get your first customers. There are plenty of examples showing you don’t need a product to get sales if you’ve defined your early adopters correctly.

None of this pivot on innovation can take place if you can’t look that the basic rationale behind your business, modeled in the Lean Canvas. That basic rationale and mindset comes from what I teach you early on, stay in love with the problem and the business model is the business. Never be afraid to look at your business with new eyes. I guarantee your competitors are.

Subscribe now

It has been tradition that an Enterprise Architecture (EA) Practice has managed itself in the traditional manufacturing goods-centered way that has been common since the onset of the industrial era. This causes the architects to focus on the wrong point of value delivery to satisfy their clients. Changing the game by managing itself as a service-centered business in its own right and changing the locus of value creation to the architect-client interaction will change uninterested clients into raging fanatics.

Introduction

Enterprise Architect Practices in many organizations struggle to remain relevant and even to remain in existence. Practice leaders struggle with reporting structures and continued proof of return on investment for the headcount and funding to maintain the practice. Finding a champion in the executive ranks helps the cause, but why aren’t the stakeholders demanding the permanence of the EA practice that is supposed to advocate for their requirements? What is the value of having an EA practice? Or to be more precise, where is value created by an EA practice? Common management measurement practices have their origin in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. These measurements are rooted in what is termed goods-dominant logic (Lusch, 2008) where goods are created away from consumers who diminish the good’s value through consumption. Employee measurement became based on how many “widgets” were produced. Value is created away from the customer in the manufacturing site. The EA practice has waited to receive a “request for architecture work” and then engaged to “manufacture” architecture artifacts, creating an architectural representation to be presented back to the client. This goods-centered approach has created a customer requirements dissonance, and often less than satisfactory results in the viewpoint of the client. Architects are commonly measured on the number of artifacts they produce and the timeliness of their delivery.

The EA practice should be organized as a service focused business (entity) within an enterprise. As the EA practice delivers a service it should be measured through application of service-dominant logic (Lusch, 2008) where value is co-created at the point of service between the architect and the client. As such, the relationship between the architect and the client should be understood, measured and managed as interdependent. Ideas of customer satisfaction need to acknowledge the emotional component of these relationships in addition to the impact that necessary information for decisions is delivered in a timely manner. Practices to encourage customer engagement with the “brand” of the EA practice should be developed along with the feedback mechanisms that encourage them.

An overview of goods-centered and service-centered concepts

The Industrial Revolution brought economies of scale and standardization to the production of goods. The field of economics soon picked up on the paradigm of goods manufacturing, placing emphasis on the possession of raw materials (wealth) and the transformation of raw materials into goods to be sold. The fundamental concepts that emerged from this goods-centered view were:

1. “The purpose of economic activity is to make and distribute things that can be sold.

2. To be sold, these things must be embedded with utility and value during the production and distribution processes and must offer to the customer superior value in relation to the competitor’s offerings.

3. The firm should set all decision variables at a level that enables it to maximize profit from the sale of output.

4. For both maximum production control and efficiency, the good should be standardized and produced away from the market.

5. The good can then be inventoried until it is demanded and then delivered to the consumer at a profit.” (Vargo & Lusch, 2004)

Personnel Management concepts soon followed in this goods-centered view, with notions of value exchange between workers and firms being the provision of labor at the lowest cost to maximize the profit of the finished good. Ideas such as attendance-based compensation, where workers were considered “interchangeable parts” that were paid to show up and perform tasks as they were instructed, soon followed.

As work became more specialized and based on information in the later half of the 20th Century, notions of services delivery as products to be sold followed the goods-centered view of industry. Marketing ideas of customers as physical resources to be “Segmented” and “Sold to” followed this view as well, and drove business strategy and marketing development.

It is not surprising that Enterprise Architecture would be organized and carried out in this goods-centered world view. “Requirements” are raw materials to be gathered from “Stakeholders”, and out of sight of these consumers, raw materials (Requirements) are transformed through the Architecture Development Method into “artifacts” and “Deliverables” that are returned to the “Stakeholders” under contractual obligation.

