Apr 8, 2022 | Leadership, Management
Culture as defined by Michael Porter is ‘The way we do things around here.’ Those words imply ‘Local.’ Immediate. In the vicinity.
I have seen differing cultures exist in the one business in separate locations. When most commentators refer to ‘Corporate culture’ it implies that it is across the whole enterprise, and often it is. However, local leadership, established practices and the history of that particular unit can also result in a culture that bears no relationship to the corporate version beyond the fine words on the foyer wall.
So, what are the building blocks of a successful culture?
It seems to me that you have four headline characteristics, many with behaviours that grouped together make up the headline.
Respectful.
Respect is a very general word, open to different definitions in differing contexts. In this context, to me it means that every stakeholder has the right to be given, and be expected to give, respect to others. To be given consideration, have common courtesy extended, and be treated with dignity, irrespective of the role in the organisation they occupy. The part time casual cleaner has as much right to be respected for the job they do as does the CEO.
Inclusive.
Enterprises are similar to natural eco-systems. They thrive on diversity, and conversely, underperform as a monoculture.
This means that all sorts of diversity is welcomed and absorbed into the enterprise, each playing a role in building a robust and resilient system. It has little to do with the current blathering about gender equality, although that is a part of it. Diversity is encouraged by the presence of ideas that emerge from diverse backgrounds, life experiences, education in its broadest sense, acceptance of difference. These differences may be racial, sexual, physical, and every other ‘difference’ you will find in a population. Including them in an enterprise provides the opportunity for superior outcomes.
Ethical.
Ethical behaviour implies honesty, integrity, and accountability coupled with regulatory compliance, as well as the acknowledgement of the place ‘common sense’ should have. I considered using the word ‘Integrity’ to describe the characteristics of successful cultures I have seen, and it still holds that personal integrity must be present, but that is the point, integrity is a more personal word than ‘ethical.’
Safe.
By ‘safe’ I do not mean just physically safe, as in not being assaulted at work. ‘Safety’ is a much wider concept than that when applied to an enterprise. It means an individual is psychologically safe to be themselves, to express an opinion, and not be one of the crowd. This requires an expectation of transparency, accountability, up, down, and across an enterprise.
To be safe, you are also safe from bullying, the political ‘backstabbing’ that often occurs, and ruthless competition that has flexible boundaries not always equally evident to all.
The size of the organisation does not matter. Whenever you have more than one person present on a continuing basis, there will be modes of behaviour that can be called ‘Culture’.
Should you be inclined, you could take the converse of these points, and when you see them, they represent the symptoms of a failing culture.
Apr 6, 2022 | Change, Innovation
‘Go back to first principles’ is an often-heard expression. At least as often, those uttering it have no real idea of the meaning, beyond ‘think again’.
Twenty-six hundred years ago, Greek philosopher Aristotle defined it as: ‘The first basis from which a thing is known’
Application of ‘first principles thinking’ requires you to dig and dig into a situation until you are left with only a few foundational facts that cannot be disproved. You can then rebuild from the ground up.
Elon Musk is often cited as the current guru of this discipline, particularly as it related to the creation of what became SpaceX. Rather than buying a rocket at an astronomical price, he broke down the costs of the materials necessary, and set about assembling a team to do it for himself. The result was SpaceX, which reduced the costs of launching a rocket by 90%, while still making a profit. The same thinking was been used to create both Tesla cars and batteries, each relying on the other as a means to the end of replacing fossil fuels with renewables.
John ’40 second’ Boyd similarly broke the development and performance of fighter jets down to first principles, arriving at the OODA loop. He took it further with his thought experiment that led to the snowmobile.
These examples have something in common: they all combine ideas from different fields into a new solution to an old problem. How do you think the first suitcase with wheels came about? Engineer Bernard Sadow had a patent issued in 1972 after seeing the solution to his ‘luggage-lugging’ in an airport in 1970. However, real credit should go to a Croatian artist with a colourful background, Joseph Krupa, who stuck some wheels on a suitcase in 1954.
The key is to be able to see things from a functional perspective, rather than as a continuation and improvement of what you currently have. We have flying cars already, called aeroplanes, different form to what most might imagine, but the function is as we imagined, movement by air. The light bulb was not a result of continuous improvement of the candle, and the internet did not appear as just another significant improvement on Guttenberg’s printing press.
Thinking from first principles requires that you put aside all the accepted wisdoms, conventions, and forms in order to get back to the core truth. It is in effect another form of the lean ‘5 why’ tool, so useful in removing waste from processes.
