The two things we have to achieve for our grandchildren

The two things we have to achieve for our grandchildren

Oct 31, 2019 | Governance, Leadership

Yesterday I listened to a hysterical condemnation of Woolworths, who had come clean to the Employment Ombudsman when they realised they had underpaid staff.

Another example of big business rorting workers, or more evidence of the impact of overwhelming complexity of a system causing self implosion?

Woolworths is the biggest private sector employer in the country, so it is reasonable to assume they have the will and resources to ensure employees are paid properly. On the other hand, with the complexity of the award systems, staggered and differing shifts, varied hours of operation, and the sheer number of people moving from one job classification to another, across locations, the complexity of the payroll must be staggering.  

Over the millennia, as we humans have become more ‘civilised’ and our social and commercial systems more sophisticated and complex, from the early Greeks through to today, there has been an increasingly delicate balance at play.

Varying supply systems and the bureaucracies that control them, deliver the means by which the surplus from our collective endeavours is distributed. While the cost of that complexity is less than the revenue generated, we continue to become more complex. Once we reach a tipping point, where the revenue generated is less than the cost of the management bureaucracies that enable it, we become pointed at shitters ditch.

Look at almost any part of the ‘management’ systems in a democracy. There are always competing priorities, with vocal advocates on all sides. The tax system, NDIS,  defence, social welfare, personal power Vs institutional power, and on, and on, and on. In Woolworths case, the responsibility to get employees pay correctly compliant with various agreements and regulations, while remaining in control of, and extracting maximum return from the biggest expense incurred in operating, is such a balancing act.

It seems to me we have reached if not passed the tipping point.

As Hemingway asks in the Sun Also Rises:

‘How did you go bankrupt?‘

‘Two ways:  Gradually, then suddenly”

Unless we find ways to address just two challenging items, we will continue to slide, as complexity increases, goals become more fluffy,  and accountability diffused .

Those two items:

Priorities.

Focus.

We have to identify and prioritise the few key things upon which the future of our children and grandchildren are based.

We then have to focus resources on their achievement. It will be long term, incremental, and politically difficult, but the alternative is ugly.

The challenge is the same for any enterprise as it is for the country, only the scale is different, along with the accountability. After all, politicians have 3 or 4 years to make a start, depending on the location, while public companies have  to make adjustments quarter by quarter or be castigated by the stock markets.

I wonder if we mere mortals have the grit and foresight to act?

A very rare few do, they are not mere mortals, they are true leaders.

Have you seen any recently?

 

Cartoon credit: Scott Adams and his mate Dilbert.

 

 

 

A critical antidote to confirmation bias.

Oct 28, 2019 | Governance, Leadership, Management

Confirmation bias is a seductive bitch.

We see what we expect to see, the things that confirm our existing views and expectations, to the exclusion of alternatives. When taken to extremes,  loonies like holocaust deniers, and the ‘no vac’ lot emerge and sprout their fact and logic free poison, and attract a small following, and the rest of us just fail to understand how.

We humans tend to see things as if we were looking out a window.  It consumes less cognitive energy when patterns of the past are just assumed by our brains to be repeated, so that is the brains default. The further back from the window, the narrower the view, but however close you get, there is still a restriction.

The challenge therefore is to find an alternative window through which to look at the problem facing you, or better still, assemble a few others with different windows through which they look at the same problem.

Do  not just  think outside the box, get another box!

One way to use this different box, or window, to continue the metaphor, when facing a challenge is to ask better questions, ones that force the challenge to be examined from different perspectives.

  • Why is it so?
  • Where is the leverage?
  • Have we described the problem correctly, or just the symptom?
  • What is the pain point?
  • What has to be true for this outcome to emerge?
  • For this expected result to become about, which assumptions have to be accurate?
  • What happens if we do not decide?
  • What does this challenge look like in other arenas?
  • Are we relying too much on data?
  • What does the behaviour of others when confronting this really look like?
  • Is the data we have reliable, or has it been ‘managed’?
  • How is this different?
  • Have we simplified the challenge sufficiently for a solution to emerge?
  • What would the devils advocate say?

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Driving change in a business means butting heads with confirmation bias.

This is why you need a distinct catalyst to kick it off, and keep it running, for the change process to be successful.

Ask better questions!

Are SMART goals redundant?

Oct 16, 2019 | Governance, Innovation, Strategy

 

Goal setting and the subsequent resource allocation decisions taken to address the goals are an integral part of every management job, no matter where on the organisational totem that job stands.

Setting goals appropriate to the level at which they are being implemented is a function of being appropriate for the level, as well as ensuring they are consistent and aligned with the overall goals of the organisation.

The greater the degree of alignment, in conjunction with the greater the degree of relevance of the goals to those at every level to which they are being applied, the more effective they will be.

‘If it cannot be measured, it does not matter’. I subscribe to this idea, first articulated by Peter Drucker,  with the simple caveat that it is not always right. As Einstein said, ‘not everything that matters can be measured‘. For example, How do you measure the value of good parenting? We all know it is good for the individuals, and the community, but what are the objective measures of good  parenting?

 It is also important to make the distinction between goals and KPI’s, which are simply the signposts along the way towards goals by which  you measure progress. Confusion of the meaning of these two terms is common, and destructive.

The acronym SMART was used a lot in the past to set the goals of an enterprise, function, teams, and even individuals. It seems, unfortunately, to have gone out of fashion. Perhaps because managing objectives in such a way increases accountability, which might just be a good idea!

Specific. Be very specific about what the objective is, no fluffy words, no ‘get out of gaol’ card.  What is it exactly that you want to achieve?