Progress in Economics with this goods-dominant logic came in the form of trying to make the theories into Science. Economists along the way tried to account for services in a firm as “intangibles”. The literature points several times to the inadequate nature of this treatment, particularly as work became more specialized and many jobs were carried out internally with no connection to the manufacture or distribution of goods. A service-centered view emerged as recognition of a “service economy” grew. Research has shown that standard economic practices cannot account for as much as 80% of market value of the average S&P 500 company, labeling it as “intangibles”. (Fleming & Asplund, 2007) Perhaps they have the valuation backwards!

In the service-centered view, or service-dominant logic (S-D logic) the locus of value shifts from being embedded in the goods to being delivered at the point of contact with the consumer. In fact, value is co-created with the customer as value-in-use of the service. This is not to be confused with the sale of “Services”, as in the idea of Consulting Services, but more the idea of Jobs-to-be-done for which a solution is created.

The primary unit of exchange in S-D logic is knowledge and skills, rather than goods. Goods become an appliance in the delivery of service. This difference is exaggerated in the adage. “People don’t buy a drill to own the drill, they buy it to own the holes.” Interactions between the firm and customer become crucial in S-D logic because relationships are key to a self-reinforcing value cycle. In this cycle, needs come from the customer, and the firm delivers highly customized knowledge and skills. Cash flow is the measure of success of the firm’s value proposition. An example is hours of jet engine performance which include an engine and all maintenance provided by the manufacturer.

In the service-centered world, firms differentiate themselves by their value propositions. This notion fits well with concepts of movement from “value-chains” to “value-networks”. The recognition of value networks makes ideas of competition and partnering different as well. A competitor may be a collaborator as well, as value propositions are combined to satisfy customer needs.

In service-dominant logic, the EA practice behavior looks very different. Every interaction with a stakeholder is the key to value delivery. A value proposition to deliver strategy, supply guidance for decisions, and supply other special knowledge and skills might be a good starting offer. To accomplish this change, the EA practice needs to think of itself as its own firm and the stakeholders and executives as its customers. The practice’s value proposition needs to be carefully tuned and continuously adapted. Customer engagement becomes critical to the practice.

Works Cited

Fleming, P. J., & Asplund, J. (2007). Human Sigma - Managing the Employee-Customer Encounter. New York, NY: Gallup Press.

Keirsey, D. (1998). Please Understand Me II. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.

Lusch, V. a. (2008). Toward a conceptual foundation for service science: Contributions from service-dominant logic. IBM Systems Journal , 47 (1), 6.

The Open Group. (2011). The Open Group Architecture Framework (9.1 ed.). Reading, U.K.: The Open Group.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing , 68, 1-17.

Subscribe now

Harry’s was an innovative startup with a good Unique Value Proposition (UVP) in 2016 and 2017, with an Unfair Advantage story of two friends taking on the giants of the shaving industry. “made by real guys for real guys”

(From the Internet Archive Wayback Machine)

What really won me as a customer was “a belief that companies should make the world a better place”. This spoke to my values.

(From the Internet Archive Wayback Machine)

Their web site from these early days also talked about the engineering and quality that went into their razor, and how the company had bought a German razor blade factory to drive their quality and price advantage. These were all pieces of their story that spoke to customer’s need for quality and price to switch to Harry’s. I ordered a Harry’s starter kit online. Then a while later I found the product at Target, and this was another step in convenience for a company I preferred. Harry’s founders had scaled their company successfully from online only to include a national retail placement. The feisty founders looked to be winning against the giants.

