Apr 18, 2022 | Governance, Leadership
Words are important, crucial to the effective communication and intent of an idea being articulated. Without the right words, well delivered, the idea will not have any oxygen, so be still-born.
This notion is applicable to every type of situation, from the casual conversation at a social gathering, to the articulation of major strategic choices.
There is a sequence that seems to be successful when making everything from a cold call to a full-blown strategic proposal. I have observed this sequence being successful over many years in many situations.
- Identify the big change that creates the opportunity you are intending to address.
- Demonstrate how the change will create winners and losers. Nobody wants to be on the losing side
- Envision the promised outcome post the project implementation
- Introduce the positive features of the idea as the catalyst to overcome the obstacles and deliver on the promise
- Present the hypothesis/evidence that delivery on the promise will follow naturally from effective implementation.
In addition, there are two ‘secrets’ to the delivery that while obvious, most seem to miss.
The first is in the manner of the delivery.
A flat, wooden delivery and the words will carry limited weight, will not elicit any emotion in the listener. By contrast, words delivered with passion, and obvious commitment to the outcome will be met with a more emotional response, which will either engage or turn off the listener.
The second is in the choice of words.
There are always many ways to articulate a message. Therefore, choosing the right words, the ones that build the attention and emotional response in the audience is fundamental.
Read the words of the great speeches, without conjuring up the mental image of the original speaker, and some of the power is lost. Churchill’s ‘we will never surrender’ speech, Martin Luther kings ‘I have a dream’ speech are great examples. Now read them again with the image in your mind, and the power returns.
One further thing that can make magic, is the power of the moment.
Churchill, newly installed as Britain’s PM as France surrendered, facing a catastrophic defeat, and King in front of 250,000 people on the steps of the Lincoln memorial in 1963. In the moment, King changed the text he had written adding the immortal words: “I have a dream’ to the list of changes he wished to see for his fellow Americans. Both used the moment to conjure emotional magic from the ether with words and passion.
Compare those to Albo’s 5-point plans, and Scomo’s blizzard of pithy sound bites, and know why we are so desperate for some genuine leadership.
Header credit: Courtesy ‘First dog on the moon’ cartoon frame.
Apr 11, 2022 | Governance, Personal Rant, rant
On Sunday as the 2022 election was being called, I was sitting in a café in one of those affluent strips observing life, and gathering my thoughts.
It occurred to me that the blather we are all now about to face will avoid any reference to the key question that should be addressed: the growing distance between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’, and how to redress the balance.
This is not about the cost of living, price of petrol, or availability of some subsidised form of income. It is about the national income, and the way governments of both persuasions over the last 50 years have let the money required for schools, hospitals, aged care facilities and all the rest slip through their fingers, while ensuring some sticks to selected fingers on the way through.
A brief economic history lesson, recognising I am neither an economist nor historian.
Towards the end of WW11, recognising the coming challenges of post war reconstruction, the allies set about removing the danger of the wild ride that had been the relative value of currencies up to that time. The result was an agreement amongst the allies in the little New Hampshire town of Bretton Woods. That agreement laid out the mechanism by which post war currencies would be tied to the price of gold, pegged at $US35 an ounce. The US dollar became the ‘reserve currency’, a guarantee to exchange an ounce of gold for $US35. At the time, the US was about the only solvent nation, and held most the world’s gold in Fort Knox (Remember ‘Goldfinger’). The International Monetary Fund was created as a part of the agreement as a release valve to address short term fluctuations.
The laws of supply and demand being what they are, the value of gold outside the official control of central governments soared, leading to an active unofficial gold market where it was traded for multiples of $35. Trouble is, you had to move the stuff, and it is heavy. (Goldfinger again)
Over time the core problem of a fixed currency regime became obvious. Money is international, it can be moved and exchanged globally, while the regulatory control of any one country ends at their borders. The obvious example of this disconnect is the so called ‘pirate’ radio stations positioned in the North Sea just outside the international boundary of the UK. These popped up because the BBC which controlled all the UK radio stations refused to play the emerging ‘Pop’ music of the 60’s and early 70’s. Being outside the border, the BBC could not close them down, but those who wanted the music could listen as easily as they could to any other radio station, just move the dial a bit.