Measurable.  What are the measures to be employed that will chart progress towards the goal, and most importantly,  tell you when you have achieved it

Achievable. Do you have the capabilities required and the cultural and performance frameworks that will enable the achievement. Is everyone on board? It is hard for employees to strive to achieve an objective  they do not believe in, or think is unachievable. 

Relevant. The goal is consistent with the overall strategy, and contributes to  the delivery of that strategy.

Time-bound. Deadlines drive performance, and highlight activity priorities. The overall goal end point needs to be agreed, as do the key points on the journey

The poster boy for a SMART goal was JFK’s 1961 goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely by the end of the decade.

Header photo by NASA. Astonishing to think it was 50 years ago, I remember it like it was yesterday.

 

The often fatal flaw of the Family business

Oct 3, 2019 | Governance, Management, Small business

Family businesses have many advantages over publicly owned entities, largely around the pressures that apply to investment decisions.  They can, and often are, made with timeframes that would be unacceptable to a publicly listed company.

They also often contain the seeds of their own destruction.

On top of all the usual human pressures that exist in every enterprise, ambition, envy, personal gain, and all the rest, you also have the dynamics of family, and often multiple families, overlaid on the more usual pressures.

The mixture can be toxic.

It takes considerable leadership skill to address these added pressures, usually driven by the sense of entitlement that comes from: ‘it is our business, therefore we can do what we like’.  

There is no easy fix I have ever seen, but recognising a problem, catching it early and creating an environment where merit, and not bloodlines is rewarded, is a good first step.

This statement assumes two things: that there is a performance management system that is unbiased towards anything other than merit, and that there is a cultural understanding that bloodlines come second to performance.

A very unusual combination in my experience that requires rare leadership qualities, and extended self -awareness.

I have trouble thinking of a more challenging situation than having to fire your child, for whom you have built and nurtured an enterprise, because they are not the right person for the role they covet. The downside is if you do not, the non family members who are the backbone of the place will leave very quickly, or at best, tread water while it suits them, adding little real value in the meantime.  

Often an antidote is to have an outside advisory board of some sort that acts as a sounding board, advisor, performance manager, and sometimes executioner.

 

Header photo credit: Amar Chauhan via Flikr.

Who, and How, do we trust?

Sep 30, 2019 | Governance, Leadership

 

 

To me it is a paradox that we have never been so connected, and yet we have never been so polarised and isolated.

With all the information we could possibly hope for, we as a society seem to avoid using it to make sensible rational decisions that will stand logical scrutiny. 

We humans evolved in groups of around 150, according to the well accepted theory first posited by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar. It is the number of people with whom we can maintain stable personal relationships. 

Richard Edelman in his presentation at the Davos conference earlier this year put it as, ‘Trust is local, and very personal’. The comment is based on the 2019 version of the long running Edelman Trust Barometer. It seems to reflect the ambiguity of our evolutionary selves, limited as we are to Dunbar’s number of 150, and our modern  selves, inundated with ‘friends’ served up by the connectivity of the net.

We have substituted the ‘natural’ depth of a relatively few relationships, with the breadth of many superficial, perhaps illusionary ones.  I have 800 connections on LinkedIn, and while I have been very careful, really only know a small number. There are 6,000 names, email addresses and phone numbers in my contacts list, all of whom I have physically met at some point in the last 20 years, but again, really know only a tiny percentage of them.

In a complementary piece of research to the Edelman barometer, the  IPSOS  Global trustworthiness index showed that scientists are the most trusted profession in the world, followed by doctors. Globally, politicians are the least trusted group. 

In other words, the group least trusted by people are those who are instituting the policies that impact on our lives, often in contradiction of the suggestions of the most trusted group in our midst. Our children will inherit the impact of many of the decisions we make, should we not be making them with the best information we have, informed by those who understand it, in the best interests of those who follow us?

It seems not, and my head hurts trying to figure out why.

 

The photo in the header is lifted from a video taken at the UN last week where President Trump and Teen activist Greta Thunberg presented their differing views.  The most powerful man in the world, Vs a 16 year old Swedish schoolgirl. Who do you trust?

 

 

 

 

Do you need a Digital Strategy?

Sep 27, 2019 | Change, Governance, Strategy

 

 

‘Digital Transformation’ and its sibling ‘Digital Strategy’  have become clichés, unfortunately, as it distorts the management and leadership challenges involved.

However you choose to label the evolution from the analogue world of last century, to the digital ecosystems we now see evolving, it is a process, starting with the simplest things, and moving progressively along to the more complicated.

‘Digital’ is no longer a choice,  it simply is!

How many of you have a ‘Telephone Strategy’? Nobody, it is simply a necessary tool, used better by some than others.

The failure of many ‘digital transformations’ I have seen has little to do with the digital tools, and a whole lot to do with the way people are managed, led, and the manner in which the enterprise leadership enables the evolution to digital to occur.

As with any process, in any transformation, including ‘digital’, there are some pretty simple to say, but hard to execute steps to be taken,

  • Define the business outcomes you are seeking.
  • Start with the simple, test, learn, and move progressively to the more complex, building as you go.
  • Recognise and accommodate the wider impacts. In any digital evolution, your business model should evolve in sympathy. As you progressively digitise, the friction  between the old and the new will become more intense, and potentially disruptive to operations if not managed well. This seems to frequently lead to some expensive consultant recommending you devise a ‘Digital Strategy’.
  • Define the new capabilities required. Inevitably new capabilities will replace the ones that made you successful last century. This part of the evolution can be very confronting and painful, but is inevitable. It can also chew up lots of cash, which is often hard to justify using the short term quantitative measures we favour over taking a longer term, but more qualitative view of what the future might look like.

Nothing about a digital transformation is easy, but if it was, anyone could do it successfully, and we know from observation that is not true.

 

Header credit. Another stinging but insightful cartoon by Tom Fishburne at www.marketoonist.com