How to understand the answer to a question.

How to understand the answer to a question.

Mar 22, 2017 | Governance, Leadership, Management

I ask questions for a living.

No, I  am not a policeman, journalist, or a head-hunter, all of whom need good questioning skills, but in some regards I am a detective.

My job is to see what can be done to improve the performance of businesses, and to do that effectively I need to understand with clarity what is holding  the current performance back. Therefore I need to be able to analyse and understand the current performance through an independent  lens, a perspective  that is different to that of those who are paying me, and which leverages the experience and domain knowledge I bring to the table.

As a consultant, especially one that works in a space usually over-filled with clichés, emotion, personal prejudices and views presented as facts, the real skill is in asking the right questions, and knowing when it has been answered satisfactorily, then following up with the next one that further opens the oyster.

Asking the right question is a matter of experience, domain and technical knowledge. Knowing when it has been answered is all about being a good listener, and entirely different set of skills.

As I listen, I try and break down more than what is being said, and why it is being said, it is just as important to see what is not being said, and to be able to follow up with the question that gets to the area of discomfort, that is best left unsaid, in their minds.

So here are the things that in one way or another I do when listening, apart from observing the old adage that evolution gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason.

What is being left out. Where are the gaps, the inconsistencies, and the evasions, as they will tell you a lot about the person. An HR manager I once worked with used to spend what I initially thought was an inordinate amount of time on the sequence and timing of stated jobs in an applicants resume.   Then I realised he was just looking for the gaps, and he almost always found a few, which usually told us more about the person than they had included.

Where are the contradictions? As with gaps, contradictions can be well hidden, and are often unconscious. They are not just contradictions about timing and  ‘things’ that matter, it is more about contradictions about their personality. I had a product manager working for me a long time ago who  told anyone who was listening that his personal credo was honesty and transparency, but then took staplers and pens home from the office supplies cupboard. A little  thing perhaps, but a contradiction that told me something about him that proved useful.

Why are they telling me this, and not that? People can go on and on about ‘stuff,’ the words fill a hole in the conversation, stuff that really does not matter. Wondering why they are telling you this ‘stuff’ and not something useful or that adds to the ‘picture’ you are developing can be enlightening.  This is particularly so when you know of something that perhaps they are unaware you know, but is relevant to the conversation. I recall the lawyers adage of never asking a question of someone giving evidence without knowing the answer in advance.

What about this makes it relevant to the question? People like to talk, usually because they like to be listened to, and so can go on and on about things of limited or no relevance to the question, simply because they have the floor. Generally we are polite, so do not interrupt the flow, but it can be useful sometimes, particularly pointing out the irrelevance of the tsunami of words that just emerged.

What are the facts? There is a huge difference between facts, things that are demonstrably true, and opinion, suppositions, and the outcomes of ‘managed’ data. The last of these is often the most tricky to tell from the real story, as they purport to be facts, as evidenced by the data. It is just the data or the interpretation of the data that is dodgy.

Did they answer the question directly.  Listen to any politician talking on any night, and you will most likely hear them answer a question in a manner that bears little or no resemblance to the information being sought. Unfortunately it seems to be the standard state of public office, but in a commercial environment, I dismiss it with the contempt it deserves. To be fair, politics gets played pretty hard in many commercial environments, and so is sadly, little different.

Tone of voice. Body language and tone of voice also delivers a message. Just think of the myriad of meanings the word ‘bastard’ has in Australian vernacular, all are conveyed by the same word, with entirely different meanings dictated by tone of voice and body language.

At the end of an answer to a question, I often repeat what I have heard and understood from the answer to offer the opportunity to correct and modify my understanding as necessary. It is also a good tactic when  seeking to assess the truth of an answer.

 

 

Budgeting: The crappiest time of the year

Budgeting: The crappiest time of the year

Mar 20, 2017 | Governance, Management, Small business

It is that time of year again, budget time.

In most businesses around Australia, at least those that will be around in a year or two, people are wondering where they will find the time to do the budget preparation for the coming fiscal.

To make it easier, following are some simple guidelines to apply to your thinking.

Where are you  now.

Before you set out on the planning of any journey, it is useful to know the starting point. This tends to avoid a lot of wasted effort and cost, and unnecessary frustration. Having a very clear picture of your current position is vital, but if you have left the development of that picture to the planning sessions pre budget, it is probably too late. Developing a deep understanding of your current situation, and most importantly the drivers of that outcome, needs to be an incremental and inclusive process that is happening in real time, all the time.

Where is it you want to go.