Analogous to the pirate radio stations, the gnomes in Switzerland who were sitting on huge and very private sums of hidden wealth that could not be easily used by the owners created their own pirate system: bearer bonds. These enabled those hidden fortunes to be put to work, not only earning interest on the loans, but increasing the capital value of the investments, previously impossible.
By the late 1960’s the Bretton Woods system was clearly broken, and the US terminated the convertibility of US dollars to gold at the fixed $35 in 1971, followed closely by the pound sterling, and other major currencies. In effect we then had floating exchange rates, in an environment where countries still had regulations that stop at their borders, while money is globally mobile. It did not take long for countries to recognise the value of attracting this previously inaccessible capital by a range of means around low tax rates, banking secrecy, and personal anonymity. The lawyers and accountants since then have made this disjoint between the mobility of money and the static nature of sovereign borders a financial bonanza for those individuals and organisations with the money and will to hide their assets and ensure they do not pay tax. Hundreds of billions have been looted from the system by these ‘legal’ means, leaving those with insufficient income to fund the legal complexities to hide their income to pay for the schools, hospitals, and aged care facilities we are all demanding.
This is, to my mind, the core challenge of this election that will not be spoken about.
Labor policy is to collect tax from multinationals by denying deductions for royalties to related parties. This makes sense, but will be hard to enforce, and does not address the inequities in other huge areas of tax minimisation and avoidance. Besides, when sovereign rules change, the tax arrangements of corporations and individuals change as well, moving to a more accommodating regulatory environment. On top of that, those who make the rules are also the ones who benefit, so while there might be some ineffective fiddling at the edges for a press release, real change which requires global collaboration and endorsement currently is just a pipe dream.
However, the first step in solving any problem is to recognise that we have a problem.
Unfortunately, this conversation will not be started by either party in this coming election. For the long-term health of Australia, and Australians, as well as every other person on the planet, apart from the tiny minority of looters, it is a conversation that needs to be started, and followed through.
I need another coffee after all that.
Mar 14, 2022 | Governance, Leadership
Integrity is something we all say we strive for. Most statements of company values plastered on the reception wall seem to have it included.
The dictionary definition is something like: ‘the quality of being honest, having strong and unchanging principles‘
Trust and integrity seem to me to be a continuum? At one end, is integrity, the personal determination to do the right things. At the other is trust, the belief of others that you will do the right thing.
Trust is something that must be continually renewed by performance to be retained. In most cases, there will be an automatic quotient of ‘trust’ given at a first meeting. The more similar two parties are, the greater will be that ‘auto-allocation’ of trust.
After that, it is retained and earned by the behaviour displayed over an extended period. Trust is easy to lose, very hard to earn back.
You build trust by always meeting commitments, or, when there is a commitment that will not or cannot be met, there is a clear acknowledgement of that outcome, and responsibility is taken.
What is to be done, by whom, and by when is clear, unambiguous, and fair.
When you meet all your commitments, by the due date, or alternatively when they are unable to be met, that fact is clearly communicated beforehand, and responsibility accepted, integrity will be built.
This is a vital component of leadership, and of the ‘Cultural glue’ that makes up a successful institution. Others need to be able to trust that to be cliched, ‘your word is your bond’.
It also has significant implications for those that are being led. The casual relatively thoughtless acceptance of some sort of task and/or deadline that you know you cannot or are unwilling to meet is no longer acceptable.
When you accept a task and deadline, you must meet that acceptance with completion.
Many times, I have seen people in a meeting accept tasks that everyone knows will not be adequately addressed by the deadline. This is both bowing to authority and making your short-term life in the meeting better at the expanse of the longer term, and your own integrity.
The same process applies to institutions. We tend to want to trust them, and the people running them. However, when the people fail the integrity test, we tend to lose faith not only in the people, but in the institution as well.
I wonder, do those in Canberra who seek to lead us, understand the idea and its foundations?
Header cartoon credit: Scott Adams and Dilbert, again, have my thanks for a cartoon that makes my point.
PS. to the cartoon. Integrity may not buy you a boat today, but it certainly will tomorrow.
Feb 23, 2022 | Analytics, Governance
The old adage that you can find data to support any proposition, almost no matter how wild, has never been as prevalent as it is today.
