The 7 foundations of a successful enterprise

The 7 foundations of a successful enterprise

 

I was asked the question ‘what makes a truly successful enterprise’ at a workshop that had strategy development as its purpose. It is a regular question that I get in various forms, and a question that I ask myself from time to time.

The easy answer is the marketing responses:  know your customer, understand your markets, select the market niche in which  you compete in and dominate it in some way, all of which are correct, but are not the full answer.

The full answer lies in having the right foundations for the enterprise, foundations upon which everything else is built.

Like the foundations of a house, they are rarely visible, and almost never all visible at the same time.

It seems to me that they also create a virtuous circle, and the lack of one impacts on the others in a manner greater that you would expect.

None have anything to do with the tools that are used, particularly all the new digital tools and platforms.

Have a clear, well communicated strategy.

Strategy provides the framework within which enterprises make decisions at all levels that add to the value of the activities being undertaken. It is as much about what you will not do, always a harder choice than what you will do, as it requires the killing of someone’s ‘baby’ idea.

A strategy that is held in the c-suite, no matter how good it is, will be compromised by not being communicated throughout the business as the decision making foundation. Whether you set out to be the low cost supplier, supply only those  who fit a certain profile, deliver continuous innovations, whatever it is, make sure everyone understands it.

Execution.

No plan is of any real use until it is used. Execution of the plan is 9 tenths of the game. Relentless focus on the strategy, and execution with the appropriate feedback loops that enable tactical adjustments to be made as new information emerges makes a strategy successful. Without execution, strategy is just a set of potentially good ideas and vague promises.

Business model.

Many managers spend inordinate amounts of time thinking about the structures of their businesses, often missing the key component of the manner in which it delivers value to the key group of customers articulated in the strategy.

20 years ago, the number of potential business models was limited by the physical limits of communication and logistics. While this still applies, the flow of information facilitated by the net has changed the face of business, and has spawned a pile of new business models  and ways to reach customers and deliver value. It also seems that business models have trouble cohabiting. Therefore  choices need to be made that should be dictated by the strategic priorities.

Talent.

Businesses are just places where people gather to do the work, so the better the people the better the work. You need talented people to get the work done, a business is nothing without people. Taking this one step further, it is really the networks of people that deliver value.  Joys law‘ named for Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill Joy holds that ‘no matter who you are, most of the smartest people work somewhere else’. The self-evidence of this statement should encourage management to find ways to include some of these people into their commercial ‘eco-systems’. In a small way, many Australian businesses are doing this already,  outsourcing increasingly complex tasks offshore. The initial push is usually cost, but many are finding that quality can be as good as or better than is available locally.

Behaviour.

The way people behave, collectively,  becomes labelled ‘culture’. Culture is usually described in the terms first used  by Michael Porter 30 years ago, as ‘The way we do things around here‘ which is also a description of the behaviour that prevails. Is it collaborative, congenial, non-discriminatory, a meritocracy? Again, the sort of behaviour you nurture is a key determinant of the culture that evolves, and should make up a key component of individual and group KPI’s.

Leadership.

The behaviour of people is driven by the leadership style of the ‘boss’ and senior group. Together they dictate the terms of the culture, select the appropriate talent for the tight reasons, select and deploy the KPI’s based on the behaviour required to execute the strategy. Falling back on the wisdom of Peter Drucker, again, who said ‘Management is doing things right, leadership is doing the right things‘. It is the leadership that extracts performance from an enterprise beyond the average, the willingness to be held accountable, inspire, and explore.

Timing.

The value of getting the timing right is a wildly underestimated contributor to success. From simple internal matters like making that key presentation to the directors when they have had a series of good results, to major external factors such as recognising the point at which a technology that may have lain dormant for years suddenly has a place. Penicillin, the computer mouse, digital camera, Wireless LAN, touch screen, and thousands of other innovations lay dormant, unused until something changed, creating an impetus for the innovation to be commercialised, often in ways unforeseen by the developers. They are in effect a solution to a problem not  yet identified, or sitting outside the sight of incumbents, or simply the wrong time wrong place in some trivial way. A personal example. In the very early eighties I worked for Cerebos in Australia, as a product manager for a number of their brands, Fountain amongst them. I saw an opportunity for a pasta sauce to complement the then very small, but expanding dry pasta market. Fortunately there was an Italian food technologist in the development team who developed a range of very good pasta sauces, which we launched in test market  in Victoria. The test failed, for a number of reasons, that had nothing to do with the quality of the products, or the strategic thinking that was behind them. Eighteen months later, Masterfoods launched ‘Alora’ pasta sauces and  built a category. In blind tests, when considering a second try, the failed Fountain sauces significantly outperformed the successful Alora products, but their timing was way better than ours.

