Apr 3, 2014 | Branding, Communication, Management
Talking with a couple of mates over a beer recently, one of whom has a successful boutique recruitment agency, we found ourselves reflecting on the changes in word usage that had occurred over the last 20 years, and how we had contributed to the changes, most of which we did not feel were improvements.
A few examples.
“Gay”. A friend of mine at school was named Gaye, lovely girl, great fun, bet she has changed her name.
“Like”. It actually used to mean something, rather than acting as a tool of verbal punctuation.
“Green” used to be a really nice colour, not a political label.
The kicker for me was “passion”.
I have been guilty, there are several posts over the years talking about how important passion is, so I have made a contribution to turning this word into a management cliché
Do we have to be passionate about everything? Cooking. Suddenly we have to be passionate about cooking, when sometimes cooking is just to refuel, and jobs. A quick look at any jobs site will tell you that to be considered you must be passionate about your job, the mission of the enterprise, collaborating with others, and so on, Sometimes, a job is just a job, it pays the bills, keeps the kids occupied , and with luck delivers some intellectual and emotional support.
“Passion” has become a cliche, and has an unfortunate simile, Pretentious.
If you really want someone to be passionate, to make the emotional investment you are seeking, you had better give them a very good reason, because passion is a very private emotion, not given easily.
Mar 20, 2014 | Governance, Management, Small business
Cash flow is the lifeblood of every business, from the one person micro business working out of their garage, to the largest multinational. To call it “Lifeblood” sounds like a cliché, but the thing about clichés is that generally they are true.
Working as I do with small businesses, cash is a priority, and whilst I concentrate on the strategies and marketing planning and implementation, there is no point going there unless the cash flow is robust, or in the case of start-ups, has been sufficiently considered to offer confidence.
Unfortunately, the owner/managers of most SME’s are lousy at cash flow management.
Amongst the first questions I ask after engagement, and quite often before , are:
- How do you manage your cash flow? and,
- Can I see your debtors reports?
In response to the first, I am looking for:
- The management routines, preferably daily, but at least weekly review of cash and its management, with forecasts, action points and outcomes recorded.
- A calendar that identifies the timing of expenses and expected revenue. I also want to be assured that the calendar is a part of the review process, not something wheeled out once a year during the budgeting process.
- A rigorous process of following up debtors. You do not have to be aggressive, rude, or inconsiderate of the debtors position, but it needs to be regular, informed, and be a key part of the CEO’s management agenda. It should include escalation points that reflect trading terms, after which increased pressure is applied to debtors. This may vary with the customer, for example chain supermarkets routinely do not pay inside 60 days, but generally, once a debt goes beyond about 75 days, experience tells me that they become very hard to collect without cost and significant effort.
- Clear, simple, and up to date Trading Terms that are articulated and applied consistently.
- Immediate and clear follow up processes to manage customer discounts and claims, particularly where cooperative promotional activity is present or where there is an imbalance of relationship power, as there is with chain supermarkets.
In response to the second, I like to see the debtors report, clearly broken into appropriate categories, logically, 30, 60, and 90 days, pulled off the top of the desk, or out of the “favourites” list indicating that they are a document in constant use, updated and maintained.
Cash is too important to the left to the accountants to manage alone, it needs to be a key priority for the boss, that way, everyone else knows it is important.
Mar 17, 2014 | Communication, Governance, Management
Trust is a word that keeps on coming up, everywhere.
Increasingly in a complicated world we are looking for those we can trust, to do business with, to have as friends, or just to share a cup of coffee.
I have just completed a project of chain re-engineering that did not deliver all the hoped for outcomes, but during the debrief process, the word “trust” and its foundations that in this case proved to be a bit fragile, loomed large. Similarly, a friend of mine is selling her house, retiring to the south coast, and she appointed an agent from a small number in her local area, and as it happens, one of the unsuccessful bidders was also a friend of mine, someone who I would get to sell my house, when the time is right, because I trust her.
Got me thinking about the components of trust.
It seems there are four headline components, which is good for me as a consultant, as I can conjure up a quadrant and deliver it as a deep intellectual exercise. However, the reality is that it is common sense, just like most consultants quadrants, but common sense that paints a picture, that delivers a perspective, and makes you think.
- Engagement. You do not trust those with whom you have no experience, who have not earned that trust. You may think they are trustworthy, but would you confide your pin number to them?, there is a difference. Engagement of the type that generates trust happens over time, is a two way process shared equally by both parties, and is devoid of ambiguity and hidden agendas.
- Integrity. It becomes clear over time that the positive behaviour that builds trust is not just for the benefit of the chosen few, but is based on a “personal code” of some sort that extends to those not closely engaged. The individual or enterprise concerned consistently puts the interests of those with whom it interacts above its own short term interests, and it acts the same way to everybody, irrespective of their status. They “walk the talk,” always.
- Operational excellence. This sounds business-like, but is just as applicable to individuals. Summed up it simply means that they never over-promise and under-deliver, what you get is what you saw and at least what you expected, but usually is more than you could have reasonably hoped for.
- Fit for purpose. The product or service is the right one for the purpose for which it has been delivered, and there has been an effort to ensure that the purpose has been defined sufficiently by both parties to ensure that the product was the right one for the circumstances.
Back to my chain exercise. When I look at it dispassionately, the parties had insufficient opportunity and incentive to build the trust in each other that was necessary. Individually, they trusted me, as I knew them all, spent considerable time articulating the process, and have a history with several, but they did not know each other well enough to offer the real trust we were looking for.
