Hairstyling 101 for CI practitioners: defining intelligence needs.

Scott Swanson, Oracle, scott.swanson@oracle.com

After writing my previous scip.online article on lessons learned from military intelligence, I received some very inspiring communications from people very much like myself, those who are figuring out CI, selling CI to management, or simply settling in to their new roles as a CI professional. Most e-mails or calls were similar to the ones I put out earlier to other people to gain additional perspective on improving my job performance and my organization’s competitive positioning.

I am always looking for a new way to tap resources, obtain hard to find intelligence, or learn new techniques to work with leadership. Hearing that so many others were in similar situations made my daily quests a little less lonely. To me, it’s akin to college calculus classes, when I couldn’t grasp the lesson and felt like I may be the only one being confused, judging by the poker faces of my peers nodding affirmatively during the lectures.

Encouraged by your support, and having some spare time while riding home in a cab, I’ve written about a rebuttal tool for getting requirement definitions from senior people. It’s a bit different, but I hope it is of value as it sometimes just takes thinking outside of the box and throwing a person off guard. I have found many of the short commuter length SCIP articles perfect for new techniques to use during the day or as great final thoughts to my day’s end. Many of the longer e-mails people send me with best practice suggestions would also be great submissions. I would encourage more people to put their thoughts to pen or keypad and share ideas.

Headhunting as intelligence

My professional career basically started as an executive headhunter. Many would say recruiter or staffing professional, but I was not an HR representative. I worked for a private search firm in a “boiler room” setting, banging out calls on the phone, developing human assets for referrals or inside corporate information, and using an extensive amount of rebuttals to close clients and candidates. My job was not to place actively looking people in jobs, but to receive a client request and then hunt for the appropriate person, anywhere in the corporate world. Pretty simple parallels can be constructed from the intelligence community to this headhunter role.

Contrary to most beliefs, the hardest part was never the hunting and networking, but getting requirement definitions from the client. Often, I was speaking with a CIO or CFO who would simply say, “I need a senior-level person with a background of X, Y, Z, and I needed him yesterday. Do you have anyone for me to talk to tomorrow?” More often than not, I didn’t have someone in my back pocket right then, but with more details I could find someone shortly.

No details on the details

Oddly enough, clients didn’t like to elaborate on the details of the person they needed, the roles they would perform, future growth opportunities, the cultural environment, or personalities that would fit best. These are all details that would make my hunt easier with a greater percentage of immediate success if I had clearer definitions.

Despite many attempts to convince the client that I needed more information, they refused to expand on details citing lack of time. “Do the best you can with that, see what you find, and I’ll tell you if it’s what I am looking for.” Sound familiar?

In the intelligence area, not much is different when internal clients request various competitor or threat projects. Note that I am not talking about details involving need-to-know or issues of security. This is simply someone initially not taking the time to provide enough detail to make a project successful the first time. Why won’t leadership take the proper time to define requirements up front, instead of taking more time later revamping findings and resetting expectations?

Reasons for dearth of details

In my experience, I have found a few general reasons for this lack of detail:

• Management doesn’t know what they want until they see it (and even then that’s debatable).
• They don’t view the intelligence practitioner, headhunter, whomever, as worthy of their immediate time.
• They see the practitioner as being so successful in the past that knowing what is best will materialize on its own at the right time.

I have had success in intelligence projects and hunting candidates by consulting my own internal crystal ball. But had I known up front what the exact need was, I would have saved a lot of energy and thought process that could have been redirected toward more results-oriented efforts. I have also flown by the seat of my pants, taking the less confrontational approach with management and re-consulting that crystal ball of mine. That usually resulted in my working a long weekend because I missed the target. (Again, sound familiar?)

So how can this situation be rectified? Is there an easy way of convincing a senior manager that more details are needed despite the fact that it may require more due diligence on their part before making the request?

Well, I won’t say it’s an easy way, and it won’t always work, but as a former mentor told me, “While some rebuttals won’t work all of the time, all rebuttals work some of the time.” I present: The Haircut.

Defining haircuts

I have had more success with this rebuttal than any other in convincing a client that I need more upfront details to create a more successful outcome. And I (you) can phrase it as simple as this:

We can all relate to receiving a haircut. We can also relate to changing barbers or stylists to a new person who knows neither you nor your hair. The first time you sit down with someone new or see the same stylist but you want something done differently, you tell him or her just how you want it. Not only does this give them a clear idea of the cut you want, but they can commit this to your history, and even pattern the cut from existing hair lines and scissor trails the next time.

My barber knows me, knows how I like my hair, and starts cutting by the existing hair pattern, calculating the time elapsed since my last visit without taking much time up front. If I want something new, we cover the general details, but don’t need to go too far into them. Other times, a suggestion I may make to the barber about a style change I want comes back in a form of gentle suggestion that it won’t look right on my head or with my body (I think a pear was the word used).

If I see a different person for a cut, I can give an overview of what has been done in the past, quickly detail how I like it, and even show in front of a mirror where more attention should be paid. My initial consultation with my client is similarly as important to ensure that an unwanted outcome does not happen.

Defining intelligence needs

When I started defining needs with the leadership at my present employer, some were willing to spend the necessary time while others were not. Those that were not willing to elaborate learned a bit about ‘Hairstyling 101 For Intelligence Practitioners.'  If we could set certain parameters up front, detail a pattern, establish time concerns, areas to avoid, and spots to focus on, we wouldn’t need to spend so much effort the next time-- unless a new request came about that was significantly different from the last.

Most leaders caught on to the concept and the benefit I was attempting to convey. Equally important, the executives saw a person who, when tasked with the assignment, valued their own time and wanted to conduct the investigations or operations efficiently and precisely. This leads to a greater respect towards the individual providing the intelligence findings.

Don’t get me wrong, we still do end up with a few bad hair days and some cuts that seemed better in concept, but in the end as the leaders gave the requirements to work on, we can always say, “Well, looks good on you.”

However, in the interests of job security, we must not forget how easy it is to start looking for a new barber.


Background:

Scott Swanson is the current Director of Intelligence for Oracle Corporation’s CEO Office.  There, his primary strategic and tactical focus is on competitor’s pricing and licensing practices. Previously, Mr. Swanson has worked for Big 5 management consultancies, operated a successful Executive Search firm, and has done extensive Competitive Intelligence contracting. His professional interests are in Intellectual Property containment and counterintelligence exercises. Scott is bald and never goes to a barber-- just kidding. He can be reached by phone at 312.651.8001.

Copyright 2003 Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals

scip.online, issue 23, January 23, 2003