 

When you need to inject the wisdom of ‘been there done that‘, give me a call.

 

Have the Liberals crossed their Rubicon?

Have the Liberals crossed their Rubicon?

In 49 BC Julius Caesar led his legions across the Rubicon river, the line that separated ancient Gaul from Roman controlled Italy. Ever since, the term ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ has entered the lexicon as describing passing the point of no return.

Last week the Liberal Party crossed its Rubicon, and I guess we will all get to judge the result in May next year. However, history tells us exactly what will happen.

Bill Shorten is in the middle of his “Steven Bradbury’ moment.  If he keeps his head down, he will be the last man standing, and as such, he will be PM next year. Perhaps not the next PM, that may be some apparatchik from the depths of the Liberal party, just before Christmas, but the next one to face the electorate rather than their mates in the house.

In this case, the Rubicon is not a river, and not even about the leadership, screwed up as that is, it is about that most elusive and challenging to define words: Trust.

We the electorate needs to trust our elected leaders to do as they say they will, and to act in our best interests.

Political parties in a democracy rely on trust to gain and retain power, trust in the institution the party represents, and in the people who are its face.

Both sides of politics have utterly blown it!

A political brand is a most fragile construction. In the Australian context, with compulsory voting and an institutionalised two party system, change is really hard, so to successfully make it, trust is an absolute pre-requisite..

Two words are missing from the whole debacle, which together go a long way towards building trust, along with the behaviour exhibited on a daily basis. The trouble for the political classes is that they are also a foundation of trust, acting in a virtuous circle,———-or not, as the case may be.

Courage

Honour.

Courage is something you find on the football field, or in the face of some adversity, according to the popular press, but is it, really? I suggest not of the sort we are seeking in our leaders.

Truly courageous people find moral courage, which is being prepared to stand against the tide for something you believe in.

There seems to be a significant lack of moral courage in the big house, just as we are facing problems that need it to be exercised.

I see very little evidence of honour on display, just tides of expediency and self interest, although there are a few small green shoots in the desert to give hope. Warren Entsch is one prepared to speak his mind, and my local member Craig Laundy stood himself down from the new ministry, it seems on principal. I am sure there are a few others, voices smothered by the political bullshit blanket.

Were any of our current crop of political ‘leaders’ to drop off the perch today, would they attract the sort of words that have accompanied the death of John McCain on Saturday? I doubt it very much. It would just be another scramble for pre-selection and a chance to jump onto the gravy train.

The long term challenge is how do we, as a community,  attract good people, those with the moral fibre we so desperately need, to the political table. The same disease seems to infect leadership in many places, as evidenced by two Royal Commissions currently in the headlines.  I do wish I had some sage and positive advice to replace the sarcasm and disaffection I feel.

 

Cartoon credit: nicked from the great David Rowe in the Fin Review.

 

What can our political clowns learn from Jeff Bezos

What can our political clowns learn from Jeff Bezos

The current clown-party in Canberra brings tears of frustration one moment, scorn and anger the next, followed by an overwhelming sense of incredulity.

This was posted early Friday morning August 24th, and by the time you read it,  well, anything could have happened.

The one thing that I am sure will not have happened is that common sense will suddenly rain down on the Liberal party. Therefore,  they may have persuaded Fraser Anning to swap parties, again, with the promise of the Immigration portfolio in a reborn Abbott government.

Perhaps drawing a bit of a long bow, even for the clowns.

Arguably the most successful leader of the last 30 years on the planet is Jeff Bezos.

He has built Amazon from nothing to its current market valuation of $US1904 billion.

By contrast, Australia’s GDP was $US1323 billion in 2017.

In other words, Amazon, one company, is 44% bigger than the whole Australian economy. I know it is a bad case of comparing apples and oranges, but nevertheless, perhaps we can learn something from the leadership displayed by Bezos and apply it to the clowns.

