The problem with politics

The problem with politics

Feb 22, 2019 | Governance, Leadership, Personal Rant

We are facing two elections here in NSW, one for the state government, and then federal almost immediately following.

What a mess we are in, disengagement, distrust, cynicism on the part of the electorate, and flatulent promises and claims by the body politic.

The problem is trust.

There is none.

When I apply what I have learnt in 45 years of commercial life to this problem of trust in politics, I come up with a few simple observations.

Lack of strategic clarity.

There is no consistency between the claims and stated objectives of each of the parties and the experience of those who will be voting. The same party cannot even get their messages consistent between the state and federal levels of the parties, so why on earth do they think we, the electorate will believe their conflicting, fatuous and hyperbolic messages.

No accountability.

As a director of several companies, there are rules that apply that demand truth be told to shareholders. Clearly these rules do not apply to politicians as they talk to their stakeholders, we, the electorate. I would be dragged into court if I told the sort of porkies, used facts selectively and out of context, and generally failed to answer any question in a substantive manner,  the way politicians do as routine. They take credit for good things over which they had no influence, and blame the others  for any outcome that can be painted as poor. They are simply unaccountable for their promises, there is no sanctions on them beyond the cliché about the ballot box being the ultimate sanction.

We feel scammed every day as a result.

Governance, where is it?

The governance of government, and political processes generally, leaves a lot to be desired. It is appropriate that there are rules about the manner in which public money is spent. However, when the rules get in the way of common sense and equity, while leaving gaping holes through which the scammers can swim, it can be seen as a system that favours those in the know, at the expense of the rest of us. It is also the case that when  you regulate something, by definition, behaviour not captured by the regulations is OK, irrespective of the morality of the behaviour.  This can be clearly seen in the case of the financial services cesspool uncovered by Royal Commissioner Hayne. 

To be fair, public governance is a massive task of strategic and moral leadership,  and there are bound to be missteps, but we need to be better than we are, by a mile.

As a final observation, these people cannot govern themselves, why is it then so strange that we do  not trust them with the wider task of governing the rest of us?

Absence of cross functional collaboration.

When it is clear that the right hand does not know  what the left is doing, and seemingly does not care, why would we trust either? This not only applies to the functions of any individual government, but to each of the three levels we are burdened with, overlaid by the federated structure of states we are left with from colonial times.

We could not design a model better able to stuff up just about everything they touch if we tried!

The only antidote to all of the above is leadership. The sort of leadership  that takes responsibility, offers a compelling vision of the future and articulates a credible path towards it, is prepared to take difficult decisions and argue the logic publicly, then lives to be accountable for it all.

Pity there is so little of that going around.

 

Cartoon header credit: Again, Hugh McLeod at gaping void nails it!

 

‘Brand Conversations’ are usually just a marketers wet dream.

‘Brand Conversations’ are usually just a marketers wet dream.

Feb 20, 2019 | Branding, Customers, Marketing

 

Brand loyalty and frequency of purchase,  are not the same thing, although we seem to act most often as if they were.

Sometimes we marketers believe our own bullshit, not recognising we are usually delusional, or at least subject to a severe case of confirmation bias.

When was the last time you actually came across a customer who was so loyal, they wanted to ‘have a conversation’ with your brand?

Perhaps they were just shopping around and wanted a ‘conversation’?

Never, right?

Yet the term is used often as we indulge ourselves in developing marketing collateral.

Frequency of purchase, read loyalty, can be the result of many things, awareness, market share, delivering better distribution, price, shelf position in a supermarket, big advertising budgets, and so on.

Only when you significantly increase the price, and some customers stick like glue, or  go from retailer A to retailer B for the single reason of being able to buy your product, do you have real loyalty. Even then, it is likely that rare, wonderful customer could not be bothered having a conversation with your brand, at the risk of the men in white coats carrying them off.

Even the exceptional brands, Apple is one, IBM used to be another, a deli in Flemington, Sydney, is another, known to a relative few who simply would  not go anywhere else, do not have conversations. 

Nobody in their right mind tries to have conversations with these brands.

They do have conversations with employees of the companies that own them, as they seek information, pricing, availability of spares, after sales service, and all the rest of the things we need, but nobody has a conversation with the brand.

Except in the mind of marketing dreamers.

They have conversations with people, your employees, their friends, and friends of their friends, people they meet in supermarkets and service facilities, the list goes on.

The real key is to ensure that when your brand is spoken about, in whatever context, people are telling others of the value delivered, the problems solved, and that it ‘delivers’.

