Sep 16, 2022 | Change, Governance, Strategy
In an economy desperate for productivity, how often does stupid, mindless bureaucracy get in the way?
This is not an argument against bureaucracy, rather it is an argument for strategic common sense. It is a nonsense to apply one standard across a myriad of differing circumstances, allowing no margin for reasonable error, then penalising tiny acts of reasonable noncompliance that do no harm.
A tale of woe.
One of my mates runs a small freight company based in a town in the central west of NSW with his two sons. He carries a range of agricultural goods, from grain to fertilisers to live animals, and has built a successful business by skilfully providing specialised services requiring investment in customised trailers designed to meet these specialised needs.
I spoke to him on the phone yesterday as he fumed at yet another example of bureaucratic stupidity making his life a misery.
One of his sons had been pulled up earlier in the day and fined $600 for being 40kg overweight in a 68,000 kg load of grain, loaded from a farm silo without a weighbridge. This is an error margin of .059%, hardly earth-shattering, presenting no danger to anyone, and absolutely understandable given the lack of expensive public infrastructure at the loading dock. The monitors on his axles, properly calibrated and checked, showed no overweight at the time of loading. His assumption is that one axle was in a very slight depression not visible to the naked eye in the loading area.
This is the second time in a few weeks this has happened.
His solution: get out. He can retire, remove the stress of running a small capital intensive business, and his sons will make more money doing something else. Meanwhile, the grain, and live animals he transports either stay where they are, or the costs of moving them go up dramatically as the haulage contractors either charge more to cover the risk of such tiny errors, or simply take less on board.
These standards are set and enforced by the ‘National Heavy Vehicle Regulator’ which has operations in each state. In NSW, there are 310 admin staff and 250+ compliance inspectors, according to their website. I wonder if any will jump in a truck to move the freight when my mate closes his business?
Who knows how the standards are set.
My assumption is that the big operators, Linfox, Toll, and perhaps a few others sit around with a few bureaucrats, agree some stuff, and go to lunch. The big operators go from weighbridge to weighbridge, they are unlikely to ever go up a muddy track to a paddock to take on a load of cattle or sheep to go to the abattoir, or a load of grain in an isolated silo going to a processor.
Is it any wonder it is getting harder to keep the supply chains moving, when the experienced owner-drivers are being driven from the chain by bureaucratic short sighted stupidity imposed for no good reason. The undertrained and inexperienced drivers being pushed in to fill in the gaps are a greater danger to themselves and everyone else on the road than a truck 0.059% overloaded, driven by an experienced driver with skin in the game.
Update: September 23, 2022. This ABC article dramatically underscores the point made in the post.
Aug 26, 2022 | Governance, Leadership
There is an additional and dangerous downside to former Prime Minister Morrison’s grab for power I have not seen aired anywhere.
Like everyone else, I have watched the emerging revelations with amazement.
The weight of commentary against the actions he took is total, even his supporters in the Liberal party are having trouble even talking about it, let alone justifying it. The solicitor general’s report confirmed what others had assumed. It concluded that there was no illegality in his actions, but that they were ‘inconsistent with the principle of responsible government‘
We live in a highly volatile and complex world, one where the cycle time required of decision makers is contracting, as the need for wise input born of diverse knowledge from different perspectives into decision making is increasing.
This is where I believe the other great threat to good decision making in the nations interest lies.
Our political system is good at weeding out any diversity of view, it demands adherence to the party line, and as a result, decision making suffers, badly. Good people with good ideas and wisdom inconsistent with that party line do not get a say. As a result, we have a parliament and supporting systems filled with careerists who understand the way to progress is to be yes men.
Anyone running any sort of enterprise facing complex problems understands the challenge. The best way to address those complex problems is to seek a variety of views from experts looking at the complexities from different perspectives. You then blend those views into a decision making process that enables clear accountability and continuous improvement of the outcomes as results emerge. This requires a culture that encourages diversity and transparency.
Morrisons power grab is that he removed any sense that there was a valid opinion on any topic other than his own.
Everyone comes to any situation with a perspective of their own, moulded by their life experiences, beliefs, and positions taken in the past. This is entirely normal. It reduces the cognitive load required to get through the day by allowing us to act almost on auto pilot for most of the time, leaving cognitive capacity to deal with the unusual.
Complexity by its nature has all sorts of second and third order impacts when you set about addressing that complexity. No one person can hope to see them all, or even a small proportion of them. It takes a wise group of diverse minds to focus on the problem from differing perspectives to anticipate those second and third order impacts.
