Aug 23, 2021 | Governance, Leadership, Personal Rant
The Prime Minsters performance on ‘Insiders’ yesterday reminded me of Erwin Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment.
This was an absurd illustration of wave function collapse, a characteristic of quantum mechanics. (Note: I understand absolutely nothing about quantum). It proposes that the imaginary cat can be both alive and dead at the same time. Clearly a challenging situation, for the cat at least. Dead but not dead, perhaps just not buried yet?
It also seems to represent the Morrison governments chattering about climate change, and the choices that are needed, and not needed, all at the same time, amongst several other important questions.
As with Quantum, I fail to understand the half in the box and half out of the box ambiguity that is presented by those supposed to be making the tough choices on our behalf, and then acting on them.
Perhaps they are acting and not acting at the same time as well, and perhaps acting, taken in the context of performing rather than taking action is appropriate.
The resurrection of Barnaby Joyce to the exalted role of Deputy PM may be another kitty both in and out of the box. It seems to depend on whether he is berating the Labor party (who have their own litter of pussie-cats hidden away, unseen in the box) for some infraction of his imaginary rules, or defending George Christianson’s right to blather nonsense in the federal parliament.
I guess George does have the right to blather nonsense in parliament, he had a solid majority in his electorate at the last election, so some must think he is on the money, but the Nats also have the right to kick him out of their box. Label him clearly as a dead cat! Problem of course that they want to hold the seat, so he must remain alive as well, at least until they can find some alternative feline just as screwy to replace him at the next election.
This is a ‘Schrodinger Government’ both dead and not dead at the same time. Disturbing to see them still stumbling around blathering.
The pussy is also busily clawing at the response/non-response to the question of enabling businesses making covid vaccination mandatory. They are hoping business will do their job for them, again, and carry the risk of legal action brought under the provisions of an act clearly not reflecting the current need.
That comes on top of the narrative happening in Kabul. The PM blathered yesterday about how hard the government has worked to get out those who helped us in the 20 years of slog, and how honourable the sacrifices made by our armed forces. The fast words delivered with the conviction of a snake-oil salesman will carry little weight at all to the families of the 41 killed, and 249 injured, and those we leave behind in that sad place.
At least the chronic decision making vacillation and teflonesque reflex to dodge outcomes is consistent!
Header cartoon courtesy www.howstuffworks.com
Jul 21, 2021 | Leadership
There is a huge hole in every ‘top 10 characteristics of a great leader’ list I have seen.
They all list approximately the same things, by different names, and in different order.
Honesty, integrity, transparency, vulnerability, vision, creativity, dependability, empathy, and so on.
In none of them have I seen the one characteristic that to me just sticks out like a beacon.
Compounding.
Compounding is as Einstein pointed out, ‘The most potent force in the universe‘
Leaders who actually lead, do so not because they demand to be leaders, but because they invest, tiny bits, over a long period. in the individuals around them. Each investment (read interaction) may be small, but it compounds on the last one, and the one before, where they counselled, advised, observed, offered praise, stepped back when praise was offered from elsewhere, and provided cover by taking responsibility when there was a cock up.
Compounding good leadership practices breeds great leaders.
Jul 5, 2021 | Leadership, Marketing
If you asked a room full of marketers if marketing had changed in the last decade, you would get most of them telling you it had changed radically.
On the surface it has, the digital revolution has taken marketing by the neck and given it a great big shake.
There has been an explosion of sales, media, connection, and payment channels, customers are more wary, and do their own research before a marketer knows they are in the market. So called ‘content’ has almost infinite reach, but the frequency is rubbish, as there is so much digital noise, and so much competition for attention, that most of it is the digital equivalent of todays fish wrapper from yesterdays newspaper obituary section. The investment in marketing technology to manage all this has also exploded.
There is a welter of research, and opinion that confirms the notion that marketing has changed, some by very credible organisations. Most however have a dog in the fight.
I asked myself the question again, after a stumbling across this report by Adobe, one of those credible organisations that supports the ‘yes it has changed’ vote, and came to a partly different conclusion.
Marketing has changed, absolutely, at the tactical level. The means by which marketers create, and deliver a value proposition, then turn it into a transaction is unrecognisable from just a decade ago. However, tactical implementation is just a small part of the pie.
Organisationally, marketing has changed a bit. Generally, it is still a function in a group of functional silos that reports to a CEO. A range of new titles have emerged, chief marketing Officer, Chief Engagement officer, and so on, but that does not change the essential reporting and accountability of those in senior marketing roles.
The marketing organisation in large enterprises has also siloed, now there is digital, customer service, technology, and a range of other functional roles within marketing not previously present, but still reporting functionally.
Strategically, marketing has changed little if at all.
The role of marketing is to tell the future, and then to adjust the value proposition to customers ahead of the changing preferences and behaviour. That has always been the case, and remains so.