Again, obvious, but often overlooked. Good businesses have a strategic framework in place that delivers clarity and priority to the long term outcomes being sought, so the annual budget is just another step along the path. However, in the absence of a strategic framework that makes sense, a disturbingly frequent situation, set yourself some goals to be achieved, and the annual budget is the operational plan to get there.

How will you know when you get there.

Measurement for measurement’s sake is dumb, but having the few key measures of performance that really tell the story of your progress towards the end point is essential. Knowing what ‘success’ means is a core part of the planning process, but again, when that is left to the planning sessions, it is too late.

1/10 is not enough.

Another of the mumblings of my old Dad who used to say, ‘Son, you get 1/10 for  the talking, the other 9 are for the doing’. In a business context, the planning is essential, but of no value unless it is implemented. Just like a holiday, you can have some fun planning it, but the real fun is when you are actually on the holiday.

Profit is a two way street.

To make a bob, you have to sell something to people who really want at a price that is more than it costs you to produce and deliver it. Pretty sensible, and pretty simple, but understanding your costs and really understanding the value your product delivers to the specific target markets is a touch more complicated.

Everyone is in marketing.

The days of marketing being relegated to the back office are gone. Customers now have all the power, and they are exercising it in all sorts of ways not contemplated just a decade ago. Highly sensitive, fragmented, and focussed communication channels are being used by everyone, and amplification happens at the stroke of a social media pen. Everyone who comes into contact with your products can have an influence, and everyone in your business  is an agent of marketing. For heavens sake do  not leave it to the kids who have marketing in their title, thinking they have it under control, because nothing could be further from the truth. The most valuable asset you have is the position your product holds in the minds of your customers and potential customers, commonly called your ‘brand’. It is not normally listed on the balance sheet, as the accountants cannot agree how it is to be valued until a business is sold, when it is called ‘goodwill’ but it is the leverage that enables you to be able to stay in business.

Count outcomes before dollars.

Financial results are just that, results. Dollars are just easy ways to count the outcomes of more complicated stuff. Spending time understanding the drivers of the outcomes being counted is a far better way to invest your planning time that just manipulating the variables in spreadsheets. What is it that persuades someone to buy from you and not the opposition, how can you reduce the hidden transaction costs in your business, how can you increase your stock turn and reduce your working capital, and thousands of other questions that need your time and attention before the budget profit and loss is locked away.

The smartest people are not in the room.

No matter how big you are, and how much money you spend on expertise, the vast majority of the smartest people, and those who could influence your outcomes are working somewhere else, some of them for your competitors. This simply means that you have to find ways to be sensitive to the competitive, strategic and regulatory environment in which you are operating, and feed that intelligence back into the way the business is run. From going to local networking events, to travelling to leading markets and suppliers, to hiring expensive consulting knowledge, to ensuring the operators in your business have a voice at the table, all serve to add to the store of ‘education’ the business has to call on at budget time.

When you have done all that, it becomes time to go and punch the spreadsheets, not before. One last point, seems to be a common last point in my various musings, look after the cash. It is the lifeblood of the business, if you do nothing else, look after it as you would your first born.

 

Consider the moment of Opacity

Consider the moment of Opacity

Mar 16, 2017 | Governance, Small business

We are all familiar with the ‘lightbulb’ moment, that time when suddenly, all seems clear, the idea that has been buried in the depths of your brain, unable to be born, suddenly sees the light.

Ever thought of the opposite?

The moment of Opacity?

That moment when you suddenly realised that something you had accepted as the norm, the way things were, a certainty, was suddenly revealed as a Furphy?

This is not something many of us think about much, if at all.

Perhaps it is not fashionable, but the moments of opacity are as important as the lightbulb moments.

My job is working with businesses to facilitate change, to move from the status quo, to something new, something that is almost always considerably outside their comfort zone.

To do that, I have to create those moments of Opacity, when my clients recognise that the way forward is different to the way they have followed to date.

Usually they are not moments, that is just a convenient metaphor.

Change is normally a process of recognising and revising the assumptions and behaviours that drive activity and priorities to accommodate a new reality, small bit by small bit.

Einstein is reported to have said something like ‘The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest’  and the legend of the chessboard is a well known example of just how powerful compounding really is.

Change is no different.

Small changes, compounded over time make a huge difference in time. The hardest bit is getting started, generating some momentum, but when that has happened, compounding can become an unstoppable force.

 

 

 

What leaders must do to enable organisational change.

What leaders must do to enable organisational change.

Feb 16, 2017 | Governance, Management

Through processes of organisational change, there is a lot to do, a lot that can go wrong, and something always does.

The only way to handle it is to just keep going, making the necessary adjustments as you proceed. However, there are some ways I have seen that smooth the waters on the way through.