So, just at the time when collaboration, diversity of opinion based on fact, and transparency is vital, the former PM goes the other way, looking at the problems faced by the nation only through his own particular version of the truth, an overload of confirmation bias.
He is the one who exhorted a church audience in Perth a few weeks ago not to trust governments, presumably in total ignorance of the reasons why public trust has been trashed, and the blatant hubris and hypocrisy of his words.
Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall the next time he meets some of his former colleagues in private?
Aug 24, 2022 | Governance, Leadership, Management
There has been an awful lot of trees cut down to accommodate the blather about the new world of post covid work. In an effort to condense the ‘debate’ and save a few trees, the following is what I have gleaned.
Humanity.
We humans are social animals, we need other people around us for our own psychological health and creative productivity. Therefore, the idea of general remote work becomes a potential mental health time bomb. We will adjust to it by mostly going back to the office. it is very unlikely to be 9 to 5, there will probably be more satellite offices, short term but regular meeting schedules, but back we will go in some form.
Proximity.
Physical proximity enables deeper communication than any other form. Even the distance apart in the office makes a difference to the nature of the communication we have with each other. Not just about work, but the tiny things that we do not notice until they are not there, and even then, often with hindsight only.
Trust.
Trust enables teams to work together. The less face to face contact, the harder it is the generate that trust, making teams harder to assemble, generate productive outcomes, then disassemble and reform for another project or purpose.
Belonging.
We are sustained by a sense of ‘belonging’. We are drawn to ‘people like me’ but when we do not see them, or see them only occasionally or over Zoom, the sense of belonging frays, leading to eroding productivity and sense of community.
WFH.
Working from home for many has been great, not having that commute every day. It is convenient for many. However, convenient is not always good for us. Going to the gym every day may not be convenient, but it is good for our health.
Leadership.
Leadership and the nature of that leadership has never been more important. In the past we had a few leaders, and a lot of managers. In a world where remote work is a consistent part of the output, just being a manager will not cut the mustard. We need more leaders, and have not trained them, which indicates problems for many, and opportunity for the few in the coming few years.
Alignment.
The alignment of priorities and performance measurement and the place each individual has in the scheme of this is critical. When an individual cannot see how their efforts contributes, to both those in their immediate vicinity and to the overall objective, the effort will become diluted. Working remotely in the absence of that focus on priorities and outcomes will lead to real productivity challenges for the enterprises, and personal ones for the individuals.
Culture.
Culture is a function of the leadership, and how the leadership permeates the organisation. Building a culture in a remote workforce is more challenging than when face to face is the norm. Some have done it well, but mostly they are the enterprises that have started life as remote enterprises, so those who join, and remain, have the right ‘remote work DNA’ from day 1. The holding company of website builder WordPress, Automattic springs to mind. Founder Matt Mullenweg set out to make the company completely remote from day one, but even he has co-working spaces in places where employees are concentrated.
Technology.
Technology is what has made this remote working possible, but it is also planting the seeds of our own disassociation with those we need around us for our own well-being. Like most things, too much of anything good becomes a problem.
Clearly, we are not yet ‘Post covid’. However, the workplace has changed over the last 2 years, and while the jury is still out, when it comes back the status quo will not be the same as pre covid.
There has also been a lot written about the great resignation, and its relationship to covid. My suspicion is that it is not covid specifically that has driven the change, although covid was the catalyst. The model we have been using to get the work done was over a century old, and getting pretty creaky. Covid acted as the catalyst for many to simply reconsider their working lives in the light of the tools that have emerged in the last 10 years, and they chose to make a change. Enterprises must adapt to these new models of work. Those that can’t will become rapidly extinct.
What have I missed?
Header cartoon credit: Tom Gauld
Aug 3, 2022 | Governance, Leadership, Management
We are in a climate of uncertainty. The next twist in the Corona pandemic, war in Europe, confrontation with China, and the daily scrambling at all levels of government, stacked onto the usual challenges of making decisions in a business, all make the current situation especially difficult.
The instinct is to wait a bit and see how it evolves.
However, having a bias to action, being prepared to do the groundwork, consider options that take a calculated risk, being prepared to back away with the learning of being wrong and having another go, is a key leadership characteristic in uncertainty.
Essential to leadership is taking decisions with less than complete information. You must then be prepared to adjust on the run, or even retreat when the planning assumptions are proven to be off target. However, there is a danger in being too aggressive. Sometimes delaying a decision is the best strategy. It is a critical balance.
