Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category
Established companies must be startups, and vice versa.
For established companies, when times are good, it’s not the right time to try something new – the resources are there but the motivation is not; and when times are tough it’s also the wrong time to try something new – the motivation is there but the breathing room is not. There are an infinite number of scenarios, but for the established company it’s never a good time to try something new.
For startup companies, when times are good, it’s the right time to try something new – the resources are there and so is the motivation; and when times are tough it’s also the right time to try something new – the motivation is there and breathing room is a sign of weakness. Again, the scenarios are infinite, but for the startup is always a good time to try something new.
But this is not a binary world. To create new markets and new customers, established companies must be a little bit startup, and to scale, startups must ultimately be a little bit established. This ambidextrous company is good on paper, but in the trenches it gets challenging. (Read Ralph Ohr for an expert treatment.) The establishment regime never wants to do anything new and the startup regime always wants to. There’s no middle ground – both factions judge each other through jaded lenses of ROI and learning rate and mutual misunderstanding carries the day. Trouble is, all companies need both – established companies need new markets and startups need to scale. But it’s more complicated than that.
As a company matures the balance of power should move from startup to established. But this tricky because the one thing power doesn’t like to do is move from one camp to another. This is the reason for the “perpetual startup” and this is why it’s difficult to scale. As the established company gets long in the tooth the balance of power should move from the establishment to the startup. But, again, power doesn’t like to change teams, and established companies squelch their fledgling startup work. But it’s more complicated, still.
The competition is ever-improving, the economy is ever-changing and the planet is ever-warming. New technologies come on-line, and new business models test the waters. Some work, some don’t. Huge companies buy startups just to snuff them out and established companies go away. The environment is ever-changing on all fronts. And the impermanence pushes and pulls on the pendulum of power dynamics.
All companies want predictability, but they’ll never have it. All growth models are built on rearward-looking fundamentals and forward-looking conjecture. Companies will always have the comfort of their invalid models, but will never the predictability they so desperately want. Instead of predictability, companies would be better served by a strong sense of how it wants to go about its business and overpowering genetics of adaptability.
For a strong definition of how to go about business, a simple declaration does nicely. “We want to spend 80% of our resources on established-company work and 20% on startup-company work.” (Or 90-10, or 95-5.) And each quarter, the company measures itself against its charter, and small changes are made to keep things on track. Unless, of course, if the environment changes or the business model runs out of gas. And then the company adapts. It changes its approach and it’s projects to achieve its declared 80-20 charter, or, changes the charter altogether.
A strong charter and adaptability don’t seem like good partners, but they are. The charter brings focus and adaptability brings the change necessary to survive in an every-changing environment. It’s not easy, but it’s effective. As long as you have the right leaders.
Image credit – Rick Abraham1
Diabolically Simple Questions
Today’s work is complicated with electronic and mechanical subsystems wrapped in cocoons of software; coordination of matrixed teams; shared resources serving multiple projects; providing world class services in seventeen languages on four continents. And the complexity isn’t limited to high level elements. There is a living layer of complexity growing on all branches of the organization right down to the leaf level.
Complexity is real, and it complicates things. To run projects and survive in the jungle of complexity it’s important to know how to put the right pieces together and provide the right answers. But as a leader it’s more important to slash through the complexity and see things as they are. And for that, it’s more important to know how ask diabolically simple questions (DSQ).
Project timelines are tight and project teams like to start as soon as they can. Too often teams start without clarity on what they’re trying to achieve. At these early stages the teams make record progress in the wrong direction. The leader’s job is to point them in the right direction, and here’s the DSQ to set them on their way: What are you trying to achieve?
There will likely be some consternation, arm waiving and hand wringing. After the dust settles, help the team further tighten down the project with this follow-on DSQ: How will you know you achieved it?
For previous two questions there are variants that works equally well for work that closer to the fuzzy front end: What are you trying to learn? and How will you know you learned it?
There is no such thing as a clean-sheet project and even the most revolutionary work builds on the existing system. Though the existing business model, service or product has been around for a long time, the project team doesn’t really know how it works. They know they should know but they’re afraid to admit it. Let them off the hook with this beauty: How does it work today?
After the existing system is defined with a simple block diagram (which could take a couple weeks) it’s time to help the project team focus their work. The best DSQ for the job: How is it different from the existing system? If the list is too long there’s too much newness and if it’s too short there’s not enough novelty. If they don’t know what’s different, ask them to come back when they know.
