The 9 tactics for a successful huddle

The 9 tactics for a successful huddle

Mar 2, 2021 | Change, Governance, Management

Covid has forced remote working, and many have responded by introducing a well-proven strategy to maintain the sense of ‘togetherness’ as well as delivering accountability.

The ‘Huddle’

It goes by many names, one of my clients calls it the ‘daily toolbox’.

Nevertheless, it is a challenging idea to implement. Initially there are always those who see it as just another imposition, or waste of everyone’s time, but done well, they are a wonderful tool, and not just for these Covid times.

Following are the 9 practices I have seen that contribute to the great outcomes possible:

      • The daily huddle is by definition, daily, which means that the next 24 hours are the topic of discussion. Anything else should be treated elsewhere in the most appropriate forum.
      • Use a set time, and always be on time.
      • Make the agenda consistent and focussed on the tasks and accountabilities of those in the huddle only.
      • Follow ups, and problems that need further consideration should be taken offline or escalated. The huddle itself should be no more than 15 minutes at the most.
      • Do not allow waffle. Preparation for the huddle means that people have points they need to make. Written down and read verbatim is often the best way. However, use full sentences, your summary, while clear to you, may not be to others.
      • Everyone in the huddle is given the opportunity to speak, and those who naturally are reticent, are prompted by the chair.
      • Ideally, the chair should rotate in some manner that suits the group, which gives all an equal share in the ‘ownership’ of the group and its outcomes.
      • It is a place for shout-out praise as well as noting problems and emerging challenges.
      • Be attentive. No devices that intrude are allowed.

‘Huddles’ at the next level up, weekly, monthly, work the same way, and are ideally timed to follow the previous huddle, so items are easily and seamlessly escalated.

Huddles are a great way to increase the communication in any enterprise, always the source of most employee angst. Building them into the ‘way we do things around here’ enables rapid, clear communication, one to many. This results in everyone getting the same message at the same time, with a minimum of contextual colouring allowed to creep in.

The outcomes are always around a greater sense of accountability, team and individual, and a culture that involves collaboration. Irrespective of the future of the workplace post the COVID-19 vaccine, when we evolve to some sort of new normal, make your version of the daily huddle a part of it.

When you need an experienced hand to help implement this enormously valuable business improvement strategy, call me.

Header credit: Again, Dilbert and his mate Scott Adams pick the challenge implementing a ‘huddle’. 

How much should we tolerate misconduct?

How much should we tolerate misconduct?

Mar 1, 2021 | Governance, Personal Rant

How is it that some individuals at the top can get away with the claim that they knew nothing about the stench that must have been emanating from below the floorboards?

Our chief marketing spruiker, the PM, seems to know nothing of the rotting corpse that is the culture of parliament house, until forced to set up some arse covering inquiries after widely accepted allegations of sexual misconduct of the most grievous form emerges?

Some months ago, the ABC had the temerity to show a program titled ‘Inside the Canberra Bubble’ that had the roaches running for the dark corners, and the chief law officer of the country sending ‘please explain’ letters to the ABC.

Now you have multiple accusations of rape, followed by what can only be described as cover-up under the guise of maintaining the confidentiality of the victims. A noble aspiration, misused by those who are ultimately responsible for the culture and behaviour in the place.

The culture it seems, follows those who survive it.

Helen Coonan, former Liberal cabinet minister remains on the board of Crown casinos, indeed, is now chairing the business after a scathing report written by Patricia Bergin SC found Crown had been a very naughty boy. Money laundering, involvement with organised crime, and in general being a really nasty piece of work. Ms. Coonan, has conceded that Crown had facilitated money laundering at its Melbourne casino, but denied turning a blind eye, blaming the oversight on ineptitude. She has been on the board of Crown for a considerable time, so the Lord Nelson defence holds little water.

Meanwhile, to what extent have the recommendations of Royal Commissioner Hayne been implemented? A few of the easy ones have been, and the odd head has rolled out the boardroom door, but there has been little more than added bureaucracy built into the system, and a few of the perpetrators of selling insurance to dead people, breaking the laws surrounding money transfers being promoted.

Despite the calls for some sort of ‘Federal ICAC’ supported by most in Canberra, except those with a majority in the House (until the odious member for Hughes bolted for the cross benches last week), little has transpired. The proposed legislation is as toothless and useful as my granddaughter’s teddy bear. Looks fierce, but no teeth at all, just a cuddly bed mate. Utterly disgraceful.

Perhaps the castrated, non-existent Fed ICAC, should it emerge into law, would like to examine the disgrace that is the absolute lack of transparency surrounding political donations. We all know that money given by corporate donors, is given in the expectation of a return. Shine a light on it, and we might see who is actually making the laws. As a wonderful example, just look at the basket of ‘PR-able’ nonsense that is the ‘Media Code’ passed into law last week. Mr Murdoch’s shareholders are very grateful to you.