We have the sight of politicians on the one hand telling us the science is wrong as it reflects the looming catastrophe of climate change, while at the same time lauding science in the way the world has responded to the covid pandemic with new vaccines in record time.
The contradiction is extreme, however, there is always data to ‘prove’ whatever point is required.
Following are some of the common ways data is manipulated to mislead, misinform, and bamboozle the unwary.
- Confusing correlation with causation. This is very common, and I have written about it on several occasions. Just because the graphs of ice cream sales and shark attacks mirror each other, does not mean one caused the other.
- The Cobra effect. This refers to the unintentional negative consequences that arise from an incentive designed to deliver a benefit. The name comes from an effort by the British Raj to reduce the number of cobras, and associated deaths that occurred in Delhi, by offering a bounty on each dead cobra. Entrepreneurial Indians started to breed them for the bounty. The identical situation applied when the French wanted to reduce the rat population of the French Indochina. They stuck a bounty on rats’ tails, which resulted in enterprising Vietnamese catching the rats for their tails and then releasing them to breed further.
- Cherry Picking. Finding results, no matter how obscure, that support your position, and excluding any data that might point out the error. This is the favourite political ploy, having a great run currently.
- Sampling bias. Relying on data that is drawn from an unrepresentative sample from which to draw conclusions. It is often challenging to select a sample that delivers reliable conclusions, and often much too easy to select one which delivers a predetermined outcome. Again, a favoured political strategy.
- Misunderstanding probability. Often called the gamblers fallacy, this leads you to conclude that after a run of five heads in a two-up game, the next throw must be tails. Each throw is a discreet 50/50 probability, no matter what the previous throws have been. Poker machine venues rely on the players increasing belief that the ‘next one’ will be the ‘jackpot’ after a run a ‘bad ones’ for their profits.
- The Hawthorne effect. The name comes from a series of experiments in the 1920’s in the Hawthorne Works factory in the US producing electrical relays. Lighting levels were altered minimally to observe the impact on worker productivity, and concluded that they improved when lighting was increased, but later dropped. The effect of the lighting was later disproved, when psychologists recognised that people’s behaviour changes when they are, or believe they are, being observed. This can be a nasty trap for the inexperienced researcher conducting qualitative research.
- Gerrymandering. Normally this refers to the alteration of geographic boundaries, usually in the context of electoral boundaries. It can equally be used to describe the boundaries set around which source data can be included in any sample. ‘Fitting’ the data to deliver the desired outcome. The term originated from the manipulation of electoral boundaries in Boston in 1812 when the then Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a bill that created a highly partisan district in Boston that resembled the mythical salamander. The national party held government in QLD for 32 years until 1989 as a result of a massive gerrymander in their favour, perhaps better remembered as a ‘Bjelkemander’
- Publication bias. Interesting or somehow sensational research is more likely to be published and shared than more mundane studies. In this day of social media, this becomes compounded by the ‘echo chamber’ of social platforms.
- Simpson’s paradox. This describes the situation where a trend evident in several data sets is eliminated or reversed when the data is combined. An example might be the current debate about university admissions favouring males over females. If you take subsets of the data for different faculties, this may be true, but combine the faculties, and the numbers will be virtually even, perhaps even favouring females. This was demonstrated in a study of admissions to UC Berkely in 1973 and is a regular feature of misleading political commentary.
- McNamara Fallacy. This comes about when reliance is placed on data only in extraordinarily complex situations, ignoring the ‘big picture’, and assuming rationality will prevail. The name comes from reference to Robert McNamara, US Secretary of Defence under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson who used data to unintentionally lead the US into the disaster that was Vietnam, later acknowledging his mistake.
Using data to is an essential ingredient in making your case, as they convey rationality and truth. When listening to a case being made to you, be very careful as numbers have the uncanny ability to lie. To protect yourself, ask at least some of these eleven questions.
Header illustration credit: Smithsonian. The drawing is of the electoral district created by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry in 1812 to ‘steal’ an election.
Feb 21, 2022 | Governance, Management
Not all accountants are created equal, and not all do the same job.
All businesses have two types of information required, for which they need three types of accounting functionality.