And to my two friends who did not do business. The house seller went with an alternative that offered an up front incentive, it seemed to reduce the cost of selling. When the process is over, her house of 30 years which is the only substantial asset she owns has been sold, I suspect she will wonder if the agent delivered her a buyer that just made his life easy, a cut price, quick and easy sale that delivered him an easy commission, in return for the added costs he incurred up front, all wrapped up in the clichés of the real estate agent. Had she trusted my agent friend, it is quite possible that she would have delivered them a buyer, just the right buyer who wanted the house because of what it was, not because the price was great, the cash benefit of which would have been to dwarf the up front saving that was made.
During the research for this post I put “trust” into several dictionaries, and the options for a definition are many and varied, according to the context. No wonder we have difficulty.
Feb 27, 2014 | Leadership, Management, Strategy
Some things we can predict with great accuracy, simply because we can quantify almost all the variables that come into play. The path a bullet will follow when fired, how long it will take a brick to hit the ground when dropped, and how much fuel it will take to do 10 laps of Mount Panorama racetrack flat out.
It is when you start to introduce unquantified variables, as distinct from unquantifiable variables, that things get exciting. A strong gust of wind will change the trajectory of a bullet, and a prang on Skyline and subsequent braking and weaving will alter fuel consumption, but the impact of both can be reasonably accurately forecast if they are included in the variables considered.
It is the random events that really cause trouble, the kangaroo that jumps out half way down Conrod, the quick-handed apprentice that reacts to the brick heading for your toes and does a diving catch, these things cannot be reasonably forecast, are random events, but have a profound impact on the outcome.
The point of the story is to again confirm the old adage that strategy rarely survives the first contact with the enemy, so the more agile you can make your reaction to the unpredicted and just plain random, the more likely you are to come out on top.
Feb 20, 2014 | Governance, Leadership, Management
“If this was your money, would you invest it this way”.
This question worked well for many years as a corporate executive, asking the question of those who reported to me about the projects for which they were seeking support.
Usually, indeed, almost always, the answer was “Yes”. Clearly my last question had been accommodated before they got to the point of asking, and they knew it was coming, so made sure they could answer Yes before asking.
The added effect of this question was to ensure that there was a personal commitment from the managers involved, they had to look me in the eye and convince me that they had invested their credibility in the project.
This did not guarantee the proposal worked, that was not the deal, just that it was worth doing, and if it went pear shaped, there was accountability, and the opportunity to learn from the miscalculations would not be lost.
As a consultant for 20 years, I still ask myself the same question when recommending actions to my clients, “would I spend my money on this”
It still works.
Feb 12, 2014 | Change, Management, Operations
Courtesy Cartoonstock
As a little kid, the milkman used to deliver from a horse drawn cart. Even then, in the mid fifties it was outmoded, almost rustic, but endlessly engaging for a 5 year old boy.
Much later, I was the marketing director of a NSW dairy co-operative as it wrestled with the inevitability of deregulation. I was continually reminded by those with vested interests that there should be no change, that the regulation was a good thing, that home delivery of milk was what had made us great, even though customers had voted with their feet. It sometimes sounded like that old milkman of my childhood explaining why he still had a horse when everyone else had trucks.
Yesterday listening to the various political blame allocations for the closure of Toyota, on the heels of the announcements by Ford and Holden, it was groundhog day, again.
Facts, and a dispassionate view of the whole picture played no part. Just like the farmer Directors of that dairy company, everyone else was wrong, they alone had the insights necessary to keep the boat from sinking, disaster from arriving, and the black forces from Hades consuming us.
Toyota has joined Ford and Holden in folding their tents, along with much of the Australian food processing industry.
Lets have a look at some of the underlying factors obscured by the smoke and mirrors of self interest:
- If we are so committed to an Australian car making industry, why do only 20% of us drive one made here? Some more heresy: A significant proportion of those 20% are company supplied cars, where the driver has no choice, and if they did, would that 20% be 10%? Death of an industry!! Who cares, obviously not enough of us. It is just like the food processing industry, which I would argue is just a touch more important, killed off by lack of scale, high $A, global supply chains, the move to low cost manufacturing locations, a history of self important and short sighted management, and political and bureaucratic hubris.
- 35,000 jobs will disappear!! Woe is me, the sky is falling! That number, not to make light of the distress of those who find themselves unemployed, and perhaps unemployable, is less than 0 .3% of employment. Anyway, why is 35,000 the number? Toyota has 600 people in their Sydney offices, none of them are going.
- 25 years ago manufacturing was 14% of jobs, now it is 8%, it was 12% of GDP, and now is 6.5%. The vast majority of people displaced by these changes have found new jobs in industries that barely existed 25 years ago, why not again? Anyway, 350,000 people change jobs every month, every month! Another 35,000 over 4 years is a drop in the bucket, again not to be unfeeling towards those who struggle.
- It could be a financial bonanza for the government. Instead of supporting a corpse, pumping in life support dollars, they can be just counting the revenues from tarriffs as imports increase 20%, they might even remove the “luxury” tax designed to “save” the local industry, now there is no local industry left to save. However, I doubt it, as the “luxury” tax raises$ 1.8 billion. When the previous government proposed changes to the regime to capture tax lost to corporate salary packaging of cars, the current government, then opposition, in a dose of real hypocrisy opposed it, but I sense a change of mind now.
It would be much better if the energy spent looking backwards and allocating blame was spent looking forwards, and building for the future.