Amazon is the creation of one man, so his views on what constitutes leadership should not be dismissed lightly.

Every new employee  is given the list of Amazon leadership principles as a part of their induction, principles that it seems Bezos is deadly serious about upholding.

I thought it might be amusing to apply them to the Federal parliamentarians generally, just to see how they stack up. I have given them a mark out of 10, with some commentary. Feel free to disagree as loudly as you wish.

Customer Obsession. We the voters are their customers, as well as their employers, and I see little evidence of real obsession on delivering value to us. In its place, I see a huge dose of flatulent cliché. 1/10.

Ownership. The essence of this is long term thinking, and not being prepared to sacrifice the long term outcomes for short term results. Long term to the clowns is what they are doing after lunch. 1/10

Invent and simplify. My sides are hurting from laughter. 2/10. (they got the extra point because at least I was amused)

Are right, a lot. They seem to be rarely right, although to be fair, there has been over time some level of good guessing. 3/10.

Learn and be curious. If ever there was evidence that the clowns cannot learn it is the current clown party. Only the clowns think that the electorate will look kindly on the after party mess. 0/10

Hire and develop the best. Some of those preselected by the various parties should not hold office in the local choir. Not because they cannot sing,  but because they are too stupid to realise that is what they are there for. Again, to be fair, quite a lot of them have demonstrated a modest IQ, sufficient to get them through a law degree. Enough said. 2/10.

Insist on the highest standards. I am conflicted with this one, as the standards of stupidity, narcissism, self-delusion, egotistical self-aggrandisement, and the ability to avoid answering any simple question with a simple answer have rarely been equalled. Clearly very high standards indeed, but not what Amazon looks for in leaders. 0/10

Think Big. They often seem to talk big, but the talking seems to be rarely matched by the thinking. However, again to be fair, there has been some evidence of thought, such as thinking the public would not notice their party. 2/10

Bias for action. If this lot were any slower, yesterday would catch up. 1/10

Frugality. They preach frugality, and are fairly successful in imposing it, on most of us who are not their mates, or able to demonstrate some important vested interest to be protected. It also seems they are able to become less frugal at the slightest whiff of electoral discomfort,  when they selectively bring out the porkers. 1/10 for effort.

Earn Trust. How do I give a negative mark in this silly poll? 0/10

Dive Deep. Bezos wants the leaders in Amazon to  be prepared to do anything, to get down in the weeds with their teams and stay connected. Perhaps the clowns just misunderstood and thought he meant our pockets. 5/10 for misdirected effort.

Have backbone; Disagree and Commit. I suspect Paul Keating said it best referring to (I think) John Hewson when he said   ‘he is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up’. 1/10

Deliver results. It is hard to disagree with results, and Australia has had some truly good results over the last 20 years in comparison with most of the rest of the world. Some credit must be given, although the cynic in me wonders how much was sheer luck, and how good could it have been. 5/10.

Overall, the clowns should be proud, they have excelled at being clowns, although I suspect a few of them are really crying inside this morning.

Update 3.00 pm Aug. 24.

Can somebody please explain to me what just happened.

The Pratfall (the collective noun for a group of clowns, and very appropriate as well) in Canberra just rolled an elected PM, and we all know where that leads. To add to the burden of stupidity, they replaced him as PM with the architect of the now failed company tax changes, and as his deputy, the architect of the NEG, the stone upon which the former PM finally stumbled. While it may be a more likely outcome than Senator Anning becoming the Minister for Immigration, it is a close margin!

The next election will be an absolute rout. Mr. Shorten must be on his knees either thanking whoever he prays to, or splitting his sides laughing, perhaps both! Come May next year he will be leading in the next Pratfall.

 

Convergence of Governance and Marketing in Financial Services

Convergence of Governance and Marketing in Financial Services

The shocking revelations from the Royal Commission continue to flow.

Last week it was NAB’s turn in the hot seat, and they did not fail to add to the building dismay and absolute disgust being felt.

The Governance Institute defines governance as:

Governance encompasses the system by which an organisation is controlled and operates, and the mechanisms by which it, and its people, are held to account. Ethics, risk management, compliance and administration are all elements of governance.