There is the regulatory and compliance accounting, which can be a simple as the quarterly GST return for a small enterprise, to hugely complex set of statutory accounts for a public company, particularly when it operates in several jurisdictions.
Then there is the management accounting, the numbers used to manage the business on a daily, monthly, and annual basis. These are entirely different tasks, although use common data sources, the ledgers that record activity, and various devices and processes to collect the data for recording.
After making that distinction between compliance and management accounting, assembly of the range of skills necessary to deliver the outcomes is often overlooked.
Data assembly.
You need people to assemble and reconcile the data. These can be less qualified and experienced people, and the processes of collection and initial recording are increasingly being automated. Nevertheless, the processes that track and capture the numbers are vitally important to be proactively created, maintained, and improved. The rigor of the collection and ‘cleaning’ of data will determine the confidence that later processes can have in their numbers.
Accounting compliance.
Failure to follow the rules can result in legally enforceable penalties. Therefore, compliance is of critical importance for external stakeholders, but is largely irrelevant to the management of the business, for which an entirely different suite of skills is needed.
Analysis and presentation.
This is where accounting meets marketing. Either of the two by themselves will tell only a small part of the story. List the numbers and people will ignore them, or be asleep, no matter how important the words. Just use story and metaphor without the foundation of numbers, and you will be dismissed as a typical marketing person, fluffy and unreliable. It is a case of one plus one equals three. If you do not get this combination right, there will be suboptimal outcomes as the wrong decisions will be taken, opportunities missed, and resources misallocated. This third skill requires both the numeracy of the accountant, and future telling ability of the seer. An unusual and often derided individual.
In my case, my friends who are accountants run for the hills when I remind them, that I am in fact, one of them. Meanwhile, many marketers, particularly those under forty, think I am some sort of marketing troglodyte because I do not believe everything in marketing begins and ends with a digital solution.
As Peter Drucker pointed out all those years ago, “the purpose of a business is to create a customer“. The reason you do that is obvious: to generate revenue, from which you make a profit assuming the business is well managed.
Understanding and leveraging the means by which all the marketing jargon is converted into cash, is the core of a successful marketing function in any business. There are thousands of things every business can do without, and still function, the one thing no business on earth can function without is cash.
Therefore, marketing is about cash generation, short, medium, and long term, future tense. Accounting is about counting how much cash there is, where it came from, and where it went, past tense.
One without the other is suboptimal. When you find both in one person, do not let them go.
Feb 7, 2022 | Governance, Management
Successful people will tell you to concentrate on the things you can control, be aware of, and prepared for those you cannot. Stressing about those you cannot control adds no value, the best you can do is anticipate the impact they may have, and shape your response in advance.
Managing a business is the primary example of an environment where managers sometimes obsess about things out of their control. Meanwhile, they often ignore or undermanage those they can control, and that deliver sustainable returns.
There are many components to a successful business, the only one that is common to all is cash. It is like oxygen to people, we cannot survive without it.
Therefore, it makes sense to ensure that in every decision you take, part of the consideration is the impact on cash.
Too often I see decisions made, that on the surface make some sense, but when deeper investigation occurs, are counterproductive. The most common is the almost instinctive urge to drop price to meet some competitive pressure, usually accompanied by reassurances that volumes will be increased as a result. 4 times in 5, it results in less cash, and less profitability. Management is way too often surprised at this outcome.
There are 7 things you can control, broken up into two buckets represented by the income statement and balance sheet, that have a direct impact on your cash position.
Price
Volume
Margins
Overheads.
Accounts receivable
Inventory, or in a service business, Work in progress
Accounts payable.
The first 4 are recorded in the income statement or profit and Loss, which records the revenues coming in, and costs going out that are directly influenced by trading activity.
The last three are recorded in the balance sheet, reflecting the cash value of the business and are again directly influenced by management decisions.
Each of these 7 components are linked in a macabre commercial dance, every action on one can and often does, influence most if not all of the others to varying degrees.
It is the responsibility of management to manage these levers to deliver the maximum return to the business, and ensure that decisions made are in line with the strategic priorities.
No business can survive without cash, so it is incumbent on every employee, even if just in their own self-interest, to look after the cash of the business as if it were their own.
