Nov 8, 2011 | Management, Strategy
The electronic revolution in all its guises is a paradox, and a huge challenge to any management group, and individual who seeks to make a mark.
On one hand, the advances in the capacity to process, store and transmit data is ravaging 20th century business models, on the other, it is creating huge opportunities to create new value.
The area in the middle of these two extremes is rough commercial terrain, full of quicksand for the unwary. This observation applies to both the businesses that survive on the web, as well as those more traditional manufacturing and processing businesses who still need factories and farms to produce stuff. It is just that all the processes that support the management activities have been changed dramatically.
Nov 7, 2011 | Collaboration, Communication, Leadership
The core skill of a successful innovator is their ability to recover from disappointment and failure, to learn from it, and go again, to embrace and recover fom error, not avoid it. As Steve Jobs Pixar’s founder said, “The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who can” in the now more famous 1997 Apple advertisement “think different”
In this presentation by Randy Nelson, Dean of the Pixar University, the in-house learning facility of that innovation machine, Pixar, the things Pixar looks for in a potential employee are outlined. My summary and thoughts are below, but it is well worth the time watching Randy.
- Resilience and adaptability are the key components of the ability to recover, and change direction in the face of negative results and failure.
- Look for people who have mastery of something to demonstrate the innate drive to be the best. A resume is usually just a wish, a promise, so probe for mastery of something, anything as an indicator that they have what it takes to be the best.
- Find people who are interested, more than they are interesting. Interested is an indicator of curiosity, a core competence in success.
- Collaboration is more than co-operation on steroids. A production line can be co-operative, the actions at one stage impact on the actions at a subsequent one, so you need co-operation for it to work well but it is a sequential thing, whereas collaboration is all about amplification, the sum is greater than the individual parts. Individuals bring ranges of separate experience, knowledge, depth of understanding, depth of knowledge, breadth of knowledge that allows them to communicate on multiple levels, then collaboration can happen.
Nov 4, 2011 | Branding, Communication, Marketing, Strategy
A consumers relationship with a brand is a bit like a friendship, if it is strong, you will be prepared to put up with a bit of nonsense and still be friends, if it is weak, you may not be. If the poor behaviour continues, it will normally be the end of the “brand friendship”, after all, a friendship is supposed to be a two way process.
It’s a simple equation, deliver the benefits of friendship, the “brand promise” to people who care, and you will not depreciate your brand, fail to deliver, and depreciation occurs, and as every marketer knows, building it up is always harder than tearing it down
Accountants understand the notion of friendship in a balance sheet, called “goodwill”, they see it all the time, problem is they do not understand how it gets there.
A quick scan of the commentary yesterday after the Cup day reduction of retail interest rates resulted in all the major banks, except NAB, passing on the whole reduction indicates, a customer PR bellyflop of significant proportions, a whack on the nose to all “brand friends” .
It really does not matter how justified the “banking” of .05% of the decrease by NAB may be, they have just spent millions telling us how they are different from the others, setting themselves up as the bank for service, one you can go to with your financial problems, your banking friend, and it has been an effective message. All gone, “Poof”.
A rational bankers decision based on the margin squeeze created by the rising costs of wholesale money, and the reducing rates in Australia, but taken in an emotional market. Dumb.
Want to see brand depreciation, just look at NAB for a case study.
Nov 3, 2011 | Change, Leadership, Strategy
It seems that the carrot and stick approach will work less in the future than it has in the past. Science is demonstrating that for tasks that require even a modest amount of cogitative skill, paying more for the task actually reduces performance. Again, the higher the rewards, the less the performance, and our world is rapidly becoming a place where routine and repetitive tasks are being eliminated.
So much for the notion of huge executive pay as an incentive. When you look around, it is pretty obvious. Linux, Wikipedia, Apache, the list goes on, major businesses emerging from an economically impossible business model, getting smart people to work for nothing, then giving away the results!
That should make an economists head hurt.
Humans work for a meal and a place to stay, be warm, and have some basic comforts, but once these basics are taken care of, they work for the satisfaction, the recognition, to achieve something meaningful, and to enjoy doing it. The trick therefore is to have a purpose in your business, one that engages and motivates, and allow your employees to exercise their innate creativity and insight to achieve the purpose.
Daniel Pink presents these ideas in an animated presentation that is as entertaining as it is informative.
Nov 2, 2011 | Management, Operations, Strategy
Yesterday’s question time, a childish brawl over who knew what and when about the Qantas decision to ground its aircraft, lock out staff, and leave customers around the world stranded, got me thinking. Not just about the pointless squabbling amongst the pollies over a point of history that legally is none of their business, but about the way a business can be subject to expectations way out of line with their competitors, and its legal obligations.
It is obvious that Qantas had considered grounding as a tactic in their industrial dispute, it is completely stupid to think Alan Joyce woke up on Saturday with a bright idea, there would have been a deep consideration at board level of a very aggressive and disruptive tactic that was almost of a “bet the farm” nature.
The real question is, what obligations does Qantas have to act in what politicians consider to be the public interest, when Qantas is a public company, and the Government sold their shareholding years ago in order to free themselves from the demands of being the major shareholder?
Qantas is fighting for its survival, the competitive world of aviation has moved on, and Qantas must adjust or disappear, and yet, there are clamourings for it to ignore the probability of its demise without change.
What gives the pollies, and a large portion of the public the right to demand that Qantas shareholders take a bath to satisfy an emotional attachment that is not backed by any financial commitment? If this was almost any other company in the top 100 listed companies, the tactics in an industrial dispute would be of little general interest, only the stakeholders directly involved would be making their points, and then within the legislated framework.
Why is Qantas different?