There is an exceedingly long list of dodgy dealings, to be kind with the description, that could be listed here, but the work has been done for me. While this list of 124 instances of malfeasance is exclusively the Liberal party, I see no reason to believe the current opposition is any different and would not take similar advantage given the opportunity.

I am reminded of a couple of quotations, which sadly both apply:

Firstly, George Bernard Shaw: ‘When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares it is his duty’.

Secondly, Erwin Schrodinger, he of the cat in the box: “The task is…not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees.” 

Meanwhile, Small businesses struggle to survive, employ, and train most of the workforce, pay their tax, and try to get on with the job despite those in charge of the country grasping every opportunity delivered by power to screw them.

 

Header cartoon courtesy Tom Gauld at www.tomgauld.com

 

 

 

Proof: You must own your digital home base.

Proof: You must own your digital home base.

Feb 26, 2021 | Marketing, Strategy

 

If we ever needed more evidence that you need to have a piece of the digital landscape that is yours, where you make the rules, the response of Facebook to the then proposed ‘News Media and Digital Platforms mandatory Bargaining Code’ is it.

This piece of nonsensical legislation, now passed into law, sought to even the bargaining power of legacy media with the two giants in the space, Google and Facebook.

On the surface, a useful idea, but legislating behaviour has never worked in the past, and this attempt will be a dog.

The central claim that Google and Facebook steal content for which they have not paid, while an easy lie to tell, is nonsense. Media chooses to put their content onto Facebook, their choice. The platforms then determine where the posting goes, and who sees it via their constantly evolving algorithms.

No stealing going on there.

On the other hand, legacy media post their stuff because of the reach on offer from the platforms. Hundreds of millions, if not billions of potential views is a tasty lure.

The role played by the platforms is as middleman, a wholesaler of eyeballs, playing both sides of the equation for their own benefit.

On one side, they attract viewers by using the algorithms to deliver content that users like to see, based on their viewing history. That data is a humongous pile of personal information, freely given by us to the eyeball wholesalers to sell to advertisers who want their messages to reach those most likely to transact.

Back ‘in the day’ there was a ‘code’ of editorial independence, and factual reporting, funded by the advertising that flowed to the media owners. That source of revenue dried up as the platforms gained power, and as a result, so did the independence and fact checking dry up, replaced by ‘bait’ tailored for the individual, to chase for news, information, and entertainment. Any pretence of fact went out the window. The more extreme, salacious, and outrageous the better to attract the wandering eyeball.

The ‘bait’ was spread around by the platforms, leading back to the media that choose to ‘publish’ it using primarily Facebook to do so. The media benefited from that trail of crumbs, they got the reach, but still did not have the ability to attract the advertising dollars, that all went to the collectors of the crumbs. As a result, the media, which in this country means the Murdoch and Nine empires, stuck out their hand for help from those to whom they have given lots and lots of support. A quid quo pro for that support, the cost of which will be more junk, salacious nonsense, and sheer fabrication passing as news. Real news, the stuff that effects our lives, is unlikely to get much of a look-in: not enough views.

What of those who have availed themselves of the platforms to engage in some sort of community benefit activity, from local interest groups to really useful things like emergency warnings, information and local news. Do they get any financial assistance? No. Nada. They will now however be able to contribute their data to the algorithms that enables the ad targeting that will exclude them.

Google announced they had set up ‘News Showcase’ that would be curated out of Singapore, and for which they would charge a fee for inclusion. It is unlikely Facebook will not follow such a worthy way to skim a few more advertising dollars. So much for ‘news’. It is perhaps just coincidental that the corporate tax rate in Singapore is considerably less than this country, although that consideration has not been an obstacle in the past, as Australian tax has evolved as almost voluntary to these characters.

I could go on, but risk bursting a valve somewhere.

Suffice to observe that the Government has demonstrated again how firmly they are attached to the teat of Murdoch et al, and buggar common sense, integrity, principle, factual analysis, and the rest of us.

To state the obvious again, you must own your own piece of digital real estate.

Header credit: Huffpost Australia. A confused and surprised treasurer being eyed off by a humanoid

 

The vital secret of a great brand

The vital secret of a great brand

Feb 24, 2021 | Branding, Marketing

Building a brand that has longevity, one that engages and serves consumers over time, while delivering returns to the owner of the brand is a really, really difficult exercise, one that very few get right. Sadly, when it is done right, over time, the essential elements of the brand become forgotten as new people move in, and too often fail to respect or even understand the foundations, and ego takes over.

They do something different, as that is what they think they must do to make their name, and they completely stuff the brand up.

The secret of a great brand is that there is no secret.

No silver bullet, no checklist for greatness, just time, experimentation, investment, and a mental picture of the perfect outcome, for the customer.

By delivering the customer a perfect experience, the one they were promised, and doing it over and over again, at competitive levels of price and service, and with humility, the owner of the brand benefits.

However, there is a very consistent attribute of those brands that are successful.

Stories.

