Jul 17, 2023 | Change, Governance, Leadership
Executing a culture change in an organisation is the first port of call in most improvement projects. Sometimes it is a minor task, often it is the major one.
There have been libraries written on the challenges of culture change, from ‘The 10 best ways to’ blog posts to great books that point us to new ways of thinking and dealing with the challenges.
I have contributed my share.
The common feature of all these is that it is very easy to talk about, very hard to do.
However, having done this continually over many years as part of almost every project, changing culture is a task that can be broken down into its component parts, and done bit by bit.
Culture is the word we use to describe the collective ‘The way things are done around here’. The clue is in the word ‘Done’.
Getting things done requires a process.
That process can be as organised and repeatable as a written process that is always followed, to the seemingly random, chaotic scrambling to get the necessary activities completed that I see most often.
Either way, there is a set of activities that must be completed, one way or another, in a sequence that can deliver a product to a customer, for what they are prepared to pay.
Individual activities can be isolated and subjected to improvement techniques. Improving the processes, as a focus of activity of all people involved in them, with the support and engagement of management will over time improve performance, and ultimately culture.
Culture is an outcome of the performance of processes, and how those performing them feel about themselves, and their place on the hamster wheel.
Digitisation makes this a bit easier, as we can track process performance in real time, rather than as in the past, collecting data, doing some analysis and cause and effect thinking, then make another change to test the outcome. This used to take weeks, perhaps months, but in some cases can now be done almost on the fly.
Like almost everything, our view of the time frame necessary for effective culture change has been shortened in most peoples’ minds. However, it seems to me that the time necessary for a robust culture change is one of the few things that has not accelerated in this digitised world.
I wish the incoming Governor of the reserve bank good luck in her culture change challenge, the body politic will be watching with a gimlet eye for early and rapid signs.
Cartoon credit: My thanks to Scott Adams’s avatar Dilbert
Jul 15, 2023 | Governance
The execution of Philip Lowe on Friday displays what is to me a worrying dismissal of the responsibilities the government holds over the fate of the economy.
This is despite the polite words of mutual admiration and respect, that is what it was, an execution. While not unexpected, one party just decided it was not in their interests to have the other around any longer.
It is not just this current government, but the 4 or 5, or is it 6, previous ones that have seeded the field that is now being so bitterly harvested. The rot seems to have started in the latter stages of the Howard government, when the kindergarten defence: ‘it was the other kid‘, became the norm.
Nobody in power seems to be able to shoulder responsibility for anything anymore, always pointing fingers, rarely (if ever) offering thoughtful commentary on alternative choices. Meanwhile, they stand in line for a medal if anything, even well beyond their control goes well, claiming that despite all evidence to the contrary, the good outcome is the result of their farsighted and selfless dedication to the common good.
I am not an economist, and have little beyond common sense and a wide range of commercial experience gained over a long period. However, if I was asked to manage a company while being given only very indirect control over the drivers of revenue and expenditure, I would have to politely decline.
The reserve bank governor is the spokesperson for the bank, an independent body charged with managing the cost of doing business in the economy: the cost of money. That is all it can do. Every other lever of control of economic activity is in the hands of others.
Those others have done a ‘Lady McBeth’ washing their hands of any responsibility for the current difficulties, while celebrating the change. The elevation of the current deputy governor Michele Bullock to the top hot seat and expecting her to fix problems of their making better than her predecessor, is a hollow hope. Meanwhile, on top of the day job, Ms. Bullock is being tasked with the redirection and renewal of the culture that delivered the top job to her, while overseeing the changes in the operational processes recommended by the Reserve bank review.
Good luck with all that herculean set of tasks, but somebody has to be in line to be the fall guy. I keep on having visions of deck chairs and icebergs.
Cartoon credit: John Kudelka ‘Friendly fire’ April 8 2011.
Jun 21, 2023 | Governance, Strategy
Commercial success, that which delivers more than a wage, comes from only two places:
-
- Critical thinking
- The ability and willingness to be a bit different, experiment and embrace risk.
Why is it then that the web is full of ‘7 point plans to….’ Templates designed to remove the need to think, and assuring us that if we follow the plan, all will be well.
I have been as guilty as most, reducing some of what I publish on this blog to lists of sequential actions. This sort of headline increases readership of a post significantly, people want packaged solutions that promise an answer to a complex problem but removes the need to think.
