As my career progresses, I seem to get more outside pitches. This is obviously common for most people. As one becomes either more of a decision maker or someone who influences a decision, people responsible for sales will target you with emails and try to get you on the phone. 

As a senior in-house SEO professional, I’ve learned the importance of taking information from outside company walls to develop an outside-in perspective to SEO strategy. When it comes to a software or tool vendor, it can be tricky to digest if you need exactly what they’re selling because their pitch is often a solution to a problem they’re assuming you have. You might not have that problem. 

A few weeks ago, I took a call to understand more about a product. The rep jumped right to the problem and solution their company thinks is the one that resonates with people in my role. In reality, I don’t have that problem and don’t need that solution. So I moved on and decided for now, I don’t need this company to help reach my goals. 

I get why software companies lean this way. As it scales, a company needs to standardize and have streamlined pitches and processes so maybe it isn’t so much that reps should move away from having the problem / solution ready but that reps need to know when their problem or solution needs to be refined since it isn’t resonating. Or put together more evidence to support why that person has your problem.

Whatever side you might be on, I believe it is important to stay on your toes. If you lead in-house, know what problems you need help with. If you sell, listen and be open to hearing new problems. Not just the one your company is convinced is the most important one to solve. 

This is the last part of a 3 part series around signs of a high performing team. I talked in the first two parts about how meetings can go. First how one meeting has seamless transitions and the second about sequential conversations across meetings. Part 3 was born when I realized I wanted to provide a reason for why teams might be in a funk of unproductive conversations. 

If these things aren’t happening, there might be a strategy problem. Richard Rumelt’s book, The Crux: How Leaders Become Strategists is a great resource on strategy. I love the opening paragraph (it is really all you need to know!): 

A strategy is a mixture of policy and action designed to surmount a high-stakes challenge. It is not a goal or a wished-for end state. It is a form of problem solving, and you cannot solve a problem you do not understand or comprehend. Thus, challenge-based strategy begins with a broad description of the challenge – the problems and opportunities – facing the organization. They may be competitive, legal, due to changing social norms, or issues with the organization itself. 

As understanding deepens, the strategist seeks the crux – the one challenge that both is critical and appears to be solvable. This narrowing down is the source of much of the strategist’s power, as focus remains the cornerstone of strategy. 

One of the key parts to a great strategy that I want to highlight is narrowing down and focusing. To do this, it is not just saying what you will do but being really clear what you are not doing and why because there is a high chance someone in your company wants to do that other thing for certain reasons. 

If there is no focus and you’re doing too many things, it is going to be hard for teams to have productive and sequential conversations amongst each other. 

To be a good strategist, be very explicit about what you aren’t doing and why.

Back with a quick part 2 regarding the signs of a high performing team. Part 1 talked about creating fluidity between meeting topics as the leader. The next one is also meeting related but should be looked at over the course of a week, maybe even a couple weeks. 

The meetings a high performing team has in a week become sequential conversations. This means that the ball on a problem getting worked on continues to move forward as you stack the discussions next to each other. Teams react to setbacks or blockers, take in new information, and make quick decisions which is a nugget of gold in sequential conversations. Not everyone from the team needs to be in every meeting but often the team members that are the glue and in most should see and feel the conversations developing and stacking sequentially.

I believe a tell tale sign of a low performing team is if these sequential conversations don’t exist. What this ends up looking like is a lot of back tracking and rehashing during meetings. The ball might move forward but not as efficiently or fast as it could with sequential conversations. Things could stay in one place for a few weeks which prevents the sequential pattern we’re after as a leader to drive results and learnings. Why might sequential conversations not exist? Come back for part 3 for insights.