We humans evolved with stories.

We remember, understand, and relate to them.

The power of the story resides in the emotional engagement it generates, by making it personal.

Many years ago, I was lucky to be around as the Meadow Lea brand evolved. The brand went from an also ran in a highly contested and rapidly growing market, to dominating market leader over the course of several years. Unfortunately, I can claim little part in that evolution greater than an engaged observer, a messenger boy with an occasionally audible opinion.

The Meadow Lea story started in the late 1970’s, yes, some of us were alive then. The regulations that ensured margarine was nasty grey stuff that tasted as nasty as it looked, courtesy of the dairy industry lobby, had been removed. Women were entering the workforce in droves, they were educated, ambitious, and driven, but crippled by the accepted mindset that their role was to stay at home, cook, clean, look after the kids, while hubby earnt the money and was basically absent. Meanwhile they were working as hard as men, or often harder at whatever job they had. The juggling was enormous, as was the strain, and as a result they were sleep deprived and ignored.

Sounds positively medieval, but it was only 45 years ago.

This strong desire to be recognised and valued was recognised in the research we were doing, incremental pieces of the brand jigsaw were being fitted together, the result being the simple recognition that women, who did 99% of the shopping, cleaning, and child rearing, needed to be recognised for the backbreaking effort. They wanted to be congratulated for simply surviving, let alone thriving. So, we said it in the advertising.

‘You ought to be congratulated’.

This simple phrase captured the competing driving forces in women’s lives at the time in a few simple words and jingle, backed up by memorable executions that evolved over the following 5 years.

It was the story women were telling themselves.

Later, the idiots that bought the business for its profitability and market position, killed the golden goose by failing to understand the mosaic which made up the brand. They took the easy way out, redirecting the money that should have been spent on maintaining the brand, ensuring it continued to evolve with those who were making the purchase choice, into the pockets of supermarkets.

Meadow Lea is now nothing more than a few tubs on a supermarket shelf. It has gone full circle, but I cannot help wondering if a revival was possible. We still all need to feel valued, to be congratulated for something, even if it is just surviving the crap that was 2020.

Having a story for your brand is a key part of offering the hook with which a consumer can engage.

Take the ‘about us’ page on almost every website I see. Nobody really cares that your grandfather started the business in 1934, and that your father and uncle followed him, and you are now the boss. This sort of story, which everyone uses on their website, is all about you.

Nobody really cares, except your mother.

You must make the story about them, the customer.

Not easy.

Understanding the ‘stories’ of your key customer and potential customer audiences, means you can shape the way you communicate, the words, tone, and the way you seek to shape their behaviour.

To do all that, you need a detailed understanding of who they are. You need to understand their ‘persona’.

When you seek to alter someone’s behaviour, the easiest way is to ‘piggyback’ the altered behaviour onto the existing beliefs and practises, just altering them slightly, which avoids the perception of risk that comes with any change we humans seek to implement.

When you know them well, when they say ‘this is for me’ to themselves, then your task of getting them to deviate slightly in your favour is easier.

Header cartoon credit: Gapingvoid.com with thanks for another visual representation of the words used in this post.

2 key lessons from the Facebook embargo

2 key lessons from the Facebook embargo

Feb 22, 2021 | Change, Leadership

I cannot help but be amazed by (what I regard) to be delusional crap coming out of the mouths of politicians from both sides, after Facebook exercised its power and chopped Australia off the map.

Michelle Rowland, the Labor shadow communications minister wondered if ‘it was the beginning of the end of Facebook in Australia. This reflects the mutterings of the Minister, Paul Fletcher, who should know better, and I am sure he does. However, he is gagged by the naive simpletons in the government who simply have no idea of the power of the platforms they have allowed to dominate the landscape.

I well recall the confected emotion generated by the debate about media diversity in the 80’s and 90’s. The claim that our democracy, and perhaps even lives would be threatened by the erosion of a diversity of ownership across what are now legacy mediums, and how the regulations put in place to ensure that diversity would benefit us all.

So much for diversity. Two global multinationals dominate in some areas, while an American media magnate dominates across the legacy mediums, making billions in profits, and crying for help against those who ate his digital breakfast.

The threat by Google to cut off search in this country, now seemingly off the table, is being seen as a win for the government. ‘Google backed down’ is the claim.

No, Google simply took a step back to see what would happen next. The clusterf**k that would have been the landscape of Google cutting Australia off the map is almost unimaginable. Geometrically worse than Facebook taking the same action, as so many businesses use the tools provided by Google to run their internal processes.

We have two lessons coming from this exercise in global power.

    • The shallowness of the strategic thinking going on in Canberra, and to be fair, most other world capitals, and how their power has been knackered by a couple of digital unicorns.
    • How absolutely necessary it is for businesses, particularly SME’s who are very vulnerable, to take back control of their own digital lives.

When you need a catalyst for your thinking on these sorts of existential risks, let me know, I can help.