“Values”. What does it mean?

    “Values” is a widely misused term, one that is often a key break out subject at the annual senior management off site session, subject to sage pronouncements, then usually ignored.

    Having participated, and more recently facilitated many of these sessions over the years, I have seen a few words that emerge, and that have actually evolved to mean something to the businesses concerned once the bull session is over:

  1. Reciprocity, where each individuals takes responsibility for their performance, that of their colleagues, and the organisation as a whole. When all individuals take this step, and the structures in the organisation are aligned, a powerful mutual and widely shared obligation, reciprocity, can emerge.
  2. Teamwork, that fosters  collaboration and cross functional  value creation
  3. Achievement, where the employee is recognised and rewarded for setting and achieving ambitious goals, but where money is only a small part of the reward system
  4. Integrity, which creates barriers to the short term, and is the foundation of the other values.
  5. The words used differ from place to place, but the presence of these four in some form appears to be a basic recipe for success. 

     

Innovation in Afghanistan.

Straying from my usual “beat” I read the Rolling Stone article that caused the downfall of General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan.

It seems to me that he was fired, not because he was insubordinate, but because he failed to manage the politics surrounding the adventure in Afghanistan.

The article is a revealing, and fascinating narrative of an innovative, unconventional manager who got things done by ignoring the weight of the status quo, and its proponents. The parallels in management are everywhere, to be different, take closely considered risks, apply the unconventional, take information from the “front line” and argue with authority, all are traits necessary in a leader who is successful, and particularly successful at implementing innovative solutions to seemingly intractable problems. 

Afghanistan has been a problem for every army since Alexander that has sought to place its stamp on the place, the US is no different.  Engagement there screams for the unconventional, as the conventional has never worked, but conventional leaders cannot deliver unconventional solutions.

Many more will die, and more billions spent before the US and its “allies” including Australia wake up, but it is hard to admit you are wrong.  

 

The power of candor

Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE, the worlds largest manufacturing company recently made some unflattering remarks about the Chinese and US leadership, and has been widely pilloried.

What happened to freedom of speech?

We seem to have become immune to the facts, or one persons version of the facts, to the extent that when they are voiced, and we disagree,  we are made sufficiently uncomfortable to attack the person, not the underlying assumptions that led to the view in the first place.

The words of public figures are so widely seen as spin, that we dismiss everything said publicly as tainted by self interest, but by  muzzling the views of a bloke like Immelt, one of the most powerful, sensible, successful and outspoken figures in the commercial world, we risk losing a voice from which we can learn much.

Fact and hyperbole.

It is often pretty easy recognise marketing hyperbole when we see it, particularly in a category where we have some knowledge. However, in a category where we have no knowledge, it probably is not as easy to pick the fact from the flummery, so even some of the more extravagant claims made may get through the mental fence.

Therefore, hyperbolic claims extolling the virtues of a new small car for example,  are more likely to be rejected by the men who may engage with the ad, because they largely believe they know a bit about cars, rather than  women, who believe they know little about cars, and are therefore less able to pick the BS from the facts. 

This becomes very relevant when marketing a product to a category of consumers who know a bit about the product, and are therefore going to be more critical of the message based on what they know, or believe they know about the category, so be careful of the hyperbole, it will almost always turn off potential buyers, rarely persuade them.

 

Statistics and thinking

A statistical analysis should give a black and white answer, and it does, but the answer is only as good as the information that is used, and the manner in which it is used.

It follows then that the application of analytical tools should be in the context of a way of thinking through problems, evolving and testing solutions, and connecting the resulting processes in such  a way that they deliver repeatable solutions that deliver positive outcomes.

Statistics are not very useful with out the support provided by creative and insightful thinking, and such thinking is uninformed without the benefit of the analytical foundations of statistics.

Sometimes it all gets too stupid, as was the case during the resources tax debate prior to the removal of Kevin Rudd. Formerly reputable KPMG had done two studies on the tax, one for each of the protagonists, and ho, ho, who could guess, comes up with  two opposing answers that just happen to support the opposing views of those who commissioned the studies.

This laughable tale highlights the paucity of real thought that went  into the debate and the nonsense value of financial modeling without the supporting rigor of thought, and it goes on. The deal now done reduces the tax take on paper far more than the number  put out by the government, the numbers simply do not add up, and it is easy to assume that there has been some more creative assumptions built in to alleviate the political heat associated with another “back-flip”.

Who would ever believe “financial modeling” again.