I was on a trip not long ago and needed some Harry’s Shave Cream, so I stopped into a Target and found their display. Next to the Shave Cream was a Shave Gel. Harry’s had been introducing their own line of shave and post-shave creams, so I thought this was another advance. I was a bit skeptical because this gel was too close to Big Shaving Company’s Gel. How had this startup found someone to make a shave gel for them? And I discovered that Big Shaving Company had bought them. The founders had their exit.

Not long after that I encountered Henson Shaving through a YouTube endorsement by a car engineer. Henson’s UVP: “Buy Once, Use for Life” Their story talks about “machined to aerospace standards” in aluminum, with regular double edge blades like my dad used to use. No plastic to add to the plastic waste problem. Their offer had met my values, and I switched.

This is a story of customer forces. This is a story about how innovation can dislodge your customers, which is why you need to keep innovating, like the shark that needs to keep moving to stay alive.

Subscribe now

Enterprise: The whole of a business, company, corporation…

Architecture: The classical consideration of a structure, and its constituent parts, and the parts relationship to one another.

That aught to clear things up. In all of my years working in the profession of Enterprise Architecture (EA) for a large tech company, toiling on international standards, and teaching hundreds of Enterprise Architects, the question of what Enterprise Architecture is was sure to start an intense discussion. So my definition is practice based. EA bent the heads of technical leaders who had made their careers with technical expertise, to an artistic consideration of where technology, business, and people join.

Over the years I have been asked one question often: “Our EA practice is starting, what should we do?” And here is my answer. There are two things that need to be accomplished at a broad level:

1. Put the enterprise’s treasure where its heart is.

2. Align the results of the architecture work with the budget cycle.

Every company was started for a reason. The founders had an idea about how something could be done better through innovation. What that something is can be found in the elevator pitch you give at a social gathering when asked what your company does. Yet every year at budget allocation time, money and people are divided up for projects to redo or remake parts of the business that have no, and I mean NO, connection to that core business. This is true particularly if the company has been in existence for a while. These diversions of hard earned capital are often justified by the “but we’re different” bias, or the “we’ve always done it this way” bias.

So the first job when you come in as Chief Enterprise Architect, or something similar, is to pare down and eventually halt the bleeding of money away from the core business. The next cycle for each function that is not core is to instantiate standard business processes (see APQC (American Productivity & Quality Center)) and packaged software or outsource solutions that will support them. Put your logo in that software package and do no other alterations. Gradually focus the money the company spends on its core business, and innovating on that core business, because I guarantee you that a three person startup team is aiming their project at your company .

The second job, and it’s necessary to get the first job done, is to discover and map the real budget process cycle and who the players (stakeholders) are. Your job is to deliver the information needed to help the decisions at each stage of the budget year, when that decision is being made. For example, one company I know had a “Spring Plan” and a “Fall Plan”. The Spring Plan gathered the next year’s budget requests, there was a period of research and then the Fall Plan finalized the budget for the following fiscal year. Find each stakeholder, determine what information they need by a deadline, and count backwards the amount of time needed to create the architecture work for that decision point. This will set the cycle of architecture work for the team.

Do not be late with the information. If you are late, keep the information to yourself, or at most, deliver any critical discovery verbally. Your stakeholders may have fiduciary responsibility to the company, and if you dump new information in writing to a principal decision maker after their decision, then a legal argument can be made that critical company decisions were made without due diligence. This could be a bad thing.

Each EA practice should operate as its own company in a company. Your output is a service, actionable information, not an architecture artifact. You need to make a mafia offer to the decision making principals about delivery of the two outcomes I described, so that you have a defense from being pulled into a meeting on how to rewrite the payroll application for the fifth time. But more on this in another post.

I have talked about my top 5 dominant talent themes and in some cases, how they relate to each other. I have talked about parts of those themes that I depend on for help, and I watch out for trouble. There are 34 talent themes in CliftonStrengths®, and I have a report that shows all of my 34 themes in rank order. There is far more to this story than just the top 5.

