6 characteristics to look for when assembling an advisory board

6 characteristics to look for when assembling an advisory board

Jul 31, 2019 | Governance, Leadership

Small and medium businesses need outside assistance in order to build the depth of capability that is required to compete effectively on the big stage that we now have.

I often advocate they have some sort of ‘Advisory board’ that delivers the guidance and experience to make a difference.

So, what sort of people should you look for to go onto that board? It is easy to suggest it be set up, but very hard to find the right people, particularly for SME’s with limited networks and resources to go and find these people.

Here are some of the characteristics that it seems to me are needed on such a board. It will be rare to find them all in one individual, and two brains are always better than one anyway, so look for some diversity at the same time. Of course, these are the personality traits you should look for, and are on top of the technical ones you may need, finance, engineering, marketing, and so on.

  • They spend a lot of time ensuring that the right questions are asked, rather than jumping to the answers.
  • They work from the challenge backwards to the current, rather than from the current forward. I call it hindsight planning when developing strategy, but it is also a mindset that ensures the problem being considered is adequately defined.
  • They are looking to learn themselves, from the competitive and  strategic problems they see, the people they encounter, and the differing options that emerge from considering a problem. The last thing you want is someone who already knows all the answers!.
  • They are biased towards action, rather than riding the status quo. Being prepared to take action, and sometimes be wrong, able to concede the mistake and move on again is a vital personal capability to seek.
  • They treat your resources, as if they were their own.
  • Underlying everything they do is the recognition that only by creating value for someone else can you move forward: Personally and commercially.

An alternative to an advisory board, is membership of one of the emerging ‘executive roundtable’ services, of which there are several. These ‘tables’ assemble the executives of non competing businesses into groups of 7 to 11, chaired by an experienced advisor and chair, and they act as each others advisory board. This model has the added advantage of addressing the hidden cost of the CEO of a medium sized business, loneliness. It is often a very lonely place, and such a table has a powerful social aspect as well as delivering great commercial value.

Everybody needs informed, and neutral advice and a sounding board to make better decisions. 

 

 

Long term planning is dead, long live long term thinking

Long term planning is dead, long live long term thinking

Jul 3, 2019 | Change, Governance, Strategy

 

Planning for the long term is a game for losers.

In a world where we have difficulty planning what will happen next month, locking yourself into a long term plan, which allocates resources, and makes binding decisions about the required capabilities, and how to build and deploy them, is crazy.
By contrast, long term thinking, retaining your perspective for the longer term, but being able to be agile in the shorter term, makes way more sense.

The makeup of the top 100 companies has changed dramatically in the past 10 years, and is unrecognisable from the top 100 of 1990. This should give us a clue.

Corporations of the 20th century grew by building scale, marketing, operational, geographic and financial. In the quest for scale they also built silos, bureaucracies, and cultures of  personal safety, risk aversity, and dependence on what worked in the past to  continue to work into the future.

Successful corporations now must be much more agile and responsive to change, even when they  are huge. The necessary process of devolving both authority and responsibility down the tree to where the interaction with operations really happens, makes them look more like a collection of smaller businesses than a corporate monolith.

The new model works. Perhaps the greatest example of this management about-face, while not of a commercial corporation, is the change in the US military retold  in Stanley McCrystal’s great book Team of Teams .

It is unstated, but the current political argument in Australia about the tax cuts legislation is an example of the failure of long term thinking. It substitutes a flimsy long term plan for intelligent long term thinking. Even worse, it is long term planning with an objective that is political, rather than economic or responsible. It is a wedge job on the opposition, and is a great example of why we do not trust politicians, and politics. We know such a long term plan, legislating for something as fundamentally important as a tax framework is nonsense. However, we accept the value of long term thinking, recognising the need to consider the manner in which tax rates make us competitive with other economies, at the same time as raising the revenue to deliver the community outcomes we all demand.

 

 

 

What price experience?

What price experience?

Jul 1, 2019 | Branding, Governance, Strategy

It seems to me that the development of robust, lasting, measureable and implementable strategy and marketing has gone to the dogs.

We are infested with short term rubbish that reflects the lack of experience of those doing the developing, and lack of understanding of those doing the commissioning, obsessed as they are with the short term.

Last week, Bloomberg revealed that the software in the Boeing 737 Max was outsourced to a bunch of recent graduates in India. Unfortunately, we all know the result of that exercise.

Not only were hundreds killed in the two crashes that followed, but the brand ‘Boeing’ took a dive with them.

How is that for the ROI on a few bob saved on experience!

You cannot put an old head on a young dog, all they do is yap.

Algorithm groundhog day

Algorithm groundhog day

Jun 19, 2019 | Governance, Innovation

In 1911, Frederick Winslow Taylor published his book ‘The Principals of Scientific Management’, which used logic and maths to describe the pathway to efficiency. It shaped the practice of management for the next 80 years, until, slowly, we realised that not all behaviour was rational, able to be broken down in a binary way. In fact, most of our behaviour is not binary in the way envisaged by Taylor. It is shaped by the forces that have driven our evolutionary success, best described by Daniel Kahneman in his great book, ‘Thinking, Fast & Slow’.

Increasingly I am seeing and reading stuff that reflects the explosive growth of AI, and the impact it will have on our lives, working and private. I cannot help but wonder if this is another manifestation of the same mistake that Taylor made.

Artificial intelligence will be a huge boon to all sorts of tasks, it is way better than we mere humans at all sorts of things, but it cannot, at least yet, reflect the nuances of human behaviour, and reactions to the things that makes us a successful species.