Forget the frills, jargon, and self delusion, it is a tough world out there, and your product needs to perform as promised, then people will talk about you.

Header cartoon credit: Tom Gauld New Scientist.

10 tips on how to build a ‘learning organisation’

10 tips on how to build a ‘learning organisation’

Feb 18, 2019 | Change, Leadership

 

‘Learning organisation’ is a cliché mouthed too often by those who have no experience with such a rare beast. 

The key is not to try and help the organisation learn, it is to help the people in it learn by doing, spread the good outcomes, and nip the causes of bad practises before they become established as a norm.

‘Learning’ is a key part of an organisational culture that is able to evolve in response to the external pressures it faces, to best leverage the resources available.

To achieve ‘learning organisation’ as an outcome, you must change the natural order of most enterprises, by applying a huge dose of leadership.

That is what makes it so hard, so to succeed, follow these 10 tips!

Remove the fear of failure.

Fear of failure is perhaps  the greatest impediment to learning, as nothing new is tried.  Employees need to be given the confidence that following an idea that does not deliver will not result in retribution.  Experimenting and learning in collaboration with suppliers and customers offers rich rewards.

Employment policy.

Employ those who are prepared to try new things, be a bit different, seek challenges and opportunities to test themselves. Too often we employ people who ‘look like us,’ and as a result we get more of the same. Be aggressive about the sort of employees you want. Being selective at the beginning pays off in spades, as there is little as challenging as undoing a poor employment choice, for  the person let go, the person doing the firing, and for the survivors. That does not take into account the costs of recruiting, training, and the opportunity costs of a poorly performing employee.

Future focused metrics.

Use metrics that are based on leading indicators of performance, not extrapolations of past performance. These metrics are challenging to identify and track, but the effort will be worth it.

Cause and effect, not correlation.

Ensure the links between cause and effect are real. Too often I see outcomes attributed to something other than the real causes, mostly because it is convenient and easy, and there appears to be a causal relationship. True cause and effect can be challenging to identify and quantify,  but is essential to understanding how the future will shape itself.

Use data but be careful of data seduction

Data can be used well or poorly, but data has in itself a character of precision and certainty that can be misleading. Clean and objective data that removes assumptions,  the power of the status quo, and really digs into the reasons something worked, or did not work, is required. Data also has two faces. What has happened, and what will happen. The former, when interrogated effectively can tell you a lot about ‘what’ happened, but often the ‘why it happened’ is elusive, requiring testing. Data presented as a definitive picture of the future should be taken with a huge degree of scepticism, as the only thing for sure we know about the future, is that it will not be the same as the past.

Take action.

Nice words do not move anything. Nothing happens until you take action, then learn from the outcomes and improve next time, by ensuring that the action is taken against a framework that has in it a core assumption being tested. When you do this methodically, you get to understand if the assumption was right or wrong, and why.

Build in time to think.

Those who are always busy, pushed by external schedules, do not reflect on things, do not give themselves the opportunity and time to just think about what has happened and why, the opportunity for the  flashes of insight, questions that need to be  answered  to emerge must be present.

Diversity.

Change the status quo from one where you have to fit in, to one where differences are valued, celebrated, and actively sought. This is not about gender, it is about thinking styles and differentiated skill bases.

Accountability. 

When no one is accountable, few will be prepared to take the initiative. Being transparently accountable, creates a bias towards action, which leads to learning. 

Process stability. 

This is a prerequisite for improvement. Unless you know which variable moved, and caused the outcome being examined, you have no chance of improving. Process stability is an essential ingredient of any improvement exercise, and improvement is all about learning.

These 10 tips have significant areas of overlap, and have in themselves cause and effect relationships. When you need someone to help untangling the mess, give me a call.

 

Header cartoon credit: another by the great Hugh McLeod of gapingvoid.com

What will happen after the Hayne report goes off the front pages?

What will happen after the Hayne report goes off the front pages?

Feb 15, 2019 | Change, Governance

 

Following the rather cynical post last Wednesday asking where the blame would be placed when the Royal Commission dust has settled, it seems only fair that I be prepared to stick my neck out to make some observations and suggestions, rather than just chucking stones.

•   The root cause of the malfeasance is the huge pot of money accumulated via Australia’s superannuation and various tax policies. Such juicy pots are always going to attract the sharks, therefore the oversight has to be that much more rigorous and transparent. APRA and ASIC have clearly failed in this arena, perhaps predictably as their resources have been progressively ‘trimmed’ by both sides of politics and the capability and motivation gap between them, and those setting out to get their noses in the trough, is significant.
However, we should not throw them too the wolves, rather we should give them the tools and leadership to do the job they were set up to do, and by world standards, have done pretty well to date. I am not so sure of the commissioners recommendation to establish an oversight body, as it seems that another bureaucratic level will just add to weight of bureaucracy for little value.