Following are some ways you can bring some order to the decision-making process.
- Gather as much data as you can, but in uncertainty, it is the ‘gut’ of deeply experienced people who have ‘been there done that’ which often makes a critical difference to the quality of the outcomes from the decision. By definition, in highly uncertain times, there may not be much relevant data available.
- Ensure those experienced people are heard in the decision-making process. Ensure ‘due process’ is observed
- As part of the consideration exercise, undertake a ‘reverse 5 why‘ exercise.
- Ensure you have what I call an ‘Andon‘ system in place. This term comes from Toyota, where there is an ‘Andon chord’ which anyone on the production line can pull to stop production in order to prevent a fault progressing to the next stage, and being hidden as a result. It works for Toyota, and has been adopted widely elsewhere as a means to deliver consistent quality
- Gather as many ‘metaphors’ and similar situations in other industries as you can, there will be lessons there. For example, disc brakes were developed first to stop trains in the 30’s, and aeroplanes during WW11, as drum brakes were woefully inadequate. Citroen introduced the first successful mass production of discs on their ground-breaking DS in 1955, and now they are on every car made.
- Leverage ‘reverse planning’ and ‘What if’ questions. Every decision is based on both data and some level of instinct. When considering the future, few questions are as powerful as ‘What if….’ Being prepared by asking a wide range of questions that subject the assumptions often made automatically, often without consideration, will prepare for the unexpected.
- Be very clear about the problem being solved. Any decision can have second and third order impacts, so consider them beforehand as far as possible.
- Never move away from being customer centric. When this becomes a slogan, or ‘core value’ whose only role is a place in the reception of head office, beware!
- Don’t be a wimp. Make the tough calls while being transparent that not all the information you may like is available, but that the very least it will be a learning experience.
As a final note, good decisions can sometimes deliver poor outcomes, and the reverse is also true, bad decisions can lead to good outcomes for all the wrong reasons. Do not confuse the two.
Header cartoon credit: Gapingvoid.com
Jul 22, 2022 | Governance, Management
EBITDA is one of those acronyms that often appears in the accounts and narrative supposed to explain the financial outcomes of an enterprise. The meaning is often unclear to those unfamiliar with accounting jargon.
It stands for: Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortisation.
It is always a number near the bottom of the profit and loss statement, often confusingly also called the Income Statement.
Earnings. This appears at the bottom of the income statement, often called net profit. It reflects the outcome of all trading activity of the business. Sales revenue, minus the costs of doing business.
Before: Before, is before…. Who would have guessed? The items that follow are non-trading items that nevertheless impact on the cash of the business. They are all items that are further deductions from what the owners of the business will see in their pockets, but not directly attributable to trading activity.
Interest: We all know what interest is, we borrow money, and the cost of that borrowing is the interest we pay to the lender. A business is no different, it borrows money, it pays interest. However, the source of the funds used to operate the business has no impact on the trading activities, and is therefore excluded from the trading results.
Tax. When you make a profit, you pay tax. Simple, unless you are a multinational with a head office somewhere tropical. However, the payment of tax on profit has no impact on the operations of the business, so has also been excluded.
Depreciation. Assets wear out with use and need to be replaced from time to time. Including a number reflecting the depreciation of assets is again a non-cash item that has no impact on the trading activity, but can have a very big impact on the cash flow when assets are replaced.
Amortisation. This is similar to depreciation but applies to intangible assets. Assume the business purchased a competitor, paying an amount above the net asset value of the purchased business, but whose trading results are included in the numbers. You may want to write down that nominal overpayment over time to bring the value of the business, as reflected in the balance sheet back to closer to the net realisable asset value of the combined businesses.
The benefit of an EBITDA number is that it enables comparisons over time, and between businesses, even across industries. The downside is that there is no regulated formula for calculating it, there is discretion allowed, so beware of the weight you put on the final EBITDA number.
Header credit: Scott Adams and Dilbert, never confused by a good acronym.
Jul 19, 2022 | Change, Governance, Innovation
There must be some sort of magic in the water supplied to the Santa Clara valley, just outside San Francisco, originally famous for its orange groves. What started as a ‘nick-name’ for the area in the 70’s, stuck, and we now know it as ‘Silicon Valley’.