I have been as seduced as anyone by the vanity of page views.
The important part of any plan, from the most complex to the mundane list of what you must do today is that it is the result of critical thought.
What is important vs urgent?
Is this the best use of that absolutely finite resource: Your time?
How will this impact on those around me?
General Eisenhower made the observation that ‘plans are worthless, but planning is everything‘. Eisenhower further noted that emergencies were unexpected, and therefore planning for them was impossible.
Noted philosopher Michael Tyson’s contribution is perhaps the best known “everyone has a plan until they get hit in the mouth”.
Besides, without a plan, and associated goals, how will you ever know how you are performing?
The act of planning should be an act of critical and creative thinking, not filling in a formulaic set of generic questions.
Header credit: Scott Adams with an early question from Dilbert.
Jun 15, 2023 | Change, Governance, Strategy
There is no way around the fact that AI is now with us, and evolving at logarithmic rates. The unanswered question is ‘so what?
There are two extreme schools of thought, and everything in between.
On one hand we have those who are extremely wary:
# It will replace jobs, creating an unemployed under-class
# It will take away peoples rights to privacy, choice, and freedom, creating risk from baddies
# The buggars will take over, we become the slaves of some dystopian thinking ‘terminator’ machines.
On the other hand, there are those who see:
# Huge commercial and community benefits from the automation and efficiency AI brings
# Every platform change in the last 200 years from coal to electricity, horses to cars, vacuum tubes to integrated circuits, PC networks to the cloud, all delivering huge benefit. Why not again?
# The risks are manageable, and less than the benefits that will flow, besides, it is now an unstoppable force, so choices are limited.
Let’s first have some context.
We have been idolising AI from our earliest times, seeking assistance, advice and guidance from all manner of sources. The beguilingly named Ada Lovelace, daughter of Lord Byron wrote what is seen as the first ‘software’ for the Babbage machine in around 1840, with Babbage taking the credit. In 1943 the first paper that associated the neural networks in our brains to electrical circuits was published. In 1950, 73 years ago, Alan Turing wrote a paper called ‘Computing machinery and Intelligence’ which posed the ‘Turing test’. This remains the central question of AI: ‘When can machines think?
The term AI emerged from a 1956 workshop held at Dartmouth College, seen as the birth of modern AI. It kicked off research work in many corners of the scientific world. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, scientists, and many startups such as Deep Mind, now part of Google, and OpenAI the designer of Chat and Dall-E, significantly funded by Microsoft, have been working on this since the 90’s. The ‘T’ in ChatGPT stands for ‘Transform’ a patented technology breakthrough by Google.
This long scientific road led to an inflection point last November when OpenAI let Chat GPT out into the wild to see what would happen, and take the strategic ‘first mover’ advantage.
What AI is: the application of maths and software code that ‘teach’ computers to synthesise information and generate output. It is controlled by people, although even the scientists are not always sure of what goes on inside the black box of software.
What AI is not: Killer software and robots that spring to life and take over by killing and/or subjugating people.
How does it work? Statistics and probability, combined with huge computing power.
The probability of a ‘u’ following a ‘q’ in English is very high, the probability of that q being followed by any other letter is very low. The probability of that ‘u’ being followed by an ‘e’ is higher than it being followed by a ‘z’. And so it goes, letter by letter, word by word, progressively taking on the context in which those letters, words, sets of words, and sentences are reflected, such that the difference between a ‘party’ in the sense of a happy event, versus a ‘party’ in the political sense is clear.
Having sorted all that out, what are the things we should be thinking about?
- AI as an augmenter. A tool that can assist us to outcomes that are smarter, quicker, and more comprehensive than we might have reached on our own. The role of humans will not be eliminated, but it will be changed.
- AI as a broker. AI stands between us, and an outcome we may not know how to reach, but can be facilitated by AI. You want to write some code, now you do not have to be a coding whizz, AI can do it for you quickly, and with reasonable levels of success.
- AI as a magnifier. Every kid can have an IA tutor, every doctor an AI coach, every scientist an AI collaborator, this will lead to potential productivity growth, scientific breakthroughs, creative boundaries being busted, reduce death in wars. The downside is also magnified, there is always a flip side to be managed.