The only strategic change I can see is one of leadership.
In the past, marketing was a relatively passive corporate player, relegated to the role of managing one of the largest expenses in the P&L. Now the value of enterprises is so much more in the hands of intangibles, that marketing is increasingly demanding a seat at the big table, which demands that marketers are able to lead their peers and boss. Unless they can achieve this position of leadership, they will remain the simple gatekeepers to one line in the P&L, rather than being responsible for the future health of the enterprise.
Look at it from the other perspective.
Marketing has changed little strategically, but strategy is by far the most important component.
It has changed somewhat organisationally, and while it is important, in most areas, it is not a game changer.
Tactically, marketing is unrecognisable, but who really cares, tactics are just that, short term, able to be changed in real time as the situation evolves. Marketers need the organisational capability to be able to change in real time, but the impact of failing to do so is generally limited in the short term.
The marketing groups that will be successful into the future are the ones that are successful leaders of their organisation. To achieve this status, they must be able to identify the priority areas for investment and activity, and drive that priority by removing the organisational constraints that operate in every enterprise, which are not directly accountable to marketing.
Well, they are not accountable until marketers are in the corner office, which should be happening more and more, as they are the future tellers. Those who generally occupy that office are the engineers and accountants who are really good at reading the past in the data, and hoping the future looks similar.
Who is next in your corner office?
Jun 2, 2021 | Governance, Leadership, Strategy
Successful businesses in my experience have several things in common, and in general do most of them well.
Focus.
They are sufficiently disciplined to be able to assemble and deploy resources against a limited number of objectives and opportunities. This requires that there is a robust strategy in place, as they have made a series of choices about what they will do, and what they will not, which are all clearly understood throughout the business. Being all things to all people is never an achievable outcome, so they leave it alone.
Niche.
In one way or another, all successful businesses I have seen operate in a niche, where they have sufficient scale to be relevant to their selected customer base. This is the same for a small local business as it is for a multinational, each in their own way have defined a niche and set about owning it. Of great value is the niche that others do not recognise, where competition does not exist, or is marginal.
Leverage.
Leverage is doing more with less, so it follows that the greater the leverage of assets, the greater the success. Of course, when taken in purely financial terms, leverage can lead to disaster, as leverage also increases risk, but when looked at from the lens of human capabilities it works. It also works when you consider outsourcing as leverage, keeping your most valuable assets doing jobs that deliver greater returns. In successful companies, the jobs that just must be done to keep the machine grinding, are broken down to repeatable processes and done at the least cost, so the assets released can be deployed to deliver optimised results.
Differentiation.
In the absence of some sort of differentiation that increases the value of an offering to a group of customers, all you have is price. When price is all you have, you will, eventually, lose.
External sensitivity.
Being able to ‘feel’ the changes as they happen in their competitive environment and react before others marks not simply good businesses, but ones that have the DNA to be sustainable, as they incorporate in their DNA the ability to change early, and often. This does not imply a moveable feast of strategy, rather an agility in the implementation, which requires a considerable dose of leadership.
To my mind, businesses that are able to keep themselves in front of the ‘market Takt time’ are well placed to prosper.
Robust and shared culture.
‘Culture’ has become the rallying cry of all sorts of pundits, and self-proclaimed experts, but is clearly a major differentiating factor in good businesses. The cliches of all rowing in time and in the same direction apply, but the best definition is still Michael Porters definition: ‘Culture is the way we do it around here’ holds. In addition, when setting out to measure culture, as we are increasingly trying to do, I have yet to see any measure of culture that make a lot of sense beyond the simplest, ‘bad news travels quickly, & untainted, to the top’. When I see that, I know there is a robust culture in place.
Collaboration.
Part of superior performance is understanding where your capabilities are best deployed, and from time to time, a collaboration makes sense as a means to leverage both yours and another’s capabilities into an outcome neither could hope to achieve on their own. Collaboration is a really challenging thing to pull off, as it requires that both the businesses and all the personnel understand that their own best interests are best served by serving the best interests of the partners.
They have a detailed understanding of their strategically important customers.
This may not always be their biggest, although that helps, but those that will deliver sustainable profits into the future. Every large and important customer started as a small one, the trick is to pick those that will, long term, make a difference to your business, which can only be done when you can make a difference to theirs. This implies some sort of key account strategy is in place.
Robust financial management.
It should not need to be said, but sadly, genuinely robust financial management is not all that common. Anyone can deliver the statutory accounts required, but it takes creativity and understanding of the complexity of customers and markets to produce useable management reports that reflect the current, and more importantly forecasts of the state of the business.
Of all the reports, cash is the most important. All the sophisticated marketing, procedures, and cultural initiatives become redundant in the absence of cash.
