Michael Hyatt's Blog, page 35

3 Leaders Reveal Their Hardest Conversations

Here's What They Learned From Them

Building a successful organization requires interpersonal skills as much as knowledge of finance or marketing strategies. Perhaps the most important tool in the relational toolbox is the tenacity to have tough talks that lead to the sort of necessary change that makes growth possible.

Here, three individuals relate their most difficult conversations, revealing insights and advice applicable on a fairly wide scale. Their problems are likely to be yours at some point, if you are leading people.

Calling out a trusted team member

Addressing an individual’s poor decision making is never easy, especially if that person is a valuable part of the team and someone you want to continue working with long-term. The solution, says Shyam Krishna, founder of SKI Charities, is to empower that individual with more ownership over their role and the future of the organization as a whole.

SKI Charities supports local entrepreneurs in developing countries by providing microloans to women, giving them the necessary resources to lift their families out of poverty. In order the execute this mission, Krishna depends on project managers who are based in each country and are directly responsible for recruiting and developing entrepreneurs for SKI’s microfinance program.

During the organization’s growth in eastern Zimbabwe, Krishna discovered that one project manager was “overly-aggressive” in decision-making and enrolling beneficiaries who were not ideal for the program.

“She had been a stalwart member of our team and played a vital role in our early growth,” Krishna says, “so when I noticed this movement away from our core mission, I knew I had to speak with her about changing her mindset while balancing her continued engagement.”

Ultimately, Krishna reminded the project manager of SKI’s core mission, while also encouraging her to take an active role in creating and enhancing the company’s future vision. “With her involvement and ownership, she began to make decisions less as an employee and more as a leader herself,” Krishna says.

Giving the boss an ultimatum

While the onus for effectively tackling difficult conversation typically falls on leaders who need to address their subordinates, there are times when the need to initiate an important discussion starts at the bottom.

Before becoming the founder and CEO of business consulting firm Trebuchet Group, Chris Hutchinson was working under a leader who stifled his growth, taking over a number of his responsibilities once he had achieved success in those areas.

Hutchinson’s frustration was mounting.“I needed to help my boss do the role the business needed of him and let me do mine, or help transfer my responsibilities to him and leave the business,” he says.

Hutchinson presented his boss with two solutions: Either his boss would need to step back and focus on being the president of the organization, while Hutchinson exercised full autonomy as general manager, or Hutchinson would depart, transferring his responsibilities back to his boss.

“He chose the latter,” Hutchinson says. “Over the next few weeks, I coached him on how we would announce my transition…It was very difficult to leave my colleagues when I believed they would not be successful, yet I also felt I was in a no-win situation. The harder I tried to help, the less authority I had to be able to help.”

Hutchinson’s experience shows that not all difficult conversations will achieve an ideal result for both parties, but it’s important to have them nonetheless. His advice? Prepare in advance to ensure that your message is delivered with clarity and focus.

“A good friend gave me The Four Agreements book as I worked up the courage to present my boss with a clear choice and then follow through on that choice,” he says. “The book helped me make commitments to myself to do my best to be impeccable with my word, not make assumptions, and not take things personally. These lessons made a tremendous difference in that situation and have served me in other, difficult conversations with people at work.”

Owning up to your own mistakes

It’s estimated that one-in-five American jobs are held by contractors, and that, within ten years, half of the workforce will be comprised of contractors and freelancers.

For contract workers, the beauty of free-agent employment is the ability to assume full control over their schedule and work-life balance. But, in the face of poor time management and everyday life challenges, your schedule can quickly become an unwieldy monster.

As a self-employed attorney and mediator, Nance Schick has found that her most difficult conversations were the result of having to disclose her professional errors. This was certainly the case after a recent health crisis.

“I kept trying to work and thought I could get more done each day than I did, and this only made the work backlog pile up more,” Schick says. “This client’s project went further down my priority list each day, in part because I overestimated myself and made promises I couldn’t keep. Worse yet, I stopped communicating with her about my delays, thinking the project would be done before she even realized I was late completing it. I told myself this was okay because a lot of businesses operate this way, even if that is not how I run mine. But it was not okay.”