- Should we be concerned with ‘Synthetic Empathy’? we humans are social animals, what impact will this accelerating trend to isolation from physical contact and interaction have on our collective psyche?
- Blue Vs White collar displacement. Every platform change in our economies over the last 250 years have displaced blue collar workers, in favour of white collar so called ‘knowledge workers’. This one is different, it is the white collar knowledge workers, those who shuffle stuff around who are in the gun. There is no AI/robotics that can replace Albert the plumber, or Steve the sparkie. AI will change the support mechanisms they use, but will not change the simple act of fixing the leak in your bathroom or installing that extra powerpoint in the kitchen..
- Regulation. How can, and indeed should, we regulate, somehow. It is remarkably difficult to regulate something that does not exist. We have failed to regulate social media, despite with the benefit of hindsight, recognising the damage it can do. Compared to AI, regulating Social media would be easy, and we have failed to get that done. The problem is how do we go about crafting regulations that do anything at all beyond catching silly stuff, when it is in the outliers, and things we do not see other than with hindsight, that the real danger hides.
To answer the question posed in the header, it is my view that AI is an enormous avalanche of technical, cultural and digital change. We need to either get with the program, or get out of the way. If it is the latter, you will be consigning yourself to irrelevance.
This is not to imply it is all good.
AI does not have goals, it is not alive, it is just your toaster on steroids, so you can control it. AI is a tool, like any other, which can be used for good and bad, but indifference will lead to whacking your thumb with the hammer. The other thing about tools is that over time, they build equality and productivity.
However, the potential downsides are huge, the opportunity for evil have never been greater, but as the avalanche will not be stopped, you have to be in front of it to see and prepare for the pitfalls before you trip over them and are consumed.
Suck it up and enjoy the benefits!
Header cartoon credit: XKCD comic from the scary mind of Randall Munroe
May 26, 2023 | Governance, Leadership
People will achieve all sorts of great outcomes when they know and buy into the reasons why the immediate actions should be taken.
‘Why?.
Imagine this scenario: Your boss comes to you to and tells you to drop what you are doing, and do this, just get it done, and moves on.
By contrast he/she comes to you are asks you to do that same thing, and explains why it needs to be done, why it is more important than the things you are currently engaged in, and how your contribution will make a difference to the outcome.
Which are you more likely to buy into?
Coincidently, it is the same question all our kids ask us as they are learning about the world. However, we seem willing to remove it from common conversation, or alternatively, answer the simple question that often has a complex answer with platitudes, evasion, or some other form of ‘non-answer’.
May 22, 2023 | Change, Governance, Leadership
The most valuable resource in every business is the time, talent, and energy of employees. However, as these are hard to manage, and do not appear on any balance sheet, they are often grossly under-managed or completely ignored.
By contrast, Capital is readily available, cheap, and readily returnable, and as it is recorded and easily managed, it consumes our whole management focus.
Dollars are really the only easy measure of compliance and outcomes. However, they are a poor measure of much else that actually makes a business successful.
Time, strategic and tactical focus, and employee engagement are our most valuable resources, but are universally managed poorly.
There is lots of advice from the digital ‘cheap seats,’ all of it obvious with thought, but equally challenging to implement.
Wasted time in meetings, unnecessary email, excessive double handling, unnecessary process delays, broken processes, cultural norms, and many others. All add complexity, ambiguity, and time, while obscuring accountability.
Employees start covering their arses by copying everyone, shifting responsibility, hedging on project delivery times, duplicating unnecessarily, and focussing on the trivial while ignoring the risky.
You have all seen it, and from a distance shook your heads and asked yourself:
“Why not a bit of common sense?”
These transaction costs consume huge unrecorded amounts of time and energy, which translates into commercial obesity.
Think about all this as the ‘organizational load’ that is being put on people.
This load is similar to being overweight. As complexity increases, we allow practices to creep in that adds obesity to processes. It is a bit like letting your belt out an extra notch.
As of November 2022, we have the most potent anti-obesity drug ever conceived in our midst.
Artificial Intelligence, trained on large Language Models arrived with ChatGPT3 leading the charge. The performance improvement between Chat 3 and Chat 4 launched in March 2023 is astonishing. Forecasting what Chat 5, 6, and 7, just around the corner will be able to deliver makes my head hurt.
Are you thinking about your obesity problem now??
Your competitor surely is!
