Nov 15, 2024 | Governance, Leadership, Management
We tend to think that the person on the top of the pyramid has the power to do whatever they wish within the boundaries of reason and the law.
To some extent this is true but there remains only five tools they can use.
Volume.
Price.
Costs.
Culture.
Strategy.
Everything in a business stems from these five fundamental tools when they are focused laser-like on customers..
A leader that has at their fingertips a few simple metrics that reflect these five tools, and focuses attention on the drivers will be successful.
The first three are quantitative. The fourth, culture, is much harder to define quantitatively. However, there are measures that will deliver insight, such as staff churn, Surveys into items such as psychological safety, diversity of training, thought, and experience, and team collaborative success.
Strategy is also qualitative, in that it cannot be measured except in hindsight, by which time, it becomes useful only as a lesson, and driver of future strategic choices.
The combination of culture and strategy, when they are mutually reinforcing, and aligned is a potent combination, that drives the quantitative allocation of resources, measured in outcome by revenue, price and costs.
Header generated by the newest shiny thing in a subsection of the toolbox: AI.
Nov 10, 2024 | Governance
Last Wednesday evening I was at a small(ish) gathering of about 50 owners of SME’s as news came through of the US presidential election result.
It seemed everybody in the room was aghast.
Not only at the result, but at the size of it, and the continued failure of pollsters to even get close to calling it. This was despite the money and media time spent discussing, dissecting, and forecasting in the lead-up.
Now the question of the week is ‘how will it affect us?’
Speculate all you like, but the only thing we know for sure is that change is happening at an accelerating rate around us.
A quick look around the web at election results around the world over the past decade shows a consistent pattern: Voters are an unhappy and vindictive lot, increasingly demanding change that the established body politic fails to see and respond to. The result is that the global political status quo is heading for the round file. In its place is a fragmenting and polarised electorate providing fertile ground for dissention.
Look at what has happened in Australia over the last 20 years.
The Labor party currently holds the prime ministership with 33% of the primary vote at the last federal election. The coalition in its various forms scored 36%. Greens 12%. One nation 5%, United Australia 4% with 10% rats and mice. Since 2007 when Howard was dumped by the electorate, we have had Rudd, Gillard, Rudd, Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison, and Albanese sitting in the ejector chair. 7 changes over 17 years. Hardly a picture of stability, and who would be certain that in March next year we will not have another change.
We are at an inflection point.
Irrespective of who holds sway in the big house, climate change will march ahead, as will the changes wrought by technology. Conflict will increase in direct proportion to our inability to control it. The location of world manufacturing will continue to swing towards Asia as the compounding effects of Wrights law combined with technology turns the so called ‘western world’ into a manufacturing shadow of its former self. New materials emerging from AI driven labs will goose the rate of innovation in climate tech, zero carbon footprint, and the electrification of the world, while the social fabric is torn apart.
My generation, and the one that follows, which is largely now running the joint, are leaving a legacy for my grandchildren that history will judge poorly.
Oct 24, 2024 | Governance, Leadership
The cost of a wrong hire is huge, and for an SME can be devastating. Not only do you lose the money put into the process, but you also lose the time of those engaged, the opportunity to find that perfect candidate, and perhaps most importantly, the damage that a wrong hire can do for the implementation of the key activities for which they were hired to do.
The damage that a wrong hire can do to those remaining and the culture of the organisation after the problem is fixed can also be devastating.
There are a lot of fancy consultants out there with all sorts of testing regimes that claim to uncover the best candidate. They can add considerable value when used well.
However, we humans evolved successfully by being able to pick those with whom we could work harmoniously and productively, those who could earn our trust, and on whom we could rely. While we make mistakes, trusting our instincts drawn out by that most primitive of communication methods, talking, is the real test.
Over the years I have done a lot of recruiting for those for whom I worked, as a manager and advisor. Not all worked, mistakes are made, but a significant majority went on to add great value to their employers. When you make a mistake, recognising it early, and correcting it quickly benefits both parties in the long run. However, there are a range of conversation starters, often called questions, which can reveal the ‘fit’ a candidate will have with, and the contribution they can make to an organisation.
Why are you here today? This can reveal the personal motivation of the candidate, rather than enabling them to just respond about the skills they bring to the role. It turns it around to look at the ‘why’ they are seeking a new job. Having a real motivating driver is way better than just a general, ‘I need a job’ sort of response.
How would you like to be remembered? This can be asked in several ways, so that the response to those with whom you worked, and those to whom you were linked in more personal ways.
Would you rather be respected, liked, or feared? Often the response to this can reveal the leadership style they have, or believe they have. There is no right answer, but the ‘fit’ to the context of the role they may be walking into is important.
How would those around you now describe your personality and management style?
Very few are able with any accuracy to see themselves through the eyes of others. However, the response to this question can tell you a lot about their own self- image.
What would your current boss say if I rang him asking for a reference?
As with the question about how their peers would describe them, this question goes to their self-image. It also will provide cues about how they relate to the formal hierarchy
Tell me about the times you have failed? This question often puts people off, as they are cued into thinking about the success they have had, and how they might translate into the environment for which they are interviewing. Failing is a part of learning, and you can learn a lot from a conversation about the failures of a candidate, what led to them, how they responded, how they worked themselves out of the hole. And indeed, is it one of the failures that led them to be sitting in front of you now?