Header cartoon credit: Hugh McLeod at www.gagingvoid.com nails it.
May 19, 2021 | Governance, Leadership
The characteristics of leadership we expect from the local non-profit, to the largest businesses in the country, to the Prime Minister, are pretty much the same.
Trust.
We need to trust those who lead. However, trust is never just given, it must be earned by the behaviour we observe. It is also incremental, built over time, it is fragile, and can be brought down in a minute by one bad example. The test, if there is such a thing, is whether we believe that the private conversations the ‘leader’ is having are the same as the public ones, and would they be prepared to say those private things on the 6 O’clock news. By this test, many in prominent so called ‘leadership’ roles in this country fail. Dismally.
Dependability.
Dependability is a component of trust. It has many forms, from delivering on the big promises made, to turning up on time for an appointment with the local hairdresser. In any leadership role, no matter the size, when a real leader finds themselves from time to time unable to deliver, they do not walk away from the fact, they acknowledge the failure, learn from it, and move on. To many, this is the essence of leadership, to me, in it is simplest form, it is only common courtesy painted on a wider canvas.
Competence.
Leaders must be Competent. Someone placed in a leadership role, who is an example of the Peter principal is corrosive to the rest of the organisation. Those being led must believe that the leader is someone who can get the job done. That does not mean they never make a mistake; it does not mean they are never unsure of themselves or exhibit human frailties. It just means that we believe that they have the wisdom, skills, and experience to get the job done. This extends further, by ensuring they teach others to be competent at their job, and the next one. Competence is a compounding quality they pass on to others.
Humanity.
We are herd animals, we rely on those around us for safety, and security. We have evolved and prospered as a species because we are able to collaborate and care for one another and rely on our neighbours in times of stress and crisis. Someone in a leadership position who does not care about those being led, is not a leader, at best they are a manager, dispensable and easily replaced.
In summary, you can always tell who the real leader is: they are the ones others follow because they want to.
How does your leadership style stack up??
May 17, 2021 | Leadership, Strategy
‘The smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they’d already solved. They’re open to new points of view, new information, new ideas, contradictions, and challenges to their own way of thinking.” Jeff Bezos
Strategy development is an inherently creative pursuit, you are seeking to visualise and articulate something that does not currently exist. Like any creative pursuit there are barriers to thinking in this manner, barriers that must be addressed if you are to build a robust strategic response to opportunities that may be very hard to see.
6 ways to achieve this elusive outcome:
- Forget finding the right answer. The ‘right’ answer probably does not exist, what does exist is the best answer today, that delivers another step on the road to the strategic objective. Looking for the ‘right’ answer is a way to ensure nothing gets done and that you drown in data.
- Don’t follow the rules. Every industry and market has ‘rules’. These are the assumptions that this is the way things always work. If you follow them, you will never come up with any combination of factors that delivers anything new. The best you can do is optimise, and while optimising is a very sensible and competitively necessary thing to be doing, it is not strategy.
- Allow yourself to ‘play’ with ideas. Try applying metaphors and similes to the situations you outline and see what happens. This is hard work, but it frees the mind. Just like little kids do not play by any rules, they make them up as they go, you should do the same. Throw logic out the window and enable the ‘inner child’ to come out, you may be surprised at what emerges. Like children, everybody is creative in their own way, it has just been beaten out of us by the education systems and life. Encourage the creativity by play, it is in these unrestricted and non-confrontational situations where tacit knowledge flourishes and is shared, and can be turned into original ideas.
- Get everyone involved. this is a cultural thing, and enables the seeds of creativity to grow. One of the greatest impediments to creativity is when someone thinks ‘this is not my job’. Strategy is everyone’s job. Being close to customers is typically the job of the salespeople, but look at what happens when your engineers and logistics people get close to them, all sorts of opportunities emerge because they are looking at things from a different perspective. It is challenging to create and nurture the processes and cultural drivers that encourage this sort of general engagement, but it pays great dividends.
- Ambiguity is your friend. It enables different thinking to be applied when the rules are unclear, so redefining the situation is easier.
- Be prepared, even happy to be wrong. So long as you recognise being wrong as a learning opportunity rather than one to apportion blame, this is a powerful practice. Recognising a mistake means you have tried something, learnt something, and moved forward. One of the realities that risks becoming a cliché is ‘Psychological safety’. This is when people are relaxed about being wrong, it is safe to call out mistakes while knowing it is about the process and conclusion, not the person. There is however a flip side to this ‘happy to be wrong’ choir. It is not an excuse for sloppy due diligence, or shallow consideration. This is a cultural tightrope that requires confident leadership to flourish
None of this is easy, if it was, everybody would be doing it. When you need the necessary outside assistance, let me know, I can help. Alternatively, Call Jeff, he has some time now, and has exemplified strategic creativity for the last 25 years.