After the “what’s different” line of questioning, the team must be able to dive deeper. For that it’s time one of the most powerful DSQs in the known universe: What problem are you trying to solve? Expect frustration and complicated answers. Ask them to take some time and for each problem describe it on a single page using less than ten words. Suggest a block diagram format and ask them to define where and when the problem occurs. (Hint: a problem is always between two components/elements of the system.) And the tricky follow-on DSQ: How will you know you solved it? No need to describe the reaction to that one.
Though not an exhaustive list, here are some of my other favorite DSQs:
Who will buy it, how much will they pay, and how do you know?
Have we done this before?
Have you shown it to a real customer?
How much will it cost and how do you know?
Whose help do we need?
If the prototype works, will we actually do anything with it?
Diabolically simple questions have the power to heal the project teams and get them back on track. And over time, DSQs help the project teams adopt a healthy lifestyle. In that way, DSQs are like medicine – they taste bad but soon enough you feel better.
Image credit – Daniela Hartmann
Progress is powered by people.
People ask why.
People buy products from people.
The right people turn activity into progress.
People want to make a difference, and they do.
People have biases which bring a richer understanding.
People use judgement – that’s why robots don’t run projects.
People recognize when the rules don’t apply and act accordingly.
Business models are an interconnected collection of people processes.
The simplest processes require judgement, that’s why they’re run by people.
People don’t like good service, they like effective interaction with other people.
People are the power behind the tools. (I never met a hammer that swung itself.)
Progress is powered by people.
Image credit – las – intially
What Innovation Feels Like
There are countless books and articles on innovation. You can read how others have done it, what worked and what didn’t, how best to organize the company and how to define it. But I have not read much about how it feels to do innovation.
Before anything meaningful can happen, there must be discontent or anger. And for that there needs to be a realization that doing things like last time is a bad idea. This realization is the natural outcome of looking deeply at how things really are and testing the assumptions of the status quo. And the best way to set all this in motion is to do things that generate immense boredom.
Boredom can be created in two ways. 1. Doing the same boring work in the same boring way. 2. Stopping all activity for 30 minutes a day and swimming in the sea of your boring thoughts. Both work well, but the second one works faster.
Next, with your discontent in hand, it’s time birth the right question. Some think this the time for answers, but with innovation the real work is to figure out the question. The discomfort of trying to discover the right question is seven times more uncomfortable the discomfort of figuring out the right answer. And once you have the right question, the organization rejects you as a heretic. If the organization doesn’t dismiss you in a visceral way, you know you don’t have the right question. You will feel afraid, but repeat the cycle until your question threatens the very thing that has made the company successful. When people treat you like you threaten them, you know you’re on to something.
To answer your question, you need help from the organization, but the organization withholds them from you. If you are ignored, blocked or discredited, you’re on the right path. Break the rules, disregard best practices, and partner with an old friend who trusts you. Together, rally against the organization and do the work to answer your question. If you feel isolated, keep going. You will feel afraid and you will second guess yourself. Proceed to the next step.
Make a prototype that shows the organization that your question has an answer. Don’t ask, just build. Show the prototype to three people and prepare for rejection. You and your prototype will be misunderstood and devalued. Not to worry, as this is a good sign. Revise the prototype and repeat.
Do anything you can to show the prototype to a customer. Video the customer as they interact with the prototype. You will feel afraid because you are breaking the rules. This is how you should feel. Keep going.
Set up a meeting with a leader who can allocate resources. If you have to, set up the meeting under false pretenses (the organization is still in rejection mode) and show the video. Because of the uncertainty of their response, you will feel afraid. Show the video anyway.
The organization is comfortable working in the domains of certainty and control, but innovation is done in the domain of uncertainty. By definition, the organization will reject your novel work. If you are rejected, keep going. Revise your heretical question, build a prototype to answer it, show a customer, show someone who can allocate resources, and be afraid all along the way. And repeat, as needed.
With innovation, mostly you feel afraid.
Image credit – Tybo
Battling the Dark Arts of Productivity and Accountability
How did you get to where you are? Was it a series of well-thought-out decisions or a million small, non-decisions that stacked up while you weren’t paying attention? Is this where you thought you’d end up? What do you think about where you are?