After recovering from laryngitis, pink eye, and a sinus infection, Schick was able to complete the project and submit it to her client for review. She also included and explanation, an apology, and a discount on her fees.

Since then, Schick has realized that it’s her responsibility to fully regain the trust of her client, but she’s also realistic in understanding that unforeseen circumstances may once again delay her productivity. Going forward, she plans to handle those situations with a different approach.

“First, I will be more realistic and honest about my schedule, even if it means I have to refer a project out to a trusted colleague,” she explains. “Second, I will notify the client immediately if I suspect a deadline won’t be met, and I will give the client a true opportunity to adapt, including by reassigning the project. Third, I will apologize by phone and allow the client to express her anger, disappointment, or whatever she feels.”

That may be a tough conversation to have but if she wants to grow, Schick believes it is a necessary one. “I must be the change I wish to see in others,” she says.

How to Have a Civil Conversation on a Tough Subject

Continue reading How to Have a Civil Conversation on a Tough Subject at Michael Hyatt.

Deliver Tough News the Right Way

3 Things to Remember When Things Go Wrong

Former BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward could have immediately and swiftly announced that the explosion of the British oil giant’s rig, Deepwater Horizon, had led to an environmental disaster that dumped 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010. But he didn’t.

Over a 10-day period, Hayward would go from downplaying the explosion as a “relatively tiny” situation to finally admitting that it was a “catastrophe.”

Digging deeper

Then Hayward dug himself a deeper hole a month later when, during a statement of sympathy for communities affected by the oil spill, he declared, “I’d like my life back.”

His handling of the bad news didn’t go down well with anyone, especially then-U.S. President Barack Obama, who declared that Hayward “wouldn’t be working for me after any of those statements.”

Nor did BP’s board of directors approve. By June 2010, Hayward was sent packing.

How bad could it be?

Certainly most of us will not have to deliver news of that magnitude. But sometimes, leaders just have to deliver bad news. It can be something merely tough to hear, such as a poor performance review, the loss of a contract, the shutdown of a key operation, or the cancellation of a new project.

Or it can be worse: the bad news has cascaded. It will now will lead to firings or layoffs. Or worse still: you may have to tell a colleague or their family members about the death of a loved one.

There will never be a good time to have a tough conversation. But if you don’t handle them well, worse things can and often do result.

Fortunately, you can learn from others better ways to have tough conversations. And three things seem to help more than others

1. Be upfront

In some many cases, you can learn from the mistakes of others.

When Ai Ching Goh launched project management software firm Piktochart in 2011, she faced one major hurdle. Two employees constantly bickered with one another to the point that no one on their team wanted to deal with them. After asking them numerous times to resolve their differences, Goh decided to fire them.

The conversations didn’t go well at all. Both employees felt “betrayed” by Goh even though she had discussed their issues with them. Why? As Goh admits, “I wasn’t well-equipped at having these conversations.”

By failing to be upfront and warn them about the consequences of their behavior before issuing their walking papers, Goh had blindsided them. Instead, she had sugar coated bad news about what their behavior might lead to. This made everyone, including herself, unhappier in the end.

Deliver bad news relatively quickly and honestly, suggests consultant Erika Anderson. Accurately describe the issue at hand. Lay out the possible and actual impacts. Be willing to set a deadline for conclusion, in cases where that’s appropriate.

Bad news honestly stated is always better than sugarcoating the truth. But you may want to do something first.

2. Be empathetic

Remember that bad news messes with people’s lives. It can ruin their days or become a major hurdle to get over. So spend at least a little bit of time putting yourself in their proverbial shoes before you deliver bad news. Think about what you want to say and the best way to say it. And it’s OK to commit some of that to note cards to keep from getting sidetracked.

Put the focus on them, not you, though don’t try to duck the personal either. Starting your sentences with “I” can help to build rapport, suggests corporate trainer Loren Margolis.

And while it’s important not to let your emotions get the better of you, if you feel something, don’t hide it. It can actually be helpful to the person on the receiving end to know that this is difficult news for you to deliver.

3. Be helpful

Finally, you should be helpful. You can’t change the bad news but you can cushion the blow by offering your support and even your networks to those in need of assistance.