What did you want to be when you were a kid? This one can be a good conversation starter, and lead to discussion about the path towards where they are now, and why they took the choices they did along the way
Show me how you walk the talk. A conversation will always reveal what people want to be revealed, particularly the more personal things, hobbies, personal style, passions they may have commented on, so I dig into them. Once while interviewing for a plant engineer, I asked a candidate that question, and his response was along the lines that he was able to get people on the line to talk freely to him, to help him diagnose problems and opportunities they faced every day. Then he surprised me by saying ‘let me show you’. He stood up, grabbed a dust coat and hat from the stand in the corner of my office, and said let’s go. We walked into the plant where he demonstrates conclusively the ability he had just spoken about. He did a terrific job for a number of years afterwards, before being poached for a much bigger job, which he also did with distinction.
Can you tell me a joke? I would leave that to late in the day, but it can reveal how well they think on their feet, and communicate in an awkward environment, and connect to those with whom they are communicating.
Header cartoon credit: Dilbert’s mate aces an interview question: courtesy Scott Adams.
Sep 18, 2024 | Analytics, Governance
Economic Value Added, EVA, is another of those annoying acronyms accountants tend to use to confuse simple marketers. Therefore, it is a term marketers must understand if they are to hold their own in the boardroom.
EVA is a calculation used to measure the net cash flow from an asset, after taking into account the cost of the capital necessary to acquire that asset. It is often a part of a business case made to support a major investment or M&A proposition.
There are a couple of calculations that need to be made, all from the standard company accounts.
- The net cash flow is obvious, what comes in versus what goes out, as a result of deploying the asset.
- The cost of capital will be some combination of the cost of equity and the cost of necessary borrowings.
When the net cash flow is greater than the cost of capital, the asset is generating value. When it is less, it is destroying value.
The formula is simple: EVA = Net cash after tax – capital invested X the weighted cost of that capital.
The shortcomings of an EVA calculation are twofold:
- It is based on the past. The cost of capital yesterday is unlikely to be the same tomorrow. Interest rates bounce around, and the mix of debt and equity while not as volatile does change with circumstances.
- Increasingly business transactions are being done on the basis of intangibles. Costing the replacement value of intangibles, is a practise lacking discipline, consistency, and financial rigor.
Building a business case for an investment always requires deep consideration of the cash flow results of that investment. By definition, that requires a forecast of the future be done as the driver of that cash flow.
It is always easier to take the past and extrapolate, than to spend the time and energy building a strategic case for an investment. A strategic case requires that the relative costs and benefits of differing choices be articulated, in an environment of information scarcity. A much more demanding task than constructing a future that is the same as the past, and hoping that this time, it will be.
Header illustration by AI, in a few minutes.
Sep 9, 2024 | Governance, Leadership, Strategy
Amongst the tsunami of gratuitous advice on the web about how to manage remotely, whether you be the team leader, or a team member, there is a critical piece missing.
Depth of strategic thinking.
Regular and managed team video gatherings, as well as a range of individual catch ups for assistance, follow up, mentoring, and all the other things that go on, are tactical.
Particularly in times of crisis and high stress, it is sensible and natural to focus on tactical execution. However, tactical can only take you so far, and in the absence of a strategic framework, can lead you astray quickly.
Consider breaking out specific sessions for the discussion of the strategic issues and questions that emerge. They remain in place irrespective of the current crisis, whatever that may be.
Strategic depth is not something generated in a series of quick meetings. It requires data, forecasts, scenarios and deep discussion and contemplation by people who know the box from the outside, as well as from the inside.
These deeper questions of strategy usually reside in the ‘very important but not urgent‘ basket. In the absence of being addressed, they will be forgotten. Worse still, they will be over-ridden by short term tactical outcomes that would not have been allowed to evolve with sensible strategic oversight in place.
We are social animals, our best work is done when people get together, and together look to solve problems and pressure test assumptions. This takes time and human engagement. Verbalisation of ideas, questions, and explanations is only a small part of ‘Communication’. Face to face, there are a myriad of non-verbal nuances and contextual contributors to ‘communication’ that are lost over Zoom or Teams.
Failing to accommodate these human interactions will destroy your capacity to generate the insight necessary for deep and productive strategic thinking.
Header credit: Tom Fishburne at Marketoonist. Thanks again for encapsulating a difficult idea in a cartoon.
Sep 6, 2024 | Governance, Leadership, Strategy
Opportunity cost.
The mistakes you make of Commission are the ones by which performance is judged. They show up in a profit and loss and balance sheets of businesses. However, when you pass up a golden opportunity that turns out to be a winner, that ‘cost of potential profit’ does not show up anywhere.
It is a mistake of omission, not commission.
Those of us who failed to buy Apple shares when they were less than a dollar in 2003, and similarly, NVIDIA shares when they were $1.30, might see a missed opportunity. Both now trade at well over 100 times those prices.
However, such mistakes are acceptable when the opportunity is outside what Warren Buffett calls a ‘Circle of competence’. This is the area where you have the expertise to understand the opportunity being offered, but fail to accept it.
In the case of Apple and Nvidia, they are both outside my circle of competence. Therefore, I did not know enough to recognise the opportunity. Had I been immersed in the IT industry it might have been clearer.
Buffett’s seven rules for successful investing, summarised, are:
- Hire only intelligent people with integrity.
- Pay attention to facts, not emotions.
- Buy wonderful businesses, but not ‘cigar butts’
- Buy only stocks you understand.
- Seize the opportunity.
- Don’t sell because of price fluctuations.
- Buy stocks below what they are worth.
Passing up an opportunity that turns out to be something you should have grabbed, with the benefit of hindsight, means you have failed to give yourself an adequate answer to one, or more, of three simple questions.
- How much cash would the opportunity deliver to you?
- When are you going to get it?
- How sure are you?
Buffett and his late side-kick Charlie Munger are widely seen as geniuses. I suspect Mr Buffett would be embarrassed by that label. He might respond that all he did was follow the simple 7 rules, something most cannot do.