This seems to be an OK definition to me, with the obvious omission of any reference to the customer, the ones who put the money on the table in the first place. I had a quick look on the AICD site, and could not find any sort of definition, which seemed a bit odd.  A google search for ‘marketing governance’ turned up a lot of self-serving fluff and cliché, but not much of value I could see in a quick scan.

Being simplistic, the revelations from the Royal Commission all seem to point to some very poor governance of the marketing function. Perhaps not surprising, as so few seem to have thought constructively about it. (myself included beyond the implications on strategy and resource allocation)

Besides the apparent breaches of the law, certainly breaches of ethical behaviour, and absolute failure of a culture to reflect in any way the promises made by the organisations to their customers, there is clearly no governance of marketing in the Financial Services industry.

If there was, we would not be paying commissions on sales, continuing to extract trailing fees, charging for services not delivered, lying, and even charging dead people for advice.

Effective marketing over the long term relies on ensuring that customers remain customers, that the lifetime value of a customer is not just respected, but revered.

The barriers to exit in Financial services are high, largely because of the low level of financial literacy and the sheer complication in this area. This is made worst by the blizzard of regulatory changes, industry jargon, sheer disinformation, and malevolence  that abounds around a trough the size of the compulsory superannuation money pot.

It may be fine to put barriers to exit in place, customers hate them, but understand the reason, but then to screw customers behind the barriers to exit amidst the fog of disinformation and jargon, is a gross failure of marketing governance.

The responsibility of marketing lies with the representation of the customer inside the business. We talk about customer journeys, then stop at the first sales transaction. Has nobody in Financial Services thought of lifetime customer value, and acted as if they cared?

Here endith the rant!

Header credit: Once again, to Hugh McLeod at gapingvoid.com, who must have seen the Australian Royal Commission coming when he penned this cartoon years ago.  This seemed like the perfect opportunity to use it!

11 parameters to choose those who will be tomorrows leaders

11 parameters to choose those who will be tomorrows leaders

 

The rate of change is accelerating at a massive rate. A common challenge for all enterprises irrespective of size that have professional management, is how to pick those who will be able to deliver commercial longevity to the shareholders, whether they be spread across the globe, or members of a family.

The gap between those who have been successful, and those who will be successful is widening.

From time to time, I work with clients to plug capability and leadership gaps in their management ranks, and seek future leaders. I am certainly not a recruiter, my objective is not to fill a hole in order to gain a commission, it is to ensure that my clients can optimise their commercial and strategic outcomes.

The first step is to build a profile of the role, how it will contribute to the outcomes being sought. This requires a solid strategy that acknowledges the geometric rates of change happening around us. Without that strategic framework, the task of picking the right leader could just as well be done with a pin down the pub.

When we are all clear, we build a profile of the ideal candidate.

However, the order is clear. The organisation is first, we have to be certain about who will be doing what, how the objectives being sought will be achieved within the context of  the strategy, and finally, why we are doing what we are setting out to achieve, what value will it bring, and to who.

Having that work done, and it should be done as a matter of course, not just because there is a gap in capabilities, we consider the perfect candidate profile.

I have a template that has been used for 25 years with considerable success, consisting of 11 characteristics. Each position and situation is different, and there will never be a an absolutely perfect candidate, so compromises will inevitably be made, the trick is to make them in non- critical areas. Therefore considering the priorities of the requirements, and their relative weight gives a tool against which to measure the merits of candidates, and ensure some level of consistency as you progressively interview.

Competence.

There will always be things that are an absolute requirement of the job, deal breakers no matter how well all the other factors fit.

Trustworthiness.

Leading is tough, and increasingly trust is hard to win and easy to compromise. The candidates need to be the type who will be  absolutely straight, transparent, and follow through on commitments. In a senior management role, it always comes from doing what you say you will do, but also taking in potentially divergent and contrary views in the decision-making process, and  allowing due process, so everyone has a stake in the outcome.

Focus.

Leading even a modest sized business is full of distractions and red herrings. A leader needs to be able to focus on the few things that are really important that will deliver the outcomes, and not  be distracted by the urgent but not necessarily important items that always come up.

Curiosity.

I have  written before that I think curiosity is a defining feature of successful leaders into the future, and nothing  I have seen changes that view. A curious person, prepared to nurture and  enable their own curiosity, and inspire it in others,  will infect an organisation in a positive manner. Curious people are less likely to accept a status quo, believe what others believe simply because of the weight of numbers, they are inherently seekers of the facts, and uncomfortable with inconsistency and hearsay.