Communicate, communicate and then communicate some more. When you are sick to death of the message, it is probably just getting through, just starting to resonate, so long as your actions are consistent with the message.

Be transparent. You need the trust of the employees during a period of rapid and often unpleasant change, and you cannot hide anything. If you try, when it gets out, you will lose the trust so necessary to enable the changes. When people believe their views have been taken into account, even when they do not agree with the outcome, they are more likely to be prepared to accept it than when a decision they do not like is just foisted on them. Be prepared to share everything, particularly data, even if it is ambiguous or not necessarily as you would like, the fact that you are prepared to share will go far. Besides, you rarely win an argument by telling people what you think, you have to show them the data, and why the conclusions are based on the data.

Stories have an important place. True leaders are at heart storytellers. We all come to understand complex questions from narratives and metaphors, and the stories provide the platform from which we learn. However, there are also some traps here. You have to know when to shut up, when to let the audience absorb and process the stories you are telling them, and every word counts. Never be seen as anything other than 100% up front, and always ensure that your actions are consistent with the narrative.

Remove the trappings of position. Every person is equal, and has an equal right to have an opinion, and express it. Good leaders quietly ensure that the quiet ones get an equal chance to express their views. When a great leader expresses their views, it is as an equal in the conversation, not as the boss. It is also the leader’s responsibility to ensure that others in the organisation structure also follow this no trappings rule. It follows that in these circumstances, you may know the answer to a question being discussed, but it is often useful to keep it to yourself, and continue listening. When they come to the same conclusion, they will be more committed to it than if you had proclaimed it, and if the conversation comes to a different conclusion, as the boss at another time, you still has the power of the position, but due process has been observed.

Strategies and tactics work together. They are not mutually exclusive, and you do need both. People are all different, they think, act, and work differently, which is why teams are better at developing and implementing both strategies and their supporting tactics. Small teams are better than large ones, and the make-up of the teams is crucial to their success, so do not leave it to chance. Make sure you have diversity of styles and skills on the teams, ensure the team is collectively responsible for the outcomes, and the way things get done.

Respect Vilfredo Pareto and his rule. Always focus on the 20% that will deliver the 80%. When you have done those big things progressively, you can do the others, but letting the not so important but urgent crap that will not in the end make much difference consume time is not smart.

Decide and do. When there are difficult decisions to be made, make them, and implement quickly. The uncertainty of thinking something unpleasant may be about to happen is far worse than the sure knowledge that something unpleasant just happened. When it is organisational structural change, this is absolutely the case. When it involves redundancy, you have to be prepared to deal with the ‘survivor syndrome’ that can be challenging but is helped by the speed, fairness and transparency you have already exhibited.

Hire slowly, fire fast. Often we get this the wrong way around, and hire because we have an urgent need, then find ourselves with the wrong person, and a problem. Not only should you take your time, but you should when possible involve others in the hiring decision. This is not an abrogation of responsibility, but a recognition that the person being hired has to work harmoniously in a group. Taking the time to find the really best people, not just the most technically qualified, but the one that exhibits the passion and curiosity that are the foundation requirements in this challenging world will pay big dividends. Along the same lines, when an existing employee exhibits behaviour you do not want, irrespective of how superficially important they may be, get rid of them. The team when working well gets more done than any individual, and a toxic individual has the ability to destroy the performance of those around them.

Be prepared to be wrong. This is again a function of the due process, but the leader does not ever know all the answers, and if you think you do, you have just made the biggest mistake possible. Giving others the authority to be wrong, and learn from the mistakes is as important as learning yourself

Yes. This is a powerful word, spread it, have a culture of yes, getting things done, making decisions and being transparently accountable for them, without fear is a powerful culture to be developing. Recognise that many decisions are based on judgement as well as data, and judgement only comes with experience, which must be earned.

Never forget the customer. They are after all, why this us all happening. Jeff Bezos famously ensures that there is a spare chair in every meeting at Amazon, as a constant reminder that they are there to serve the needs of that invisible customer.

Encouraging and nurturing change is amongst the hardest things a leader has to do, and perhaps the easiest to put off, until the day it can be put off no longer. Then is it often too late, and is always harder than it would have been yesterday.

Can the government’s innovation initiative innovate us out of the funk?

Can the government’s innovation initiative innovate us out of the funk?

Feb 1, 2017 | Governance, Innovation, Personal Rant

Peter Drucker said something like “innovation is the only truly sustainable competitive advantage”.

Having just re-read his 1985 musings on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, after 20 or so years, the degree of his foresight is truly astonishing. It is great to have a Prime Minister who supposedly understands how to make a buck, and the strategic, commercial and competitive challenges of bringing new products to market. He may be one of the few in Canberra who do, but at least it is a fair start.