When Makespace CEO Rahul Gandhi announced that a beloved teammate died suddenly, that wasn’t the end of it. He also helped organize a memorial service and brought in grief counselors to help his employees cope with the loss.

That was exactly the right call. As Gandhi told Entrepreneur magazine, “It took time for the business to return to a normal cadence, but her impact remains at the company today.”

The Gratitude Advantage

It’s easy to assume that the benefits of gratitude are primarily external. But the latest research reveals that thankfulness offers major payoffs on our side of the equation, too. Discover the advantages of gratitude—and specific practices to harness them—in this week’s episode.

A Thanksgiving State of Mind

What George Washington Understood

Thanksgiving did not become an official national holiday until 1941, but it had roots that extended back to the founding of the first American colonies. The Plymouth colonists in 1621 did indeed have a thanksgiving harvest celebration with local Indians, and apparently ate eel and venison (but maybe not turkey) as part of the festivities.

The Puritans of New England routinely declared days of fasting or thanksgiving, and they had perfected the thanksgiving proclamation by the late 1600s. One is struck today by just how specific these proclamations were. Good news of any kind could precipitate a day of grateful prayers.

Thanksgiving was not necessarily an annual event for them. It often followed a victorious battle or a bountiful harvest. Early American colonists assumed that all blessings came directly from the hand of God, and that it was right to recognize the source from whom those blessings came. Colonial American gratitude had a focus that some of us probably lack today.

Thanksgiving for everyone

Public acts of thanksgiving were overwhelmingly Protestant Christian affairs in early America, because the vast majority of the white population was Protestant. But other religious groups participated as well.

Jews in New York City, for example, joined in a day of “general thanksgiving to Almighty God” after a military victory in the Seven Years’ War. At New York’s Congregation Shearith Israel, synagogue attendees gave thanks to the “most gracious Lord of the Universe, GOD above all Gods, and exalted beyond the highest powers, the Great, the Mighty, and the Omnipotent.” That God was behind all their blessings and triumphs, they confessed.

Thanksgiving and revolution

By the time America entered the crisis leading to the American Revolution, the tradition of special days for publicly showing gratitude was well established. It was a given that in 1766, when colonists learned that Parliament had repealed the much-hated Stamp Act, the colonial governments would respond with days of thanksgiving and prayer.

Massachusetts led the way, with the governor encouraging the people “to express their gratitude to Almighty GOD for his great goodness” in relieving them of the stamp tax.

When the Continental Congress began meeting in the mid-1770s, taking on its emerging role as an independent American government, it immediately adopted days of thanksgiving. Thomas Jefferson, who as a Virginian was not as familiar with thanksgiving proclamations, recalled how he and the members of the Congress rummaged through old Puritan declarations in order to get ideas for the best wording. Members also hired a congressional chaplain to lead them in prayers of petition and gratitude.

A 1777 congressional proclamation set aside December 18 of that year “for solemn thanksgiving and praise, that with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves [set themselves apart] to the service of their divine benefactor.”

Such proclamations proceeded from Congress annually. As the war wound down in 1781, Congress celebrated the victory at the Battle of Yorktown with a recommendation that the people gather “with grateful hearts, to celebrate the praises of our gracious Benefactor.” And when the news of the Treaty of Paris arrived, officially ending the war in 1783, Congress asked that the American people “assemble to celebrate with one voice, grateful hearts, and united voices, the praises of their Supreme and all bountiful Benefactor, for his numberless favors and mercies.”

Thanksgiving, to the victorious Patriots, was meant for celebrating God’s gifts, but also for unity as they faced the challenge of becoming an independent nation.

Washington’s Thanksgiving, and ours

George Washington was treading a well-worn American path when he issued his famous 1789 Thanksgiving proclamation, acknowledging the ratification of the new Constitution and, implicitly, the beginning of his tenure as president. But Washington’s proclamation also set important precedents in the nation’s first year under the Constitution.

One precedent was observing Thanksgiving on the last Thursday in November. Abraham Lincoln would follow that schedule too when he declared a national thanksgiving day in 1863, an occasion which presidents would keep renewing annually until Franklin Roosevelt officially confirmed Thanksgiving as an American holiday in 1941. (He set it for the fourth Thursday of each November so Thanksgiving wouldn’t ever get too close to Christmas.)