•   The complexity of the system has led to confusion and opacity of an advanced order. It is within the power of governments to set about reversing the trend. It will take a long time, and needs some level of bi partisan support (there I go again, dreaming) as any change will necessarily create losers. Those who have made decisions based on current rules must not be disadvantaged. The current proposal of the Opposition to change the dividend imputation rules is both stupid and immoral, and they should be whacked for it. However, if they must, make the changes but grandfather the current arrangements, as they are proposing to do with negative gearing.

•   We can spend all the money we like on so called ‘Education’ without much return. Increasing the average level of financial literacy during school years is sensible, but not an antidote to the cause of the problem, system complexity. Public broadcasting perhaps has a role in producing ‘infotainment’ similar perhaps to the ‘Checkout’ program on the ABC, but unfortunately, those in the most need of the information delivered are too busy watching some cooking or renovation show, and increasingly avoiding the ads by paying for bingeable streaming services.

•   The rorts have largely originated with the obsession with revenue, rather than the longer term outcomes. This is a function of our fixation with short term returns as measured by stock prices. While the pressure for short term performance will not go away, it is the responsibility of boards to ensure the longevity of the assets they are managing on behalf of shareholders, so it is therefore also their responsibility to manage them despite the inevitable short term fluctuations. The AICD should be taking a lead role in this, by both being very noisy which will be uncomfortable for them, and by providing quality longitudinal research that demonstrates the value of a longer term perspective upon which boards can build strategy with the strength to withstand the prevailing ‘short-termism’.

Last week the Wentworth Group of concerned scientists released their damming (forgive the pun) report on the progress of the Murray-Darling Basin plan. Like most such fact based research this will be lost in the welter of press releases, appearances by ‘deeply concerned’ politicians, and hubris, while nothing changes. Similarly, The Henry Review, the major report into Australia’s future tax system chaired by the then head of Treasury, Dr. Ken Henry, released in 2010, has been largely ignored or grossly mishandled. No wonder Dr Henry took the money and ran to the NAB, from which he will now exit in the near future. The list of examples goes on.
My point being that the bleating, hand-wringing and pontificating following the Royal Commission about doing better will make little progress in the face of political partisanship. The only exception I can recall that breaks this mould is the investigation into Institutional Child abuse, a damming report on the collective morality of our institutions, which has been met with bi-partisan support.

As a community we must not let the Hayne report be shelved, or used as a political football. Intelligent, fact based consideration needs to be given not just to the contents of the report but to the wider questions of the causes of the problems, and development of strategies that will deliver continuing prosperity to our children.

 

Header cartoon courtesy David Rowe and the Financial review.

Finding victory over the deceptive demons of the marketing mind

Finding victory over the deceptive demons of the marketing mind

Feb 13, 2019 | Communication, Customers

 

Years ago I heard the great social researcher and author Hugh McKay describe every persons view of the world as the sight they see from behind the bars of their own experience, background, training and ideas.

The more developed are all these barriers, the more and thicker the bars between you and the outside world.

For marketers setting out to engage those who are most unlikely to be like them, this creates a dilemma.

How do you remove the bars, and see the world as your prospective customer would?

The demons in your mind will try and convince you that the world is as you see it, and at the very least, they will allow only a modest number of modifications without a significant level of discomfort to you.

Human beings connect easily to those who are most like  them. This is a unifying factor of evolutionary biology. It ensures that as we evolved, the small communities in which we evolved could be secure, or at least as secure as possible from the beasties lurking in the undergrowth.

While we may understand at a logical level the nature of those we are setting out to influence, at a primal level, we struggle to align our thoughts and words to theirs, we remain wedded to our own instinctive patterns and prejudices.

We all value truth, love, and life, but the means of expressing those values will be different. In understanding and relating to the differences, despite our own deeply held views, lies the marketing gold of true empathy. It all comes down to the language you use. Not just the verbal one, which is  the default, but the whole range of non-verbal channels, which according to many studies contributes more than 50% to the interpretation the receiver makes of the message.

Trying to sell renewable energy technology to someone who believes fossil fuel is the only answer to the consistent delivery of baseload power is challenging, as is trying to convince a conservative Christian that same sex marriage is OK.  

Overpowering that lurking demon that demands you see the world of your customer in a particular way is fundamental to being successful.

 

Photo credit: Sculptures lurking the shadows collection