Return on management.

We measure return on the capital investments we make, there is an extensive, well understood, widely used set of tools that offer a framework for the calculations, most of us would be lost without them.

However, whilst we all know in our guts that there is a set of practices that together we would call great management, and the businesses they run are better than those run by “ordinary” management, there are few tools available. Trouble is, articulating what make great management has been a qualitative process, significantly informed by hindsight.

So what are the characteristics of superior management?

Seems to me there are three characteristics,  that are all the result of extensive sets of individual and group behaviour:

    1. A well executed strategy that differentiates in a manner customers value
    2. The management team is a cohesive, but questioning bunch of trained, intelligent people who have a strong sense of team competitiveness. This characteristic is reflected in the groups that exist at all levels of the organisation.
    3. There are appropriate measures that drive continuous improvement throughout the organisation

For comparative purposes, the Worldmanagementsurvey.org  site carries an extensive database with the results of a multiyear, multinational academic survey that offers an opportunity to benchmark management performance. It offers an opportunity to start the process of identifying the behaviours that lead to superior performance by management.

 

Radical transparency

What you do, say and think is no longer private. Our lives are opening up to scrutiny as our previously private data moves into the public domain at geometric speed.  Much of being human depends on our ability to forge relationships with a few people based on dreams, problems, challenges, and attitudes that are shared with a small group, often only one person.

Radical transparency is the new reality of privacy where the notions of privacy as they have applied in the past to individuals and  institutions are simply no longer relevant.  It seems absurd to me that we still have regulated privacy in situations where there is a clear benefit to that community to remove it, such as in the case of contagious medical conditions, and whilst we shake our heads  at the photos our kids (grandkids?) put up on facebook, that is the new reality.

This change happening around us is emerging as one of the most radical social revolutions in history. How are we, and our institutions  going to deal with the absolute ubiquity of information?

Over the last decade, we have effectively given away the assumption of privacy as we understood it, surely the challenge now is to figure out how to manage the new transparency rather than doing a “Canute” about it.

This notion is engaging greater minds than mine. Part one of an email conversation between a couple of the real thinkers in this area, Clay Shirky and  Don Tapscott, appeared recently in the Atlantic. It  deals forces of change unleashed by the collective intelligence of the net, the 4 broad principals of the internet age, Collaboration, Transparency, Sharing, and Empowerment, as outlined by Don in his June 12 TED talk.

Part two of that conversation examines the impact of the information revolution on the Arab Spring, and its wider implications, demonstrating again, the 4 principals at work .

Radical transparency is a part of our world now, it cannot be undone, so our corporations, institutions, and every individual need to respond to this new reality.

Marketing is demand generation

Sales forecasting is a common activity, you need to know how much revenue is going to be generated in the coming months. Usually it is done by sales, usually by a straight extrapolation with a few adjustments, and the only thing you know for sure is that it will be wrong.

How cool would it be if your marketing people were able to forecast revenue with some accuracy?

Marketing is an investment in revenue generation, which is an outcome of demand, so it would seem sensible to focus attention on demand in the market, not what sales you did last month.  Mindset is important. When you treat something as an expense, it is easy to chop and change based on short term conditions, but when it is an investment,  it has longer term implications, and what could be more important than an investment in revenue generation???

To truly be treated as an investment, there must be a reliable ROI calculation that can be made, which means the collection of data, and the agreement on a set of metrics to be applied.

There are lots of tools emerging that claim to automate the marketing process, and generally they do it well, using the traditional sales tunnel metaphor connected to the marketing tools of the net. Whilst it is creating another source of operational complication necessary to get the data, it should be seen as a part of the investment strategy.

However, the mindset change is simple. Recognize  that the role of marketing is to create demand, and the cost of using all the tools of branding, innovation, channel selections, and all the rest,  are the costs implementing those investment decisions.

Seeing beyond the obvious

Innovation is all about seeing beyond the obvious answer, making the connections others miss, recognising cause and effect relationships differently.

Most also accept that with training, our bodies perform better, we run faster, further, jump higher, etc.

Surely it is the same with our brains? The more we stretch the boundaries in our nuts, the better we become at doing it. Therefore, it seems to be pretty sensible to do some training. The cryptic crossword in the local paper, deliberately inserting yourself into situations that are different and uncomfortable,  and even, yes I am assured by my 30 year old son with a couple of  degrees, playing some of the more creative video games (cannot bring myself to do that one).

I often start a workshop, presentation, and even casual conversation with a conundrum of some sort to try and get the juices going, so these two posts from Holly Green are gold.

Serendipity is rarely an accident.

“The harder I work the luckier I get”

I’m not sure who said that first, but it is certainly widely agreed, absolutely true, and therefore almost a cliché.

The more ideas, the more the variation in the background, training, and attitudes of those exposed and asked to think about problems and opportunities, the greater the chance someone will see something new. It makes sense therefore to increase the diversity of people thinking about any problem or challenge, as their diversity brings different experience, perspective and understanding to bear, and can create connections not seen by others.

Discussion needs to be stimulated and encouraged, curated if you like, a hothouse for ideas and experiments, where every trial that does not work is one more way that we know does not work. “Edison’s law.”

The new collaboration tools of the web are fantastic, a breakthrough for innovation, but they still do not come close to the potential of motivated individuals exchanging ideas and views in a relaxing, but stimulating face to face environment.

Serendipity happens after the work has been put in, not before.