On a more substantial level, Washington’s Thanksgiving proclamation set the precedent that national expressions of gratitude would be woven into Americans’ lives. Congress had formally recommended to Washington that he proclaim a day of thanksgiving “to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God.”

Therefore, in one of the loveliest presidential decrees ever composed, Washington recommended that the American people “all unite in rendering unto [God] our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.”

For Washington, Thanksgiving was about much more than turkey and touchdowns (he had never heard of a touchdown, anyway). It was about national unity through giving thanks; it was about gratefulness for “signal and manifold mercies.”

The Science of Gauging Time

Get It Right By Seeing Where You Go Wrong

This morning I had a list of four sizable items to accomplish. I knew it was an ambitious plan, but I tackled the day with confidence. I was determined to be a single-minded machine of efficiency, slaying tasks with unparalleled gusto. I started early, but it didn’t matter. As I write, it’s mid-afternoon and not one item has been fully accomplished.

This has happened before.

What goes astray? I usually notice something interesting in what I’m doing and decide to delve deeper, hoping to enhance my understanding or perhaps uncover a new connection. When successful, impromptu rabbit-hole journeys make solutions creative and ideas original. Unfortunately, not every trip ends in a moment of eureka. Some are just dead ends.

The same is true of most complex tasks. People imagine the simplest route of accomplishment when gauging time, but the actual process is rarely simple. Complications, inefficiencies, unexpected outcomes along the way and detours are the norm. Why, then, don’t we account for them?

In 1979, psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky noted the same trend and asked the very same question.

The planning fallacy

Kahneman and Tversky were an unlikely pair. Originally working in separate subsets of psychology, their relationship began when Tversky delivered a guest lecture. Kahneman’s response to the lecture was unexpected: “Brilliant talk, but I don’t believe a word of it.”

They would work together for years, publishing innovative ideas that have since become interdisciplinary in their reach. The men were especially interested in judgement and decision-making. They showed that although decision-making is rarely rational, it is often predicable.

Planning fallacy is a case in point. We aren’t just bad at estimating task duration. We specifically and predictably underestimate how long a task will take to complete.

This applies both to individuals and to larger, collaborative projects.

The Sydney Opera House is the most well-known example. Projected to take six years to completion and cost $7 million, a less ambitious version was completed in sixteen years, costing $102 million. Though perhaps an extreme example, it is far from unique.

Individuals don’t fare much better.

One study asked psychology students to gauge how long it would take to finish thesis-writing if everything went well or, alternatively, if everything went wrong. The students’ best-scenario averaged 27.4 days. The worst-scenario prediction averaged 48.6 days. The real time to completion? An average of 55.5 days. Even their predictions for the worst-case scenario were optimistic compared to the real data.

Learning to accurately gauge time

Knowing that people consistently underestimate the time necessary to complete tasks is only half the battle. If we want to combat the planning fallacy we need to understand why it exists. Three main theories emerge in the literature, each offering a slightly different solution to the problem.

1. The inside perspective

When the planning fallacy was first introduced in 1979, Kahneman and Tversky also presented a possible explanation. People, they argued, tend to tackle predictions using an inside perspective. They concentrate on singular information, thinking about aspects that might impact the task’s accomplishment. In doing so, they downplay potential problems, assuming ideal circumstances and task progression. This optimism bias is sometimes useful, but it also produces the underestimation seen in task duration assessments.

Proponents of the inside perspective theory recommend that people take a more externally-based approach to gauging time. Instead of thinking through tasks and assigning estimated durations, use history to inform your estimation. How long does it usually take you to complete a project of similar magnitude? If you are working on a group project, look at how long it has taken other groups to accomplish similar tasks.

2. Breaking it down

In an opposing hypothesis, Kruger and Evans argue that people don’t break down the components of a task when predicting how long it might take. To test this theory, they conducted a series of five experiments where they asked people to estimate how long a given task might take. People who were asked to break the task into its components provided longer, more accurate estimates. The more complicated the task, the more unpacking its components helped reduce the planning fallacy.