How will AI deliver us the elements of pride and accountability we have in a complex job, when that job is broken down into a series of sequential tasks to be done by the ‘recipe’ without variation? Where does the insight and creativity that comes from doing such a job emerge when it is being done by the numbers generated by a machine?

My mother in law used to do paintings by the numbers, her unit had quite a number of ‘originals’ by famous artists, all done by the numbers, with great care and attention, and the application of considerable skill in attending to the minutest details. However, they were not the  originals, not even great copies of the originals, they were by the numbers.

Algorithms are great, but not at everything.

 

 

 

8 things to remember about that hugely persuasive data.

8 things to remember about that hugely persuasive data.

Jun 17, 2019 | Governance, Marketing

‘In God we trust, all others bring data’ . This statement is generally attributed to W. Edwards Deming, way back in the 50’s.

It is as true now as it was then, with some pretty significant caveats. 

You need to know the provenance of any data you choose to use, as data is just data, and it can be managed, coalesced, manipulated, misrepresented, and outright lied about, so be careful.

Some things to remember.

  • Data is mostly history, and the future is rarely the same as the past. Data that is really a forecast should not be called data, it is a ‘best guess,’ or wishful thinking,’ or ‘what the boss told me to say,’ or ‘I need this to keep my job,’ or a thousand other things.
  • Data is always incomplete no matter how complete you think it is. There is always some level of context that can give it greater, or even a different meaning, that is missing. Part of the challenge is being able to make a decision without being overwhelmed and developing a form of ‘common sense blindness’, caused by a tsunami of data.
  • Data provenance is always useful to know. What is the source of the data? When it comes from customers, it may be more useful than when it comes from a supplier trying to sell you something. When you see claims like ‘This lotion has been scientifically proven to cure male pattern baldness in 92.5% of cases’, you know the ‘scientific test’ was done on 10 hairy blokes from the local footy side.
  • Data is objective, but the analysis of data is not. It is subject to a host of human emotions and contexts, and can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on the mood, experience, domain knowledge and a host of other things, of the analyser.
  • Data ages quickly. What was pretty right now, might not be so right in a years time.
  • The world is full of conflicting data, the challenge is to know which pieces to believe and use, and which to discard. Anticipating the actions of your competitor with the same set of data is a very useful exercise. Put yourself in their position and ask yourself what would I do now?
  • Data can distract, as we are visual animals, and visuals are a powerful way of communicating, so be sure that what is being communicated by those fancy graphs is actually what the data says.
  • Data should be able to tell us which is correlation, and what is simply some random causation. These two may be the two most confused states, and are certainly amongst the most used red herrings

Data should be one of the foundations of all our decision making, and we rarely have all we need. Therefore we are forced to make often difficult choices with limited data, implementing those decisions, measuring the impacts, and adjusting tactically as you learn. It pays to understand what you are relying on when you make those choices.

Cartoon header: courtesy www.XKCD.com

Where is the demarcation between Accountability, Responsibility and Authority?

Where is the demarcation between Accountability, Responsibility and Authority?

May 20, 2019 | Governance, Leadership, Management

The words ‘Accountability’ ‘Responsibility’ and ‘Authority’ are often mixed up, used inconsistently, and often as synonyms.

How often have I heard someone say they have accountability, but not the responsibility, as well as the opposite?.

In any organisation, the ‘language’ used has to be crystal clear. Without clarity, ambiguity and finger pointing creeps in.

Let’s put this one to bed.

In my world, the demarcation between these words is very clear.

Accountability.

The clue is in the word: ‘count’. The person with accountability is the one keeping track of progress, counting it. They may not have the power to make all  the decisions, their role is to be the one who gives voice to issues as they arise, and should be independent of the role the person plays in the organisational hierarchy.  In former marketing management roles I held product managers accountable for margins of the products for which they held responsibility. They did not set final prices, nor did they control the promotional spend or COGS, but they were accountable for margins, and it was their role to monitor, communicate, and persuade, to deliver both the percentage and dollar outcomes.

Responsibility.

Anyone who is in a position to ‘respond’ carries responsibility. An individual does not have to carry either accountability for outcomes, or the authority to make decisions to be responsible for actions taken, most particularly their own. It is in this area of responsibility that the cultural aspects of an enterprise are felt most keenly. When those without any institutional power feel attachment to an outcome, and act accordingly, they are exhibiting a level of responsibility, and it is a powerful marker to a positive, productive culture. 

Authority.

This belongs to the person who has the final say, the power of veto. Authority can be delegated, even to the lower levels in an enterprise. On a production line where there is an ‘Andon’ line in place, workers carry the authority to stop the line when they see a quality fault, rather than allowing it to proceed further down the line.

The larger an organisation becomes, the more nuanced and ambiguous these definitions can  become as people interpret their position and role, and that of others, slightly differently.

A regular and blatant misuse of the word authority occurs when it is used to point at someone who is expected to be an expert. The word sometimes carries the preposition, ‘an’, in front of it, becoming ‘an authority’, as in the header illustration. The doctor was used in the header ad because he was seen as ‘an authority’, and therefore had an opinion that should count, but had no authority over the actions of an individual.  

As a further example, In most organisations, the CFO is accountable for the cash. They literally count it, report on it, and recommend actions that impact on it. The CEO retains authority over the cash, as they have the final say in how it is managed and allocated, and everyone in the organisation has a responsibility to ensure that cash is spent wisely, with appropriate governance and reporting.

Having clarity around these definitions, and a culture that respects and responds to them, is crucial to any improvement process.