It takes great discipline to make time to evaluate your life’s trajectory, and with today’s pace it’s almost impossible. Every day it’s a battle to do more than yesterday. Nothing is good enough unless it’s 10% better than last time, and once it’s better, it’s no longer good enough. Efficiency is worked until it reaches 100%, then it’s redefined to start the game again. No waste is too small to eliminate. In business there’s no counterbalance to the economists’ false promise of never-ending growth, unless you provide it for yourself.
If you make the time, it’s easy to plan your day and your week. But if you don’t make the time, it’s impossible. And it’s the same for the longer term – if you make the time to think about what you want to achieve, you have a better chance of achieving it – but it’s more difficult to make the time. Before you can make the time to step back and take look at the landscape, you’ve got to be aware that it’s important to do and you’re not doing it.
Providing yourself the necessary counterbalance is good for you and your family, and it’s even better for business. When you take a step back and slow your pace from sprint to marathon, you are happier and healthier and your work is better. When scout the horizon and realize you and your work are aligned, you feel better about the work and, therefore, you feel better about yourself. You’re a better person, partner and parent. And your work is better. When the work fits, everything is better.
Sometimes, people know their work doesn’t fit and purposefully don’t take a step back because it’s too scary to acknowledge there’s a problem. But burying your head doesn’t fix things. If you know you’re out of balance, the best thing to do is admit it and start a dialog with yourself and your boss. It won’t get better immediately, but you’ll feel better immediately. But most of the time, people don’t make time to take a step back because of the blistering pace of the work. There’s simply no time to think about the future. What’s missing is a weapon to battle the black arts of productivity and accountability.
The only thing powerful enough to counterbalance the forces of darkness is the very weapon we use to create the disease of hyper-productivity – the shared calendar (MS Calendar, Google Calendar). Open up the software, choose your day, choose your time and set up a one hour weekly meeting with yourself. Attendees: you. Agenda: take a couple deep breaths, relax and think. Change your settings so no one can see the meeting title and agenda and choose the color that makes people think the meeting is off-site. With your time blocked, you now have a reason to say no to other meetings. “Sorry, I can’t attend. I have a meeting.”
This simple mechanism is all you need.
No more excuses. Make the time for yourself. You’re worth it.
image credit :jovian (image modified)
The Yin and Yang of Work
Do good work and people will notice. Do work to get noticed and people will notice that too.
Try to do good work and you’ll get ahead. Try to get ahead and you won’t.
If the work feels good while you’re doing it, it’s good work. If it doesn’t, it’s not.
If you watch the clock while you work, that says nothing about the clock.
When you surf the web at work, you’re not working. When you learn from blog posts, podcasts and TED talks, you are.
Using social media at work is good for business, except when it isn’t.
When you feel you don’t have the authority, you don’t. If you think you need authority, you shouldn’t.
When people seek your guidance you have something far more powerful than authority, you have trust.
Don’t pine for authority, earn the right to influence.
Influence is to authority as trust is to control.
Personal relationships are more powerful than org charts. Work the relationships, not the org chart.
There’s no reason to change right up until there’s a good reason. It may be too late, but at least you’ll have a reason.
Holding on to what you have comes at the expense of creating the future.
As a leader don’t take credit, take responsibility.
And when in doubt, try something.
Image credit — Peter Clark
You probably don’t have an organizational capability gap.
The organizational capability of a company defines its ability to get things done. If you can’t pull it off, you have an organizational capability problem, or so the traditional thinking goes.
If you don’t have enough people to do the work, and the work is not new, that’s not a capability gap, that’s an organizational capacity gap. Capacity gaps are filled in straightforward ways. 1.) You can hire more people like the ones who do the work today and train them with the people you already have. Or for machines – buy more of the old machines you know and love. 2.) Map the work processes and design out the waste. Find the piles of paper or long queues and the bottleneck will be right in front. Figure out how to get more work through bottleneck. Professional tip – ignore everything but the bottleneck because fixing a non-bottleneck will only make you tired and sweaty and won’t increase throughput. 3.) Move people and machines from the work to create a larger shortfall. If no one complains, it wasn’t a problem and don’t fix it. If the complaints skyrocket, use the noise to justify the first or second option. And don’t let your ego get in the way – bigger teams aren’t better, they’re just bigger.