From my top 5, I know that I am:

- Incredibly aware of the borderless and timeless human family,

- Unaffected by the ambiguity and risk of innovation,

- Conceptual, deep, solitary,

- Willing to consider all the possibilities so the best is not missed,

- Committed to excellence.

Talents are a naturally occurring thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied. The Talent themes I discussed so far are my unique innate connection to work and life. The odds of finding another person with the same themes in the same order are about 33 million to one.

When I combine my talents with the knowledge and skills I have developed, they become Strengths. Strengths are the ability to consistently produce a near perfect positive outcome in a specific task. I can understand my talents, I cannot improve or affect them. What I can do is develop, improve and refine the knowledge and skills that combine with my talents to be better. This is the key. This is the what in “so what?”.

I want to stress that these are not boxes into which I fit, or labels that define me. These are the legos of my life, work, and passion. I build things with them. In a situation I can design what I need to be most effective for what others need. My awareness of my Themes and Strengths has brought a sense of calm and a sense of purpose. I know without doubt what I am well suited to do. I know that the uniqueness of who I am with this collection of talent means I have a purpose to fulfill that no one else can fulfill.

When I decided to develop my natural inclination to mentor people into a more formal coaching role, I looked at all the ways I have made meaning for myself. CliftonStrengths® made sense to me. My journey understanding my themes and developing my strengths had an immense impact on how I understood and acted in the world. When Gallup® offered the opportunity to train as a non-employee coach I knew that was the coaching “system” I wanted to use.

Now it is my great delight to help others understand their own top 5 report and all the other facets of what understanding their talents can bring. My skills and knowledge bring me to the world of innovation and to helping startup founders begin with an idea and become the leaders they were meant to be.

Note: Gallup®, CliftonStrengths® and each of the 34 CliftonStrengths theme names are trademarks of Gallup.

The non-Gallup information you are receiving has not been approved and is not sanctioned or endorsed by Gallup in any way. Opinions, views and interpretations of CliftonStrengths® or BP10® results are solely the beliefs of David Jackson.

Subscribe now

This one is the most helpful, and gives me the most trouble. If you have noticed, each of the top 5 strengths themes I have talked about has two sides. There is a good thing the theme has and a side that will bite you. Inside strengths coaching we call this the balcony and the basement. Why wouldn’t you want to improve everything you see? That’s the balcony. The great side of Maximizer® gives me energy to move forward. It brings all of the other 4 dominant strengths together in a purpose for good. Here are my danger zones.

I can fall into getting things perfect rather than getting things done. I wrote about the idea rumination cycle I can get into in the post on Intellection®. If I get in that cycle and Maximizer® kicks in, it just adds to that cycle with the thought, “I can make that better…”. At some point, hopefully sooner now than I used to, I can catch that thought as a red flag and move what I’m doing to a close. And that brings me to my #1 trick for introverted intuitive thinkers like me: find a way to catch the thoughts in your mind that don’t serve you so you can break a pattern of of thought - feeling - result. Set a timer or something that calls your attention and write down what thought you’re having and whether it is serving you for good in the moment. Since I have been at this a while I have developed a habit of examining thoughts for their impact on a regular basis. If you have this issue find a way to break this cycle.

Other people might not want better because it’s MY better not theirs. I see better everywhere. I used to just blurt out what I saw and tell people how it could be better. Now at least I stop the rude behavior and think about a couple of things. First, is this person in my circle of influence? That is, are they likely to care about my suggestion. Second, I ask about the situation and if I can help? Since I have added “First, seek to understand” as a gate to helping others, I have been far more effective.

If a suggestion to maximize goes unheeded I want to walk away and not do anything. This problem was hidden from my awareness for a long time. I had a perverse little twist on passive aggressive behavior, “OK, I’ll just let you see how not taking me seriously works out for you…”. I have Relator® theme in my supporting themes, and I call on that often to remind me that my maximizing idea is MY idea, for me, on my path, and what the other person is doing is actually none of my business. I honor their boundaries as I would expect others to honor mine. As my friend John says, “Don’t say the first thing that comes to mind.”.