People skills.

This is a pretty generic description, but people skills are what makes the leader, as others are prepared to follow them irrespective of the trappings of power and position. Increasingly people make the difference, so having the right people in the right places in the organisation is crucial.

Passion.

Passion is the original communicable ‘disease’. While ‘Passion’  has become a cliché of recruiters ads, that does not diminish the power of passion to inspire, motivate, and engage.

Agility.

Being agile demands that you are able to change position quickly and efficiently in the face of new information, an emerging situation, competitive pressure, whatever it is that demands a response different to the last one. Agility is very different from inconsistency, it is also different from flexibility, which sees you bend in the face of change, but then move back to the former positon when the pressure eases off.

Self awareness

The ability to see yourself as others see you is crucial to effective leadership. Self awareness enables empathy, without which the best you can be is a good manager, not a leader.

Judgement.

You want someone who demonstrates good judgment in  stressful situations, does not let the emotion or heat of the moment overcome rational analysis. This is a really difficult one to measure, or even get a good handle on, as our unconscious reaction to   those we agree with is to warm to them, and vice versa.  The best way is to examine in some detail the performance and behavior of individuals when stress has been imposed in the past.

Fit.

The only person who can really change the culture is the person at the top. If the recruit is other than the top dog, to some degree they will have to be able to fit into a culture that exists with little power to make significant alterations beyond their own span of control. While it is good to have people who question the status quo, and offer alternatives, you also need a balance that ensures that any disruption leads to a positive outcome.

A bias to action.

Even when all the above is present, it does little good by osmosis, there has to be action. As the world gets faster and more complicated, those who take action will win, despite the setbacks that will occur. We all acknowledge that we learn from our mistakes, which presupposes we take action often enough to make some.

A key job of every leader is to replace themselves, and to develop a ‘bench’ that can fill capability gaps as they emerge. The really good leaders I have seen in large enterprises spend more time on this single task than any other, apart from developing and managing the culture, which is inextricably tied up with the personnel choices. It is also the responsibility of a governing board to ensure that emerging leadership is encouraged and nourished, as their primary responsibility is the long term commercial and social viability of  the enterprise.

 

Header credit: Hugh McLod at Gapingvoid.com

The substantial value of ignorance

The substantial value of ignorance

Being seen as an expert is sometimes a problem, as everyone expects you to have all the answers.

Nobody has all the answers, and they are usually uncovered only by the judicious  use of questions.

As an outsider to businesses I work with, I come in with some level of anticipated expertise, otherwise why would I have been  hired? It is sometimes initially a bit disconcerting for employees and other stakeholders to be quizzed by a so called expert, called in to do a commercial diagnosis. However, the analogy to a doctor doing a diagnosis usually works to turn that around.

Asking questions does two things:

  • It leads to answers that will be essential to the diagnosis, and always leads to other questions you may not have considered that uncover the deeper realities rather than the superficial perception.
  • It acknowledges the value of the specific expertise of those being questioned. Everyone likes to be seen as an expert, or at least having some specialised knowledge valuable to someone else.

Many years ago I came across what Guru Peter Drucker called his ‘5 questions’ critical to diagnosing performance.

  1. What is your mission?
  2. Who is your customer?
  3. What does your customer value?
  4. What are your results?
  5. What are your plans?

I use these 5 questions all the time as a foundation of any diagnosis I do. Not always in order,  rarely asked the same way twice, but getting at the answers is the core task of the commercial diagnostician.

It goes to another of Drucker’s pithy statements , ‘The key value of a consultant was not to have the  right answers, but to ask the right questions’

Most of those I work with are smart enough to recognise when you are on to something, and then help you figure out the right solution for them, in their circumstances.

No consultant will ever know as much about the detail of a business as those who work inside it every day. It therefore makes little sense to assume as an outsider that you do. However, what an outsider does have is a wider view of the context of the business, an unencumbered sense of what is important and what is not, the location and nature of sacred cows, unstated behaviour drivers, and the informal networks at play among every group of humans.

Being an outsider allows you to ask seemingly innocent questions that challenge the status quo, and the conventional wisdoms that exist.

These are the ones that lead to the breakthrough thinking that enables change.