The header photo is of Joseph Kruppa and his wheeled suitcase taken about 1954
Addition: This article by Michael Simmons has many more examples of situations which required the application of first principles to come to light, and the blindspots that prevent that happening..
Apr 4, 2022 | Collaboration, Leadership
Ask them for their advice, rather than an opinion.
When you ask for advice, you are doing the right thing, you are getting people inside the tent.
When you ask for an opinion, you are often doing the wrong thing.
You are giving them the opportunity for them to go back inside themselves, weigh up their views, and then tell you what they think you should do. Once said, it becomes harder for them to accept when the action you take is different.
When you by contrast ask for their advice, one word only is changed, but you have them inside your tent, they are a part of the solution you then present.
It seems logical to use props to make your position clear before you asked for something, setting out to engage others before you ask. However, it does not work all that well.
If I was collecting for the wilderness society, I would not dress up in a koala suit and hang around corners with a bucket asking for donations.
Instead, I would ensure that I was neatly dressed, and approached people who looked similar to me, and ask if they felt that there was enough being done to save the environment. Most would say ‘no’, which is then the time to ask for a donation to do more.
When they agree with your proposition, you have them inside your tent, the one that is concerned about the degradation of the environment. Under that circumstance they will be more likely to give you a donation, than they would if you accost them on a corner in a koala suit.
Mar 31, 2022 | Change, Innovation, Strategy
Management over the last 50 years has been driven by strategic planning. Sometimes it has been done well. Often it is little better than a good chance to catch up with peers, have a few sherbets, and get away from the office for a few days.
After the session, the production of a new plan, and articulation of targets nobody really believes in, life gets back to normal.
Familiar?
The fundamental flaw is that we expect to be able to plan for a future we cannot predict.
This is in no way to ridicule the process of gathering information, generating ideas and views about the way forward, and the means to measure the success or otherwise of the efforts.
Those efforts are essential, they provide the intellectual fodder necessary to at least avoid some of the bigger potholes, and make informed and sensible decisions.
However, they miss the essential truth that planning for a future you cannot predict is bound to miss the mark.
The solution?
Instead of looking for the answers to questions thrown up by analysis of the data we can collect, look instead for questions that need an answer.
Setting out to answer a big question, go exploring the unknown, is way more powerful than figuring out how to change the status quo.
You do not have to be a Steve jobs or Elon Musk to see a big problem that needs solving, they are around us every day at a local level, we just have to see them.
A client of mine is busily solving the dual problems of poor acoustics and heat insulation of our windows and doors using European technology adapted to local environments. I watched a presentation last week by a local franchisee of ‘Bark Busters’. This is now an international business aimed at managing the behaviour of dogs, specifically dogs that bark. Perhaps neither are solutions to global problems like global warming, but both are big problems to those who are in contact with them.
Look for problems to solve, rather than extrapolating the present to a bigger version of itself.
Mar 28, 2022 | Leadership, Marketing
Our enterprises are organised vertically, by function. Accounting, IT, HR, and so on, all vertically arranged to accommodate the leverage of resources that scaling of the output of those functions delivers.
Customers do not give a toss about your internal processes. Their only concern is the degree to which you can deliver the value they have paid for, the solution to the problem, the salve to their irritant, the mechanism to enable them to grow.
‘General management’ is a term that implies cross functional knowledge and accountability. Often however, the reality is different.
Functional expertise does not necessarily translate into cross functional effectiveness. Almost all ‘general managers’ irrespective of their title, are in that role because of functional skill and success.
Successful marketing by contrast relies on being able to assemble cross functional expertise and capacity in the absence of the functional power to do so. Marketers are the internal representatives of customers and potential customers, as well as being the custodians of the future cash flow initiatives of an enterprise.
Why is it that so few marketers make it to the ‘GM’ role? Why is it the tenure of senior marketing individuals is far shorter than the tenure of their senior functional peers?
Marketing, being about the future, requires foresight, an ability to deal with ambiguity, and a willingness to make decisions with less than complete information. Surely these are useful leadership skills?
It normally takes a while for the future to arrive, so success is hard to measure except with hindsight. It also make more obvious the inevitable mistakes that occur when a marketing function is seeking competitive advantage. Being wrong as you often will be when predicting the future, is rarely an ingredient in successful corporate pole-climbing.
Successful marketing requires horizontal skills as well as deep vertical ones concentrated on the tools to be used on the levers to be pulled. Of all of them available, the most important are in the hands of their functional peers, so horizontal, collaborative skill is an absolute requirement of successful marketers.
Often it is just called ‘leadership’