But here is the key. I know these things about myself because I have dedicated time and effort into understanding and integrating strengths awareness into who I am and what I do. And this is why you need a strengths coach. Someone apart from you who will observe and ask you questions to bring an awareness to you that will serve you better. You can find a coach here .

Note: I am not a Gallup, Inc. employee and I receive no compensation if you engage a coach from Gallup’s list.

The 34 CliftonStrengths® Theme names are Trademarks of Gallup, Inc.

The non-Gallup information you are receiving has not been approved and is not sanctioned or endorsed by Gallup in any way. Opinions, views and interpretations of CliftonStrengths® or BP10® results are solely the beliefs of David Jackson.

Subscribe now

We need you.

We need your innovation.

We need your leadership.

Mel Robbins, in her TEDxSF Talk says (minute 7:00 - 8:30) that the chance of any one of us being here - now - at this time, with our knowledge and experience is 1 in 400 Trillion.

No one else is going to come save us. They have already sent you.

I am going to write everything I can here to get you to step into your power and your calling.

Subscribe now

I see my top 4 talent themes like an ice cream sandwich:

I understand that all things are connected and purposeful…

For the tons of ideas I get…

That I can think on, sort the best, toss the rest…

And see the patterns of ideas align to the best route forward.

In my professional career I added Design Thinking and methodology discipline to these core innate talents for a career in Enterprise Architecture. Now I work with companies on innovation asking the same question I have asked all of my working life - What if?

Innovation for many creates an unbearable chaos and the path through the maze of change can have more traps than an Indiana Jones movie. Another part of

Strategic® for me is the ability to see obstacles in the future, to peer along the several paths spread out and show the ones that are straight, or indirect but a bit faster. The key to leading changes in “what we’ve always done” (you should write this down) is helping the resistant few think it was their idea in the first place.

Strategic®, like Ideation®, can fail you if you run forward too fast. Inertia is a powerful force. A cloud of ideas and future scenarios can seem like a bulldozer ripping through your childhood home. To sweeten this ice cream sandwich, I call deeply on Empathy®, because I understand that some people will be slow to move, and some will not make the change at all. 

I wish I could give out the gift of strategic thinking, but I can’t. So here is what it looks like, a set of scenarios. My favorite tools are the “Business Model Canvas” (StrategyzerAG) and “Lean Canvas” (LEANStack). These tools allow me to show the people I work with a single sheet that can show key forces in a strategy. In a brief period I can teach the language of a canvas and encourage participation. That participation is critical to winning support. If people have a voice in change, they regain a sense of control. That sense of control makes the future less daunting.

There is one more thing that my Strategic® theme does for me, it gives me an urgency for action. I lead with Strategic Thinking and my supporting Themes are Relationship Building. I have no Executing Themes until number 12 or 13 on my list (they are in rank order). Belief is there and if I catch an idea I believe in, I’m really all in. On a daily basis I use Strategic® to see the future path, decide quickly and march forward.

Note: The 34 CliftonStrengths® Theme names are Trademarks of Gallup® Inc.

The non-Gallup information you are receiving has not been approved and is not sanctioned or endorsed by Gallup in any way. Opinions, views and interpretations of CliftonStrengths or BP10 results are solely the beliefs of David Jackson.

I must admit, when I think about my Intellection® theme, I cringe a little. Like many, I experienced teasing at school because I was a “smarty pants” and this theme brings that idea to mind. Intellection® is not about being smarter than everyone else, it’s about getting great value from sitting with an idea and thinking it through … thoroughly.

It is in my nature to spend time alone. It’s not that I don’t like people, it’s that I recharge my energy from being alone and quiet, while spending time with others requires expending energy. This is where my Myers-Briggs Introvert shows through clearly in my Intellection® theme. Intellection® is also about enjoying conversation with others about ideas, and this is true for me too.

