Oct 15, 2012 | Leadership, Management, Strategy
To stay in business we all need to make money today, and we also need to understand where the money will be tomorrow, invest in these future cash generating activities, and sometimes make adjustments to the business model.
These adjustments are not just another re-organisation, but evolution in the way the enterprise interacts with and responds to changes in their competitive, technological and regulatory environment.
To a degree this is crystal-balling, predicting the intersection of your capabilities and customer needs, but it is more about being sufficiently agile to enable experimentation to occur in the manner in which you do business.
If you encourage and support such experimentation with the business model and customer offer in a framework that responds to the question “where will the money be in 5 years?” you will be in pretty good shape.
The old quote from ice hockey great Wayne Gretsky when asked what made him great, “I do not skate to where the puck is, but where it will be” is just as valid in business as it is in hockey.
Oct 10, 2012 | Leadership
We are in an evolving age of flattened, silo-less, collaborative enterprises, where accountability for outcomes is increasingly devolved to those teams and individuals on the “front line” who carry the responsibility for implementation.
Under these circumstances, the old carrot and stick management no longer works, and the replacements often leave many management groups struggling with the ambiguity, as employees fail to respond with initiative and enthusiasm for the new management style.
The dilemma was summarised for me by the rework of the old “give them an inch, and they take a mile” saying by a bloke who added, “if only”.
When you have a workplace largely educated and conditioned to following the established orthodoxies, rules and regulations that at best inhibit, at worst, penalise for initiative, why would the outliers and mavericks stick around?
Leadership and passion encourages the taking of the mile, and nothing really useful happens until somebody does.
Oct 8, 2012 | Customers, Sales, Social Media
Sales is a tough job, you win or you lose, with no middle option. Understanding those you lost is the key to improving future performance.
Over 30 years of engageing with sales people, managing sales forces, and doing sales training, it seems to me there are just 5 reasons that seem to be recurrent in a failed B2B sale.
- Failure to understand that a potential customer in not interested in what your product can do, or has done, just what it may do for them. Trying to sell the features of a product, rather than the benefit it delivers, tailored to the circumstances of the buyer is sales death.
- The power of incumbency is huge, vastly underrated in most cases. When getting a sale means someone else is missing out, the risks to an organisation, and the reputation of the one who makes the change can be significant, so failure to remove the risk usually leads to failure. The old adage “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM” still holds.
- Failure to communicate and convince the decision-maker. I have seen huge efforts go into making sales, and as the effort drifts, it becomes apparent that the one who makes the decision, the Yes/No person, is not engaged, and often not even known.
- Lack of up front resources, or content that serves as an alternative to the traditional sales effort. In this day of the net being used as a primary information source, it is often the case the specifications of a purchase have been determined, and a purchase decision made, before a potential supplier is aware of the process. The processes of qualifying a lead, supplying information that contributes to a specification, building relationships, and determining price and delivery requirements, previously the function of sales has moved on line, the only variable left is the “who will supply” question.
- Price. This is almost always the reason that gets cited as the one that broke the deal, but usually it is just a convenient excuse when any of the other four above have kicked in, and the explanations just get too complicated. It is the “Dear John” of the purchasing officer.
Oct 5, 2012 | Branding, Communication, Social Media
My 28 year old son recently tried to get a mobile phone on a plan, and couldn’t, he did not have a credit rating. A bit unusual perhaps, but this is a young bloke who has been a self-funded student for a long time, always paid his bills, always met all his commitments, financial and otherwise, a far better bet than most that his mobile bill would be paid. Now graduated, he wanted to start being “normal” as he put it.
“Personal brand” is a term increasingly bandied around as we build an identity underpinned by on-line behavior. Headhunters are increasingly using it as they seek to find the best fit for roles they are filling, so are looking to social media as a behavioral metaphor for actual behavior in a workplace.
But it is going much further, much quicker than anyone anticipated.
The reputation you build in one place will be increasingly transferrable to another. Why shouldn’t your hard earned EBay and Amazon rating be considered when you want to rent a car or flat, borrow some money, or even take on a simple phone plan?
Collaborative consumption is a term coined by Rachael Botsman to describe the evolution of behavior made possible by the removal of the transactional friction we are used to by the collaborative capacity of the internet. We can now rent someone’s home on airbnb, raise venture capital on Kickstarter, share a car on GoGet, get the chores done by taskrabbit, and find thousands of other potential partners in peer to peer transactions that were impossible just a few years ago. In these circumstances, your reputation, your brand, is as good as money, just different, it has a value that others will consider in an exchange, and decide if they will proceed.
In this emerging digital economy trust is everything, trust between strangers a necessity for these types of collaborative consumption transactions. It follows then that we need a mechanism to replace the face to face interaction that through human history has built trust because you can see the whites of the other parties eyes, and make a very personal judgement about them.
Your reputation, the sum of all your behavior, will increasingly become manageable and transferable across platforms, and act as currency.
Oct 3, 2012 | Change, Personal Rant
Talking about “the cloud” is common around the BBQ’s I go to, (pass another beer please, the sausages need turning). However, it seems few of my verbal combatants have any idea that the cloud, is, somehow, in fact, an industrial development somewhere, creating buildings, employing people, consuming huge amounts of power, and cutting down trees in the process.
Listening to the mumbling of Tasmanian politicians this week, conflicted by the implosion of Gunns, and its implications for the Tasmanian economy, and their entrapment by green politics has been instructive in the ways of political fluffing. How can you offer an environment that encourages the enterprise from which the tax revenue to provide voter demanded services is generated, whilst not allowing those very enterprises to actually do anything?
Building a “cloud” would seem the perfect answer. No tree will ever be in danger from an axe, or even someone looking at it from the vantage point of a car, and Clouds must be good, because not only are the pretty, almost everyone seems to want one now.
Experience elsewhere indicates that all is not green in the cloud, that the industrial nature of the cloud eventually emerges, as it has here in the Tasmanian like haven of Quincy, in Washington state. When Microsoft came to town with a cloud, a chunk of money, and some commercial expectations, some realised that the world had changed.
Seems like an opportunity for Tasmania?