If your company systematically piles too work on everyone’s plate, you don’t have an organizational capability problem, you have a leadership problem.
If you’re asked to put together a future state organization and define its new capabilities, you don’t have an organizational capability gap. A capability gap exists only when there’s a business objective that must be satisfied, and a paper exercise to create a future state organization is not a business objective. Before starting the work, ask for the company’s growth objectives and an explanation of the new work your team will have to do to achieve those objectives. And ask how much money has been budgeted (and approved) for the future state organization and when you can make the first hire. This will reduce the urgency of the exercise, and may stop it altogether. And everyone will know there’s no “organizational capability gap.”
If you’re asked to put together a project plan (with timeline and budget) to create a new technology and present the plan to the CEO next week, you have an organizational capability gap. If there’s a shortfall in the company’s growth numbers and the VP of business development calls you at home and tells you to put together a plan to create a new market in a new country and present it to her tomorrow, you have an organizational capability gap. If the VP of sales takes you to a fancy restaurant and asks you to make a napkin sketch of your plan to sell the new product through a new channel, you have an organizational capability gap.
Real organizational capability gaps are rare. Unless there’s a change, there can be no organizational capability gap. There can be no gap without a new business deliverable, new technology, new partnership, new product, new market, or new channel. And without a timeline and an approved budget, I don’t know what you have, but you don’t have organizational capability gap.
Image credit – Jehane
Creating a brand that lasts.
One of the best ways to improve your brand is to improve your products. The most common way is to provide more goodness for less cost – think miles per gallon. Usually it’s a straightforward battle between market leaders, where one claims quantifiable benefit over the other – Ours gets 40 mpg and theirs doesn’t. And the numbers are tied to fully defined test protocols and testing agencies to bolster credibility. Here’s the data. Buy ours
But there’s a more powerful way to improve your brand, and that’s to map your products to reliability. It’s far a more difficult game than the quantified head-to-head comparison of fuel economy and it’s a longer play, but done right, it’s a lasting play that is difficult to beat. Run the thought experiment: think about the brands you associate with reliability. The brands that come to mind are strong, lasting brands, brands with staying power, brands whose products you want to buy, brands you don’t want to compete against. When you buy their products you know what you’re going to get. Your friends tell you stories about their products.
There’s a complete a complete tool set to create products that map to reliability, and they work. But to work them, the commercialization team has to have the right mindset. The team must have the patience to formally define how all the systems work and how they interact. (Sounds easy, but it can be painfully time consuming and the level of detail is excruciatingly extreme.) And they have to be willing to work through the discomfort or developing a common understanding how things actually work. (Sounds like this shouldn’t be an issue, but it is – at the start, everyone has a different idea on how the system works.) But more importantly, they’ve got to get over the natural tendency to blame the customer for using the product incorrectly and learn to design for unintended use.
The team has got to embrace the idea that the product must be designed for use in unpredictable ways in uncontrolled conditions. Where most teams want to narrow the inputs, this team designs for a wider range of inputs. Where it’s natural to tighten the inputs, this team designs the product to handle a broader set of inputs. Instead of assuming everything will work as intended, the team must assume things won’t work as intended (if at all) and redesign the product so it’s insensitive to things not going as planned. It’s strange, but the team has to design for hypothetical situations and potential problems. And more strangely, it’s not enough to design for potential problems the team knows about, they’ve got to design for potential problems they don’t know about. (That’s not a typo. The team must design for failure modes it doesn’t know about.)
How does a team design for failure modes it doesn’t know about? They build a computer-based behavioral model of the system, right down to the nuts, bolts and washers, and they create inputs that represent the environment around the system. They define what each element does and how it connects to the others in the system, capturing the governing physics and propagation paths of connections. Then they purposefully break the functions using various classes of failure types, run the analysis and review the potential causes. Or, in the reverse direction, the team perturbs the system’s elements with inputs and, as the inputs ripple through the design, they find previously unknown undesirable (harmful) functions.
Purposefully breaking the functions in known ways creates previously unknown potential failure causes. The physics-based characterization and the interconnection (interaction) of the system elements generate unpredicted potential failure causes that can be eliminated through design. In that way, the software model helps find potential failures the team did not know about. And, purposefully changing inputs to the system, again through the physics and interconnection of the elements, generates previously unknown harmful functions that can be designed out of the product.