Their proposed solution is to more aggressively adopt an inside perspective. They recommend that people break each task down into chunks that are more easily assigned accurate durations.

3. Memory bias

Finally, Roy, Christenfeld, and McKenzie propose that people do take past experiences into account, they just remember them incorrectly. The only solution to this problem is to follow conventional wisdom: multiply your expected time solution by two or more, depending on how complex the project.

This simple solution is a good catch-all, given that we haven’t reached a full consensus on what causes the planning fallacy.

Plan for inefficiency

The main thrust of all three recommended solutions is that people take inefficiency into account when gauging time. How we do this is a matter of debate, but scholar agree that the most optimal path is rarely the path taken.

So next time you need to accurately estimate the time needed to complete a task, remember the planning fallacy. Whether you use past experiences, smaller task chunks, or simply multiply your original estimation, you should be able to come up with a more accurate assessment.

Getting It Doneness

Knowing When to Let Go and Let Someone Else Take It

The journalist W. James “Jim” Antle III was pressed up against a deadline on a story. He had been working with the material long enough that he doubted he could look at it with fresh eyes any longer.

So he sent what he had up the editorial chain with a note. The note said that he didn’t know if it was a good piece or a bad piece but that it had “the overall quality of doneness.”

That was the right call. Sometimes work product, particularly in a creative field, needs a second pair of eyes for it to be improved.

Multiple iterations

A first draft is almost never perfect. Instead, it’s like a rough sketch or a “thumbnail,” to borrow a term from the world of comic books. It provides the outline for the finished piece and helps writers and other professionals determine what sections to pay closer attention in refining the product further.

Employees in any number of other fields often can figure out these things on their own. After all, they’re professionals familiar with contours of their craft.

That only goes so far, though. Antle realized his reworked prose wasn’t making much progress. He was essentially pushing the cursor around at that point.

A good second pass helps everyone to find clarity. That next set of eyes can help provide a better sense of what works in the product and what doesn’t, helping to not only spot errors but step back and take in the larger landscape.

Expectations versus experience

Unfortunately, not everybody sees it that way.

Some bosses demand perfection on complex projects on the first go. That’s a tough standard under the best of circumstances. It’s near impossible when the team members are early in their careers.

Consider the case of a middle-managing editor charged with two direct reports that brought little experience to the newsroom. One was less than a year out of college while the other had never worked as a reporter.

You can probably guess the outcome. Virtually every story submitted had major issues, including basic grammar errors and misspelled names of judges, lawyers, law firms, you name it. The pieces were also peppered wth non non-sequiturs, or statements that seem to come out of nowhere.

Short story, long

These articles were nowhere near a state of “doneness,” in other words. And untangling the messes took time, to look names up, ask the reporters for clarifications, and further scrutinize the source material, just to get the basic shape of the story right.

A relatively short story that should have taken 20 minutes to edit could consume more than an hour. Longer articles not uncommonly took more than a half-day to move along. On top of this, the management insisted that all pieces passed up the chain be nearly-flawless, even though there were more sets of eyes that would see the product before publication.

This turned the editorial process itself into a giant bottleneck, which is hard to square with the concept of news deadlines. It was not a pretty picture.

Doneness when?

The idea of “doneness” that Antle found worked well for him and it could work for folks in a variety of fields as well. In fact, a good boss ought to digest this concept and encourage it in her staff.

When you have worked on a project for a long time, and the process of improving it is yielding ever-diminishing returns, you’re probably there. You have reached “doneness” and it’s a good time for someone else to step in. That shouldn’t be considered a knock against you, it’s just a fact of a healthy creative process.

Deadline Power

Use Time Pressure to Your Advantage

Legendary jazz composer Duke Ellington once said, “I don’t need time. I need a deadline.” If that was true for Sir Duke, it is also true for you. When you have set deadlines, you are more likely to stay on task, make the most of your time, and achieve success in every facet of your life.

Deadlines can be stressful, but you’ll find that you achieve a whole lot more with them than without them.

Focus and organization

There’s a reason why writers and editors say deadlines focus the mind: Because it is easy to lose track of time without them. Between the drive-bys at work, all the domestic distractions, and other detours, you can lose precious time needed to get things done.

