Jan 9, 2013 | Collaboration, Operations, Small business
We all negotiate every day, from the small mundane things in our lives to once in a decade decisions.
Two simple considerations play a key role in the outcome:
1. Controlling the environment in which the negotiation takes place, and
2. Constructing the conversation such that the other party nominates their expected outcome first.
A successful negotiation is one that has all parties leave the table happy and prepared to execute on the agreement, but consider the impact at something like location can have on the behavior.
Imagine you are negotiating a major deal, and the other party nominates a 5 star location as the venue, compared to going to their plant and conducting the negotiation in the factory lunch-room. It is likely that the differing locations will impact on your expectations?.
Anchoring is the psychological process underlying the point from which a negotiation starts, and generally dictates the region in which it finishes.
Research by Daniel Kahneman, the psychologist with a Nobel laureate in economics, displays this anchoring behaviour in experiments using a roulette wheel. He asked subjects to guess the percentage of African nations in the UN after spinning the wheel. Was the number greater or less than the number on the wheel?. Subjects who saw a low number on the wheel consistently guessed the percentage of African membership lower than those who saw a high number.
Clearly the roulette wheel has no impact on the number of African UN members, but the number at which the wheel stopped played a significant role in anchoring responses to the question.
Jan 8, 2013 | Management, Strategy
Ever heard of John R. Boyd? I hadn’t until I stumbled across this article in Fast Company magazine.
Observation, Orient, Decision, Action.
Instinctively it seems to make sense, Observing and understanding the pressure points, orienting your thinking to reflect the evolving situation, making resource deployment decisions to leverage the opportunities emerging, then executing on them, whilst going through the processes again, and again, as more information becomes available.
A variation on the Shewhart circle, which is now well known as the Plan Do Control Act (PDCA) circle in manufacturing, applied to competitive strategy with the wrinkle that the focus is not improving your own performance, but destroying the oppositions ability to compete effectively.
I have often said that getting inside your oppositions head is the best competitive strategy you could have. The OODA loop is simply a template to organise and focus the process.
Update: August 2017. I found this long article on Medium that also provides an outline of OODA. A useful addition.
Jan 3, 2013 | Social Media
Where Social Media Will Grow in 2013 (and Where It Won’t).
This is a really good list. Every senior executive who still thinks social media is just where their kids post inappropriate photos should think about it.
Whilst you are at it, read this Forbes article as well, and have a look at the GE video. It may be an ad for Salesforce.com disguised as commentary by Beth Comstock, the GE marketing honcho, but the weight of GE is enormous, and their record of picking the trends over the last 20 years is extraordinarily good.
Jan 3, 2013 | Customers, Management, Sales
Some informal research I completed recently amongst businesses in my “patch” turned up a surprising result.
One the questions I asked was “what is the most important job in your business?
The surprise was that so few respondents nominated “sales” at all, let alone in the top three.
When you think about it, without sales to pay for the apparently more important functions like, HR, Marketing, OH&S management, engineering, NPD&C, and all the rest that got a mention, all those more fashionable functions will not be around.
Has “Sales” become its own metaphor?
Sales is often an entry level role personified by the keen young bloke (or gal) with the brief-case, glib tongue, and “crash or crash through” attitude to human relations, and as a result is being left behind in the corporate furr-ball. Do well in sales, and you might be promoted to marketing.
Perhaps we should rename sales “Revenue Generation”. Call it what it is, focus more on those carring the direct responsability to conduct conversations with those who write the orders, and perhaps that might focus the mind a bit better?
Jan 2, 2013 | Branding, Change, Marketing, retail, Small business
This is the first post of the new year, so it seemed appropriate to hop on a hobby-horse, the indiscriminate use of the word “iconic”, in all sorts of situations.
My beef today is specific to the food industry.
The call to receivers to sort out “Rosella” has created a lot of noise, of the “another “Iconic” Australian food business goes to the wall” type.
Whilst it is true that the Rosella brand has been around for a long time, it has not been owned by an Australian company in my memory in the food industry, which is disturbingly long. Rosella was owned by the British/Dutch multinational Unilever for many years, who sold it to the Dutch trader Stuart Alexander probably 15 years ago. They failed to give it the breath of life, and on-sold it to the South African group that ultimately owned Gourmet Food Holdings, as their vehicle to assemble food brands. They also owned Aristocrat, which in my memory was owned by an Australian family who actually cared about their products. Problem was they had a factory in Chatswood in Sydney, now prime real estate, and insufficient marketing grunt to maintain retail real estate,
So, what makes an “Iconic Australian business”?
I might be persuaded that “Rosella” was an Australian brand, as you could not buy it anywhere else, but certainly not that it was an iconic Australian brand, or Australian business, which is the other epithet often used.
To me “iconic” has a number of dimensions:
Longevity.
Market share, but more importantly than share, the potential to shift markets due to consumer trust and loyalty.
Consistent delivery of value to customers/consumers.
Over time, it has managed to evolve so that it accurately reflects the core proposition of the brand in a manner relevant to the customers/consumers of each of those times.
On all but the first of these parameters, Rosella fails the test. Ask yourself “who will miss Rosella?” and the real answer is very few.
So why the hand-wringing?
Simple. The demise of Rosella in another example of the decimation of the Australian food manufacturing industry, particularly the small manufacturers. Here we are, in a geographically enviable location close to the burgeoning Asian markets, with advanced R&D, skilled workforce, high and transparent standards, able to produce commodities at world competitive costs, but we are failing to feed our own people from our own resources, huge amounts of manufactured food is now imported, (more than $10 billion last year) and the trend is accelerating.
We have White papers dealing with the Asian century and our place in it delivering cliches, and task forces examining the woes of the food manufacturing industry, and making grand recommendations, but not much activity that is useful, so I guess we have to kid ourselves to feel better.
Happy new year, I hope it is “iconic” for you.