If you care about the long-term staying power of your brand, you may want to take a look at TechScan, the software tool that makes all this possible.
Image credit — Chris Ford.
Doing New Work
If you know what to do, do it. But if you always know what to do, do something else. There’s no excitement in turning the crank every-day-all-day, and there’s no personal growth. You may be getting glowing reviews now, but when your process is documented and becomes standard work, you’ll become one of the trivial many that follow your perfected recipe, and your brain will turn soggy.
If you want to do the same things more productively, do continuous improvement. Look at the work and design out the waste. I suggest you look for the waiting and eliminate it. (One hint – look for people or parts queueing up and right in front of the pile you’ll find the waste maker.) But if you always eliminate waste, do something else. Break from the minimization mindset and create something new. Maximize something. Blow up the best practice or have the courage to obsolete your best work. In a sea of continuous improvement, be the lighthouse of doing new.
When you do something for the first time, you don’t know how to do it. It’s scary, but that’s just the feeling you want. The cold feeling in your chest is a leading indicator of personal growth. (If you don’t have a sinking feeling in your gut, see paragraph 1.) But organizations don’t make it easy to do something for the first time. The best approach is to start small. Try small experiments that don’t require approval from a budget standpoint and are safe to fail. Run the experiments under the radar and learn in private. Grow your confidence in yourself and your thinking. After you have some success, show your results to people you trust. Their input will help you grow. And you’ll need every bit of that personal growth because to staff and run a project to bring your new concept to life you’ll need resources. And for that you’ll need to dance with the most dangerous enemy of doing new things – the deadly ROI calculation.
The R is for return. To calculate the return for the new concept you need to know: how many you’ll sell, how much you’ll sell them for, how much it will cost, and how well it will work. All this must be known BEFORE resources can be allocated. But that’s not possible because the new thing has never been done before. Even before talking about investment (I), the ROI calculation makes a train wreck of new ideas. To calculate investment, you’ve got to know how many person-hours will be needed, the cost of the materials to make the prototypes and the lab resources needed for testing. But that’s impossible to know because the work has never been done before. The ROI is a meaningless calculation for new ideas and its misapplication has spelled death for more good ideas than anything else known to man.
Use the best practice and standardize the work. There’s immense pressure to repeat what was done last time because our companies prefer incremental growth that’s predictable over unreasonable growth that’s less certain. And add to that the personal risk and emotional discomfort of doing new things and it’s a wonder how we do anything new at all.
But magically, new things do bubble up from the bottom. People do find the courage to try things that obsolete the business model and deliver new lines of customer goodness. And some even manage survive the run through the ROI gauntlet. With odds stacked against them, your best people push through their fears cut through the culture of predictability.
Imagine what they will do when you demand they do new work, give them the tools, time and training to do it, and strike the ROI calculation from our vocabulary.
Image credit – Tony Sergo
Don’t mentor. Develop young talent.
Your young talent deserves your attention. But it’s not for the sake of the young talent, it’s for the survival of your company.
Your young talent understands technology far better than your senior leaders. And they don’t just know how it works, they know why people use it. And it’s not just social media. They know how to code, they know how to prototype (I think the call it hacking, or something like that.) and they know how things fit together. And they know what’s next. But they don’t know how to get things done within your organization.
Mentoring isn’t the right word. It’s a tired word without meaning, and we’ve demonstrated we care about it only from a compliance standpoint and not a content standpoint. The mentorship checklist – set up regular meetings, meet infrequently without an agenda, lie it die a slow death and then declare compliance. Nurturing is a better word, but it has connotations of taking care. Parenting captures the essence of the work, but it doesn’t fit with the language of companies. But that may not be so bad, because the work doesn’t fit with the operations companies.
In the short term it’s inefficient to spend precious leadership bandwidth on young talent, but in the long run, it’s the only way to go. Just as the yardwork goes more slowly when your kids help, the next time it’s a bit faster. But the real benefit, the unquantifiable benefit, is the pure joy of spending time with irreverent, energetic, idealistic young people. Yes, there’s less productivity (fewer leaves raked per hour), but that’s not what it’s about. There’s growth, increased capability and shared experience that will set up the next lesson.
