Lynn Wunderman is a great example of a new breed of CEO in knowledge-centric companies. Highly focused and full of energy, Lynn has a nurturing leadership style that is both collaborative and visionary.
Lynn has over 28 years of experience in the direct marketing business, including a turn as President and COO of Marketing Information Technologies and as an SVP with Ogilvy & Mather Direct. About two years ago, she founded I-Behavior, which helps multi-channel marketers acquire and retain customers more efficiently.
As President and CEO of I-Behavior, she has created a wonderful "sandbox" for "stars" to play in -- one that balances personal needs with the overall mission of the firm. And, yes, she's related. Actually, Lester Wunderman is not only Lynn's father-in-law, but also Chairman of I-Behavior.
Needless to say, when Lynn agreed to be interviewed, I was thrilled. Following are excerpts from my recent conversation with her:
 |
|
|
|
There are two key dimensions to successfully managing an individual or a group. One is, they've got to have the right skills -- because if they don't have the skills, they can't get the job done. The second is, they have to be motivated -- because no matter how good and talented they are, if they really don't want to do the job, it's not going to happen.
You can put those two dimensions into a matrix and start to see what the issue is with any given individual. Lots of skills, but no motivation. Great motivation, but doesn't quite have the skills. In the bottom quadrant, the question is whether you really want to invest in this person. This matrix has been really helpful to me.
The third point is that it's got to be the right fit. It's the whole square-peg, round-hole issue. However, if you can find ways to carve out special roles for people that really leverage their strengths, they can create a whole new type of contribution to the organization.
We've really staffed the company with a lot of all- stars. You might expect to see a real clash of titans, but it hasn't happened. It's interesting -- how have we avoided that? We've had a couple of issues, scraps here and there. But either they've resolved themselves, or perhaps those individuals just didn't fit. On the whole, I would say part of it is just really good screening.
We are careful to detect the "ego element" when we first meet with people. We also have hired people who either the management had worked with before, or others on the team had worked with, so they tend to fit in very well and work well together.
It also goes back to finding the right roles for people. We've re-structured our technical team maybe three or four times. This last time I feel we really got it right, because productivity really went up.
We initially were trying to create more balance, so that everybody felt they got some of the more long-range development work, as well as some of the day-to-day type of work. We were giving people a management opportunity, but there was a management-style clash among some of the team members.
Some people were having trouble delegating, so it was easier for them to just do the work themselves. Other people -- we would keep throwing them the development projects, which they said they wanted -- but somehow they always found more day-to-day work to do and never got to it.
|
A long time ago a consultant warned me to keep the company down below 30 people as long as I could. He said that the minute you hit 30 people, all of a sudden structure and politics and all these other things start to take over.
|
|
So then you ask yourself, is it the skills or is it the motivation? Finally, we just recognized that we should just look at the strengths of the people on the team, put the management issue off to the side, and create a couple of horizontal teams out of the group.
So, now one group is more senior -- they love doing development work and they’re really best utilized in that group. Then the other group kicks out the day-to- day work and feels ownership of that as opposed to answering to somebody else. That's working out very well.
A long time ago, a consultant warned me to keep the company down below 30 people as long as I could. He said that the minute you hit 30 people, all of a sudden structure and politics and all these other issues start to take over. He told me this when I was president of another organization; at the time we had about 25 people. I saw it happen as we approached that 30 mark. It really started to take hold.
We’ve got twenty-three people here. Chances are, given the environment and everything else, we're going to keep the company pretty lean. If I can keep I-Behavior under 30 people for a while I'm going to be really happy. I'm not looking to create a lot of layers of structure.
What I try to do is to empower people in their current jobs. That goes a long way. Not so people feel micro-managed, but so they feel like they have some leeway on decisions and how they enlist help from other teams. And I constantly challenge them. That doesn't always mean challenging them upwards -- sometimes it's challenging them sideways. Like I said earlier, finding the right fit for them.
If people are empowered, and they feel challenged, they're fulfilled. Sure, you can always jump around for money. But the kind of people we screen for aren't always motivated by money alone. They really want to feel a sense of accomplishment. They want to see an organization with a lot of potential and feel that they can contribute to its success. I have to keep working at providing that kind of environment. But if people feel empowered and challenged, then they're happy.
Dennis Troyanos is the founder of The Troyanos Group, an executive search and consulting firm specializing in recruiting senior-level relationship-marketing professionals. Dennis has led many highly- acclaimed management workshops for the DMA and National Center for Database Marketing. He has facilitated CEO roundtables and written numerous articles on the subject of interviewing, hiring and retaining top performers. Dennis can be reached at dennis@troyanosgroup.com or 914-997-1907.
|