One way deadlines can be used to keep on track is by using them as part of setting up (your list of your priorities)[https://michaelhyatt.com/5-reasons-wh...] for the next day. Set at least one realistic deadline for a key project as you review the following day’s schedule and think through how long it will really take to complete the rest of your agenda.

Another way to use deadlines is to force you to develop a plan for meeting them. After all, there’s nothing more frustrating to you and your colleagues than a missed deadline. By taking time to figure out what a deadline should be, you may find out the current due date is unrealistic and set a better one.

Meanwhile you can use deadlines to keep your colleagues on task. This will take more than just reviewing a schedule. As you set a hard deadline, you and your team develop a timeline and outline key steps that must be performed in order to get everything finished.

Maximizing effort

Chris Coletti, the trumpeter for the group Canadian Brass, uses Ellington’s statement as a (guiding tool)[ https://trumpetchrisblog.com/duke-ell...] for his life. Each day, he sets deadlines for everything from practicing notes to developing his performance style.

But it isn’t just about scheduling. As Coletti points out, simply changing the statement is his mind from “I need to practice at least an hour” to “I only have an hour to improve” focuses his mind on getting the most out of his time. This means only playing tunes (and listening to songs) that best help him hone his talent.

It would be even nice to take a (Focus Thursday)[https://michaelhyatt.com/thank-god-it...] (or another day of unscheduled time) and develop projects as well as complete other work. But those days should really be used for the big projects that just can’t be worked on during a busy schedule. Just as importantly, deadlines can actually keep you from dawdling on busywork that should be done quickly anyway.

Saying to yourself that you only have 30 minutes to answer emails or an hour to finish a weekly progress report, as Coletti suggests, is a key way to maximize the power of deadlines. You can also use the previous night to figure out what should be on deadline and what may not belong on your agenda at all.

Accountability and reward

Deadlines exist for another reason: To hold you and others accountable for not meeting them as well as to celebrate accomplishments. In many ways, a deadline allows you to take charge of your own circumstances even when so much of your life can seem out of your control. You’ll have to build sticks and carrots into deadlines in order to maximize their power.

One way is to include as many people as possible in knowing what the deadline. At home, of course, this means your spouse – and given the headaches of an annoyed spouse, awkward conversation, you will probably get the work done. The same is true if you include your boss in setting the deadline. If anything, your supervisor may set a firmer deadline, putting a fire under you to get things done.

What about your own staff? One way to encourage them to meet their deadlines is to set up weekly contests. Whoever meets the most deadlines can get a reward of their choice — be it a Starbucks gift card or a day off they can use later in the year.

The most-important accountability and reward tool for meeting deadlines? You. If you don’t take your own deadlines seriously, then it won’t matter. And if you meet a deadline, you can treat yourself to whatever you want.

How to Deliver on Deadline

Foolproof Strategies for Completing Projects on Time

Nobody likes deadlines, but they’re vital for keeping projects, new products, and major deliverables on track. Too often, major initiatives get bogged down by the weight of daily work, email, and meetings. Over the years, we’ve honed our ability to deliver big results on a tight timeline. In this episode, we’ll share three foolproof actions that virtually guarantee on-time delivery of a product or project.

But Will It Sell?

When to Discard Bad Product Ideas

Will this idea that you are considering lead to a product that sells? This is the hardest question you and your colleagues will ask yourselves every day. There isn’t always an easy answer.

Certainly you can easily dismiss the most outlandish product concepts, say a restaurant chain selling freshly-prepared pizza that people then take and actually bake at home. But you could miss out on the next Papa Murphy’s. You can outright reject product ideas that have already proven to be blunders for other firms in real time, like Apple’s Newton. But you could miss out on the next iPhone.

Even a simple extension of your existing product line may not work out. Reality television producers can easily point to cable network A&E’s struggle to spin off new versions of its longtime hit show Storage Wars. There’s also the reality that competitive pressures can lead to bad product decisions.

You will never foresee the future. But you can take two key steps in developing a process of vetting new product ideas that makes it easier to find the next big thing.