With much fanfare the Government on December 3 last year tabled in Parliament a Senate  report on ‘Australia’s innovation System.’  However, with the exception of Professor  Roy Greens valuable contribution as an appendix, I see little of real  value in the report beyond a few worthwhile observations and some useful changes to the tax treatment of entrepreneurial endeavours.

Our venerable Senators have had summarised for them documents (I wonder how much consideration these busy important people actually gave to the detail of the submissions) that may have started with some valuable ideas but which have been sanitised into a document long on rhetoric and disturbingly short on anything of value, which can only be delivered when someone asks the question “What now”?

As someone who has run an agency outsourced from the Federal bureaucracy charged with identifying and delivering innovation to a specific sector, I can attest from first hand just how powerful the cultural forces are against anything with even a hint of risk, change, or long term thinking in the public sector.

Successful innovation takes all three, plus a clear definition of the problems to be addressed.

There is little evidence of anything in the report that encourages me to think that the status quo will be truly challenged.

It is useful to look to successful models, and there are none more successful than the US since the second war. Most will now assume I am jumping to Google, Apple et al, but no. If you look deep enough you will see the hand of government at a deep level making very long term investments in basic science, building knowledge that the private sector then leverages with innovation.

A scientist named Vannevar Bush (no relation to the Bush pollies) was commissioned by President Roosevelt just before he died to report on what needed to be done to promote research and development and the commercial innovation it drives, just as this senate inquiry has done. Bush reported to president Truman in 1945, delivering his report, “Science, the Endless Frontier” which laid out the proposition:

“Basic research leads to new technology. It provides scientific capital. It creates a fund from which the practical application of knowledge must be drawn”.

Directly resulting from this report was the National Science Foundation. Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA  and several other institutes charged with the charter to do basic science, of discovering new knowledge.

When you look at all the products disrupting industries up to today, and changing our lives, many if not most of them have their roots in the various agencies spawned by Bush’s farsighted ideas, and the ability of the scientific agencies concerned to outlive the political cycle. (that longevity may be tested now with the new President Trump apparently running amok)

Now compare that to Australia’s situation.

CSIRO used to be a great agency, capable of developing technology like the wireless technology in the 70’s now in every mobile phone after 30 years on the shelf until a commercial use was found. Scientific Capital at work.

Now CSIRO is a politicised dysfunctional rump of its former self, with a little of the funding ripped out over each of the last 15 years of hubris, restored via this latest in a long line of Innovation “initiatives” to the sounds of grateful clapping. I see few practical remedies for the past 30 years of innovation vandalism being actually addressed, although at least a real start may have been made.

As I always say in workshops, “the best time to start an innovation initiative was 10 years ago, the second best time is now”.

Let’s hope it is not too late for Australian manufacturing, and being an optimist, I do believe that we will overcome the barriers built by inertia, lack of a clearly articulated Australian view of our place in the world, self interest, and short term political opportunism.

 

What return should I expect?

What return should I expect?

Jan 23, 2017 | Governance, Management, Small business

This is a common question I get from the owners of businesses with whom I interact.

There is  no right answer, but when you consider that putting your money in a bank term deposit at no risk will currently generate you about 3%, and a diversified share portfolio held over the long term will earn 7-10%, you have to consider the risk/reward you are prepared to accept.

The question should really be expanded into two:

  • What is the financial return on the capital needed in the business
  • What is the personal return that might accrue.

Dealing with the financial return, it is a simple equation:

EBIT/Net Assets = Return on Capital employed (ROCE)

EBIT, or Earnings Before Interest and Tax  is a good measure as it reflects the true costs of running the business. Definitions do vary a bit, but usually it includes depreciation, a cost of replacing productive assets, but before the externally imposed Tax and interest which have little to do with the operations of the business.

Net assets is simply the result of subtracting Liabilities excluding equity, from the total assets of the business.

Businesses that have even moderately sophisticated financial management have usually reflected on the rates they see as acceptable, but as a rule of thumb, most manufacturing businesses  should have an explicit minimum hurdle rate not less than 15% before new investments can be approved.

A business that has very few fixed assets, such as a consulting practice, could reasonably expect a far greater return on the assets employed, simply because there needs to be so few of them, the key asset is knowledge. The calculation here is more about the return on time spent rather than fixed assets, way harder to measure, but directly related to revenue.

Clearly the type of business has a profound impact on the numbers, so commercial context is important.

Dealing with the second perspective, the risk/return of being your own boss is a highly personal equation, resistant of any useful quantification, so my advice is always to do what ‘feels right‘ to you.