Jun 13, 2011 | Leadership
I listened to the Rugby League game yesterday between the Broncos and the Raiders, an extraordinary game that the Broncos had won, almost lost, then won in a golden point “coin toss”
For no particular reason, the term “character” came to mind while listening. It is an overused term in Rugby league, every player doing something a bit good is suddenly a “hero” who showed “extraordinary character”, according to pundits, but this is not what post is about.
This is about the character of leadership, the person who can imbue an organisation with a set of behavioral norms that have a lasting and wide impact.
Wayne Bennett must be such a leader. I have never met the man, no longer follow League with any passion, but Bennett’s leadership record from the Canberra Raiders in their formative years, to the Broncos, and now St George is unmatched. Few would bet against him in his next iteration at Newcastle.
So, what is the character of a leader like Bennett?
Surely it is someone who can overcome the challenges presented by the complicated and multifarious environment we all live in, by developing and articulating a sense of inner moral certainty that impacts those being led. They seem to be able to make the leap necessary to subjugate their own needs and ego to those they are leading, effectively to be their leader by being their servant, getting their kicks from those being led, rather than from observers.
In this context it is about giving a bunch of very aggressive young athletes in a brutal contact sport who largely lack formal education, their own moral compass that makes them better players with reserves of determination and commitment they probably do not even recognise, but more importantly, makes them better people in a lasting way.
In other contexts, the impact of character is the same, it is just the names that change. Perhaps this is why we are so cynical about our political and institutional leadership, every time we wake up there is another example of someone in a leadership position demonstrating the lack of moral and philosophical depth by being “pragmatic”.
Jun 13, 2011 | Collaboration, Lean, Strategy
A basic discipline of Lean Thinking is the quest for the root cause of a problem, enabling a solution to treat the disease, not just the symptoms.
The converse discipline, seeking the root cause of success so that it can be understood, articulated and used to build repeatable processes is far less commonly used, but no less important.
Many years ago as a young product manager, I was on the periphery of the creation of Meadow Lea’s iconic “you ought to be congratulated” advertising. As the success of the advertising which emerged from a brave combination of consumer research and creative insight became evident, a lot of effort was put into assembling a detailed understanding of the dynamics at work that drove the success, so we could ensure it continued whilst being expressed sufficiently differently to remain fresh to consumers .
I have never forgotten the lesson.
Unfortunately, the more recent management of the current owners of the brand, Goodman Fielder, have forgotten the lessons if they ever knew them, proving again the value of corporate memory, and the effort it takes to institutionalise it, turn it into the culture of the place, rather than allowing it remain in peoples heads, only to have them move on.
Jun 9, 2011 | Change, Innovation, Lean, Strategy
Is there a win win here, does being sustainable environmentally mean a compromise to commercial sustainability, or is environmental sustainability a foundation of commercial sustainability?
Increasingly the latter is becoming the more obvious answer.
As the green debate widens, and business takes a view, the pro’s and cons will get aired, practices will change as best practice evolves and is copied, and our consumption of inputs/unit of output will reduce.
Recently in the UK I saw business and environmental sustainability work hand in hand in the produce supply chain to supermarkets. Barfoots of Botley, a producer of corn, and other vegetables to the supermarkets in the UK has commissioned an anaerobic digester that consumes all their organic waste, turning it into gas to run the processing and packaging plant, with the excess being sold back to the grid. The sludge from the digesters is a great fertiliser for their farms and for sale, and increasingly other local growers are sending their waste to Barfoots for processing, creating an added income stream. As a by product, their major customers love them for it, as it assists their “green credentials” with M&S recently being a star in the Tech magazine Fast Company’s top 50 innovative companies list
Around the web there are lots of stories of businesses that have set out to reduce waste, and the benefits flow. Subaru in the US has spent years reducing waste, and is now the creating no waste at all to go to landfill, but that effort is a part of the effort to ensure that their customers are paying only for what adds value to their experience
Michael Porters January 2011 contribution to the question in the HBR, his notion of “Shared Value” makes a strong case of mutual benefit, and as you look around, it is there to be seen.
My conclusion is that there is a strong correlation, however, when one of our politicians asks us to trust that their policies will lead to this sort of productive investment, just because it suits their political agenda, without any rigorous understanding of the difficulties involved, I get the jitters.
Jun 7, 2011 | Communication, Social Media
Try this on U-tube, a recitation of stats that should leave no doubt that social media is mainstream, not a toy for the digital generation.
OK, we all know you cannot believe everything you see on the web, so halve all the numbers, quarter them, and it still does not make much difference to the only logical conclusion. Social media is not a fad, it is mainstream, it is a revolution, and it is gaining momentum as we speak.
Jun 6, 2011 | Leadership, Management
How do you find the right people to contribute to the growth and prosperity of an organisation? This task is generally recognised as a core management function, but so often a new hire makes little real difference beyond delivering more of the same, if you are lucky.
How come it is so hard??
My view, it is usually easier to find someone with seemingly relevant experience along with the right set of qualifications and contacts than it is to find someone with the right attitude, someone who does not need to unlearn lessons learnt in a similar environment, someone with a contrarian view, who will fit into and contribute to a differentiated culture.
If you want more of the same, then continue as before, but if you want to create excitement, break the mould, change stuff, you need someone with the right attitude, skills can be learned.