The biggest mistake is to come up with special “mentorship projects”. Adding work for the sake of growing talent is wrong on so many levels. Instead, help them with the work they’re expected to do. Dig in. Help them. Contribute to their projects. Go to their meetings. Provide technical guidance. Look ahead for potential problems and tell them they are looming over the horizon. Let them make the decisions. Let them choose the path, but run ahead and make sure they negotiate the corner. If they’re going to make it, let them scoot through without them seeing you. If they’re going to crash, grab the wheel and negotiate the corner with them. Then, when things have calmed down, tell them why you stepped in.
Your children watch you. They watch how you interact with your spouse; they watch how you handle stressful situations; they watch how you treat other children; they listen to what you say to them; they listen to how you say it. And when the words disagree with the unsaid sentiment, they believe the sentiment. Your children know you by your actions. You are transparent to them. They know everything about you. They know why you do things and they know what you stand for. And young talent is no different.
There is nothing more invigorating than a bright, young person willing to dig in and make a difference. Their passion is priceless. And as much as you are helping them, they are helping you. They spark new thinking; they help you see the implicit assumptions you’ve left untested for too long and then naively stomp on them and give you a save-face way to revisit your old thinking. When the toddler learns to walk, even the grandparents spring to life and spryly support them step-by-step.
Don’t call it parenting, but behave like one. Take the time to form the close relationships that transcend the generational divide. Make it personal, because it is. And when you have too much to do and too little time to invest in young talent, do it anyway. Do it for them or do it for the company, but do it.
But in the end, do it for the right reason, the selfish reason – because it the best thing for you.
Image credit – mliu92
Step-Wise Learning
At every meeting you have a chance to move things forward or hold them back. When a new idea is first introduced it’s bare-naked. In its prenatal state, it’s wobbly and can’t stand on its own and is vulnerable to attack. But since it’s not yet developed, it’s impressionable and willing to evolve into what it could be. With the right help it can go either way – die a swift death or sprout into something magical.
Early in gestation, the most worthy ideas don’t look that way. They’re ugly, ill-formed, angry or threatening. Or, they’re playful, silly or absurd. Depending on your outlook, they can be a member of either camp. And as your outlook changes, they can jump from one camp to the other. Or, they can sit with one leg in each. But none of that is about the idea, it’s all about you. The idea isn’t a thing in itself, it’s a reflection of you. The idea is nothing until you attach your feelings to it. Whether it lives or dies depends on you.
Are you looking for reasons to say yes or reasons to say no?
On the surface, everyone in the organization looks like they’re fully booked with more smart goals than they can digest and have more deliverables than they swallow, but that’s not the case. Though it looks like there’s no room for new ideas, there’s plenty of capacity to chew on new ideas if the team decides they want to. Every team can spare and hour or two a week for the right ideas. The only real question is do they want to?
If someone shows interest and initiative, it’s important to support their idea. The smallest acceptable investment is a follow-on question that positively reinforces the behavior. “That’s interesting, tell me more.” sends the right message. Next, “How do you think we should test the idea?” makes it clear you are willing to take the next step. If they can’t think of a way to test it, help them come up with a small, resource-lite experiment. And if they respond with a five year plan and multi-million dollar investment, suggest a small experiment to demonstrate worthiness of the idea. Sometimes it’s a thought experiment, sometimes it’s a discussion with a customer and sometimes it’s a prototype, but it’s always small. Regardless of the idea, there’s always room for a small experiment.
Like a staircase, a series of small experiments build on each other to create big learning. Each step is manageable – each investment is tolerable and each misstep is survivable – and with each experiment the learning objective is the same: Is the new idea worthy of taking the next step? It’s a step-wise set of decisions to allocate resources on the right work to increase learning. And after starting in the basement, with step-by-step experimentation and flight-by-flight investment, you find yourself on the fifth floor.
This is about changing behavior and learning. Behavior doesn’t change overnight, it changes day-by-day, step-by-step. And it’s the same for learning – it builds on what was learned yesterday. And as long at the experiment is small, there can be no missteps. And it doesn’t matter what the first experiment is all about, as long as you take the first step.
Your team will recognize your new behavior because it respectful of their ideas. And when you respect their ideas, you respect them. Soon enough you will have a team that stands taller and runs small experiments on their own. Their experiments will grow bolder and their learning will curve will steepen. Then, you’ll struggle to keep up with them, and you’ll have them right where you want them.
image credit — Rob Warde