I first took the CliftonStrengths® Assessment in 2010 when it was called StrengthsFinder®. I have integrated my top 12 talent themes over the last 13 years, and it is hard to tease them apart and think of them as stand-alone themes. Intellection® and Ideation® are so very closely tied together for me, I have ideas, and I sit with them to see how they feel. It’s like trying on a shirt in the store and looking at yourself in the mirror to see if the whole thing works.

I am keenly aware that I can get into a cycle of picking through ideas and thinking about them that I don’t get to the point of taking action on the ideas that are good. I need doers in my life to remind me to take my great ideas for a spin, or those who enjoy picking up ideas and running with them. I think this is what has lately attracted me to working with startups. The process of early-stage work with an idea to turn it into a business has become a passion, even though it’s not my idea being developed.

I experience Intellection® as a key part of how I develop and work with innovation. Now, what is THAT idea over there…?

Note: The 34 CliftonStrengths® Theme names and StrengthsFinder® are Trademarks of Gallup, Inc.

The non-Gallup information you are receiving has not been approved and is not sanctioned or endorsed by Gallup in any way. Opinions, views and interpretations of CliftonStrengths® or BP10® results are solely the beliefs of David Jackson.

The second of my dominant talent themes is Ideation®. Innovation is my jam. I chose the popcorn machine metaphor because, when I am in the zone, ideas stream out like the popcorn comes out of the cooker. I am very comfortable with  new ideas and ambiguity, and I have to remind myself that most people are not. In fact, I can swamp a meeting with so many ideas that people feel confused about what direction to take.

I support all those ideas with my Strategic® talent theme, and a strong sense of design discipline I learned in my professional career as an Enterprise Architect. I endeavor to ground myself in the situation at hand first, and then bring out ideas that are in context. I keep to a few ideas at a time, and bring people along with me by mapping out the journey of getting to the new idea. I can intuitively make leaps to the solution and I try to show how I get there.

I also need the support of people who can take my ideas and make them real. My top 10 talent themes are about ideas and people, and I struggle with taking action. To get moving I rely on Connectedness and Strategic to help me understand the urgency of making things real. I’m happy to hand off my work to other people whose best work is taking ideas across the finish line.

What you learn very quickly is that leadership is a team sport. Contrary to what we learn in school the first 20 years of life about keeping our work to ourselves, in my experience, you get nowhere without the help of others. In leading teams with each member’s strengths in mind, you understand the role of each member by using the best each person has to give.

I chose to write about how I experience each of my dominant talent themes. Each of these talents I fit together for effectiveness of what I do. This integration has taken me a while to accomplish, so if you are starting your strengths journey give yourself some time to do your own integration. I became a Gallup Certified Strengths Coach to guide people along the journey of discovering their talents, creating their strengths, and integrating their strengths into a more engaging and effective daily life.

Note: The 34 CliftonStrengths® Theme names are Trademarks of Gallup, Inc.

The non-Gallup information you are receiving has not been approved and is not sanctioned or endorsed by Gallup in any way. Opinions, views and interpretations of CliftonStrengths® or BP10® results are solely the beliefs of David Jackson.

I am certain the Universe conspires for our best. That doesn’t mean there are not difficulties and hardships. It means that in the midst of turmoil, I find peace in knowing that I have something to teach or learn. I recognize that the turmoil may not end until I have learned or taught the lesson that is in front of me, even if it takes more than one lifetime.

This is not a fatalistic view. I must take action. Like the TV show “Quantum Leap” or the movie “Groundhog Day”, I make sense of my world as a place to learn life lessons…to fix or teach or learn until I am ready for the next thing. I can review my life and understand today and I can forecast out the connections and see my direction.