Start from the conclusion

Toy giant Mattel’s legendary Masters of the Universe was one of the most-successful brands of the 1980s, spawning the array of TV-driven toy lines that generations of children know and love. But it wouldn’t have been successful at all if not for an act of overpromising that forced the company to deal with a major flaw.

Driven by the company’s biggest blunder of the 1970s – passing up on a $786,000 license to produce Star Wars action figures – a group of designers dreamed up a product line inspired in part by Conan the Barbarian that would play on the growing market for action-oriented toys for boys.

By 1981, Mattel had already come up with the heroic He-Man, the villainous Skeletor, and weapons specialist Man-at-Arms. But when one of its marketing executives promised retailers that comic books and a television show would accompany the toy line, Mattel realized that it was missing something. They needed a premise, or storyline, that would drive how children would play with these toys.

Put into the awkward position of delivering a TV show that was never on the drawing board, Mattel slowly developed the storyline of the battle between He-Man and Skeletor for the future of the planet of Eternia and Castle Grayskull. This story came first through a series of comic books that accompanied each of the action figures, then through the cartoon, which would become the highest-rated children’s show of the early 1980s.

By 1986, Mattel was selling $400 million worth of Masters of the Universe action figures. This beat even its legendary line of Barbie dolls.

Few toymakers today would think of launching a product line without first coming up with a storyline, then working backwards, including fleshing out how the children will play. Nor should you. It is never enough to identify a market opportunity. Thinking through what the software or utensil should do and how it will fulfill the customer’s desires is critical to determining whether to go further.

As part of working backwards, you should bring everyone who will eventually work on brand production, including designers, marketers, even folks handling supply chain management, to think through all the elements and challenges that can come up before product launch. Even something as simple as buying new manufacturing equipment can end up chipping away at a product’s profitability.

Such teamwork can help you determine whether a potential product has a chance of being the next Masters of the Universe or a the next Airport Security Play Set.

Check your ego at the door

Yet as many an executive has learned, even the matter of deciding on brand extensions or spin-offs is a hard call. This is especially true if egos get in the way of accurately accessing product viability.

Soda giant PepsiCo learned this the hard way in 1993 when it launched Crystal Pepsi, a translucent, caffeine-free version of its flagship cola. Driven in part by the late 1980s to early 1990s fad of drinks and products that were clear and, in theory, healthier than existing offerings, PepsiCo spent two years developing Crystal Pepsi and testing it in a mix of large and smaller markets. Pepsi formally debuted it during Super Bowl XXVII with an ad featuring rock group Van Halen’s hit song, Right Now.

But within two years, Crystal Pepsi was off the shelves, having captured just one percent of the American soft drink market. Why? For one, despite all the market testing, PepsiCo never explained why consumers would want a healthier version of Pepsi (and with just 20 fewer calories than the flagship, it was a stretch anyway). The second reason: Crystal Pepsi didn’t taste anything like Pepsi, which also meant that there was no reason for its existence.

David Novak, the PepsiCo executive who developed Crystal Pepsi, admits that he could have saved the company embarrassment and money if he simply listened to more-skeptical colleagues as well as the bottlers who actually produced it. Says Novak: “I didn’t want to hear it. I was rolling the thing out nationally, and I didn’t listen to them.”

Novak isn’t the only executive or middle manager who let their ego and desire for greater brand power get in the way. Three decades ago, longtime executive James Kilmer observed that “Ego has driven managers to proliferate brand names across categories and industries” at high cost to brand reputations and profitability.

This remains true today. Even the launch of a premium product within an existing line can end up damaging the brand while boosting offerings from competitors, observes a team led by University of Georgia Associate Professor Marcus Cunha Jr., in a 2015 study.

There are numerous steps you should take before assessing whether a potential line extension is viable. These includes assessing whether a new product will cannibalize market share for an existing product and determining whether the technology or materials exist to produce the new product inexpensively.

But the most-important step starts at the beginning by you and your teammates checking your egos at the door. Because a new product idea is merely that, don’t get too invested in it right away. Give it a fair shake, certainly, and look into it. But don’t get so invested in making it a reality that you ignore the market reality right in front of you.