Somehow, that same water has infected other places and times, leading to an extravagance of brilliance. Athens in the time of Aristotle, Rome in the time of Marcus Aurelius and Seneca, the Florence of Leonardo and Michelangelo, Paris in the 1920’s that spawned Picasso, Monet, and Modigliani, Hemingway and Scott Fitzgerald. Even a little pub in Oxford with a writers club, calling themselves ‘The Inklings’ that delivered three of the most popular books of all time, Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and Chronicles of Narnia from the pens of C.S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien rates a mention.
Futurist Kevin Kelly in a 2008 blogpost, looked at some of these creative clusters over time and concluded that there were four common characteristics:
- Mutual appreciation. Appreciation implies polite clapping, but real appreciation requires the injection and debate of contrary views, critical peer review, and competition driven improvement.
- Rapid exchange of tools and techniques, facilitated by the common language and competitive instinct moderated by the mutuality of a ‘safe haven’
- Network effects, and the geometric nature of influence and information when something interesting happens.
- High tolerance for the novel, and different, with barriers to prevent the status quo responding. The renegades are protected by the herd, rather than expelled
Kelly concluded that these groupings of genius were spontaneous, and self-supporting over time, and the best you could do was ensure you do not kill it. They also occurred after a time of considerable social and economic disruption caused by war, rebellion, and plague. Catastrophe it seems leads to innovation, as many if not most of the usual institutional barriers to change are removed, and there is a hunger for the new to replace the old.
Lurking amongst these four common characteristics are several other common elements. There may have been mutual appreciation and exchange of tools and techniques, but there was also fierce competition. Michelangelo and Leonardo were ferocious competitors, Monet and Picasso never agreed on anything. The characters involved in the morphing of a slice of semi desert into Silicon Valley, William Shockley, Sherman Fairchild, Gordon Moore, and the companies they worked for and founded were intensely competitive, while building on the successes of their peers.
Also present is a communal meeting place and ritual, usually in a coffee house or pub, as in the ‘Inklings’ meetings in the Eagle and Child pub in Oxford. These places were the key node in the generation of the network effects that characterises all these innovative ecosystems. They are the neutral, informal point from which the magic water of innovation is first dispensed.
These informal places attract intellect and experience from diverse fields, enabling a range of perspectives to be brought to the discussion table that can then be applied to complexities and problems in entirely new ways.
As we observe the world we are now in, on its own, the Corona pandemic might qualify as a catastrophic incident, sufficient to create another explosion of innovation. It could be easily argued that it has already created such an explosion. The rapid development of mRNA vaccines involved networks of researchers, companies, and public funds from around the world to commercialise with unprecedented speed, technology that has been slowly evolving for 30 years. On top of that, we now have another war in Europe, which has kickstarted the restructuring of the global economic and political status quo, shattering the ‘globalisation’ of trade and giving huge impetus to the development of renewable energy. Together with the rise of China, and the relative decline of the US, this surely rates as a global geopolitical pivot point.
How can Australia leverage this seismic restructuring of the global order?
If Kelly’s observations have any validity, and to me they reflect what I have seen over a long career, we should consider our strategies in the light of the constraints imposed by the current status quo, and rebuild those guiderails in a more appropriate manner. Constraints are useful for innovation, only so long as they direct the process productively.
- Divert academic attention from the necessity to spend significant time chasing grants and dealing with bureaucracies to keep working, to creating safe spaces for intellectual exchange and competition. The pub and coffee houses of the past have been partly replaced by Slack and Zoom, although the value of face to face cannot be understated. The tools are there, the guiderails are just in the wrong places.
- There must be a shared mission that motivates and engages the best minds. This will be the catalyst to assembling the resources enabling the pressure to innovate to be felt. Public funding is essential, but the governance of that funding needs to be driven by those funded, and in a position to leverage the outcomes, rather than by non-scientific bureaucrats and political appointees.
- The ‘field’ in which the ideas will be planted needs to be fertilised and watered consistently, again over a long term if the seeds are to germinate and grow. There also needs to be the recognition that many seeds will not germinate, and they must be seen as a learning experience, not a failure.
Sadly, our mindset works against this.
It is a mindset built by the 20th century, one characterised by a combination of catastrophe in the first half, and unprecedented advances and comfort in the second. However, it is now the 21st century, and the institutions that evolved in the 20th are inadequate to accommodate the 21st.
Unless we can change, we will remain hobbled.
The header photo is of the Eagle and Child pub in Oxford where ‘The inklings’ met from the early 1930’s to 1949.