My top ten talent themes are grouped in strategy and people. The interplay of Connectedness® and Strategic® means I see connections of people and ideas. I have always been a connector. I file away conversations I have with people about their ideas and activities, and later on I will suggest that two people contact each other because they have mutual or complementary interests.
Connectedness® has also given me a sixth sense about the future. I can see situations play out in my mind, understanding from the clutter what will work and what will likely fail. That probably makes me a little more risk averse than other people.

Early in my life I moved often as my dad finished his career in the Navy and began a life in religious ministry. I gained and lost relationships with people on a regular basis. That has continued through my adult life. Even though I am not in close proximity, or close personal relationship with people, I am still connected to them by the way they have touched my life and the way I have connected with them.

There have been times in my professional career when I tried to push my career in a different direction. As I finished my undergraduate work, I was encouraged by the Dean of the School of Education to continue into a Masters degree and beyond. I had returned to finish my undergraduate degree later in life and after I had a dozen or so years in technology. When I started my career I had not needed a degree, and as my career changed, I realized that not having a degree would hold me back. There is an entire field of educational research and professional activity around adults returning to school and gaining credit for life experiences. A job opening at the University I attended related to adult learners became available and I applied. This job would have changed the course of my life from IT technology to education. I was ready to change. I was excited about the interview. I did not get the job. I had been eager to walk through a door and that door had closed. In the next few years I pushed in other directions that, seemed to me, lead to more purposeful work. None of them worked out. I went through a period of turmoil; a period of not knowing followed. 

I learned to embrace not knowing. I learned to be still and understand that I was doing exactly what I was supposed to be doing. I learned to say yes to what was in front of me. I am still learning to step into my power and show up for what the Universe has in store for me.

Note: The 34 CliftonStrengths® Theme names are Trademarks of Gallup, Inc.

The non-Gallup information you are receiving has not been approved and is not sanctioned or endorsed by Gallup in any way. Opinions, views and interpretations of CliftonStrengths® or BP10® results are solely the beliefs of David Jackson.

I have these five words around me in several places. They are in my email signature and on my zoom screen. But why?

I have been on a discovery mission for a long time. It’s a mission to understand myself and others around me. Early in my adult life I was told what to believe about myself and the world around me. That world did not serve me well. Relationships failed, and as I became less certain of what worked, I began to search for what would work. I relate to this as my “hero journey”.

As you might guess from the words “Ideation” and “Intellection” I spend a good deal of time in the world of ideas. I read a lot, and my early journey to find myself was in books. One of them was from Gallup Press, a popular book at the time, “Strengthsfinder 2.0”. There was a code for an assessment in the book that I used, and at the end these five words in rank order of my Strengths, appeared. The idea that appealed to me most was that I was not broken or defective, there was nothing wrong that needed to be fixed, I just needed to focus on what I did best.

Dr. Don Clifton during his tenure at University of Nebraska, Lincoln, decided to study the talents of successful people, those regularly occurring innate thoughts, feelings, and behaviors people used on a regular basis. He took several hundred talents and refined them to 34 talent themes he called strengths. He started a company from his work named Selection Research with the idea of finding ideal jobs for people with a match of their strengths to talent required by a job. SRI soon merged with Gallup Inc. in nearby Omaha, NE, and Dr. Clifton is widely regarded as a founder of the positive psychology movement.

My hero’s journey has progressed quite a way. I have taken up a role as guide to other people on this journey; a coach with questions, not an oracle with answers.

People deserve to be engaged and fulfilled by the work they do every day. I’m old enough to have seen the social contract between people and their work change in radical ways. We are four generations away from when I began to work, and each generation has their own idea of what they give and get from work. What has not changed are the innate strengths people bring with them. I endeavor to help leaders understand themselves and the people they work with to make that fulfillment a reality.

Note: The 34 CliftonStrengths® Theme names are Trademarks of Gallup, Inc.

The non-Gallup information you are receiving has not been approved and is not sanctioned or endorsed by Gallup in any way. Opinions, views and interpretations of CliftonStrengths® or BP10® results are solely the beliefs of David Jackson.