May 15, 2013 | Governance, Leadership, Personal Rant
On this Budget “morning after” where public spending is at 33.5% of GDP and rising, all the debate is about the detail, weather or not the “baby bonus” should be retained, the validity of the forward estimates given recent history, and increase in the personal tax rate of 0.5% tearily described by the PM as just a small increase in the Medicare levy.
To my mind, we have missed the point.
It seems to me that a real problem in this country of ours is that we have allowed a culture to evolve that punishes errors of commission, those errant outcomes from someone actually taking some initiative, doing something, but getting it wrong. Sometimes they are the result of circumstances beyond their control, sometimes they just misjudge, and yes, sometimes, are just plain stupid, but at least they got off their arses and did something.
By contrast, we seem to just put up with those who do nothing but follow the party line, do as they are told, accept the status quo no matter how dumb they think it is, and just park their brains at the door.
Not the image we hold of ourselves.
The reality is about as far away from the bronzed Aussie gazing into the sunset somewhere harsh, taking all life can deliver with a grin and a stoic resolution to persist.
Perhaps it is about time we started focusing some light on those who did nothing, took no responsibility for their actions, and just sucked at the teat delivered on a platter.
Our public sector consumes well over 33% of GNP, yet produces nothing. Much of the money is necessary if we are to be a civilised society, but not all of it. The lack of productivity in the public sector is a national disgrace. Layers upon layers of paper shuffling, process management with little regard to outcomes, and meaningless KPI’s chased by intelligent, educated people, many of whom would love the opportunity to make change, but are prevented from doing so by the inertia of the system and prevailing culture.
The greater error should be the one of omission, not commission. How do we empower the bronzed Aussie of our collective imagination?. We should be seeking better outcomes for the money spent, not just arguing about the amount spent.
May 14, 2013 | Governance, Management, Operations, Uncategorized
I found myself in a heated debate last week with a headhunter about the value, and challenges of SME’s outsourcing the hiring of employees, particularly salespeople.
Her view: SME owners are so time constrained that anything not “core” to success should be outsourced, and left to professionals.
My view: If sales, or as I like to call it, Revenue generation, is not core to every SME, I do not know what is. Whilst it may be the product offering, that delivers the value, it is sales that delivers the opportunity to deliver that value, and therefore is the key role, and should warrant substantial attention. Picking those who will represent you with current and potential customers is much too important to be outsourced to “professionals” who get paid by delivering a body to a seat.
While there are exceptions at either end of the employee scale, casual factory workers are perhaps best outsourced, and it is probably sensible to have a headhunter exercise their skills and networks to find a group of people who fill demanding profile when seeking a new CEO, from which a board can make a choice.
However, this is not how it usually evolves. The usual is a harried, busy executive whose KPI’s have little to do with the quality of the team, and the individuals who make it up does not give adequate thought to the personal dynamics and capability requirements of the role, they just want a warm body that appears able to do the job in the seat ASAP.
Good salespeople make or break a business, the challenges in finding, keeping, and maximising their productivity are substantial, but are central to the success of the enterprise.
Apr 25, 2013 | Governance, Leadership
Today is ANZAC day, 2013, a day Australia stops, and remembers. We remember those who fell and amongst the detritus of hyperbole that seems to multiply every year, there are tales of courage, endurance and perseverance that should not be forgotten, along with hard lessons from which we should have learned.
Alas, it seems we have not.
We still have troops in Afghanistan, and the rhetoric is similar to that which I heard as some of my mates did not come back from Vietnam, a war that divided us to the point that the Vietnam Vets were not welcome in Anzac Day marches until 1987.
Disgraceful. A blight on our country.
I wonder at the long term impact on Afgan vets, will they be as screwed up as those from Vietnam, and WW11? My father to his deathbed did not talk about his experiences, the few comments over the years would lead to a conclusion that his time in the islands was boring, with just the occasional excitement, but that grossly understates what happened, even if it was nothing like the horrible, inhuman experiences of many.
By remembering, we hopefully do not repeat the mistakes, but human nature is that we seem not to take sufficient notice, and repeat them.
Just like in business, we should contemplate the motivations that led to our actions in the past, and learn enough not to repeat the bad ones.
Business however, is pretty benign compared to war, irrespective of how brutal we may believe it is. I am reminded of the quip by Keith Miller, our best-ever all round cricketer, spitfire pilot, and archetypal Australian larrikan who when asked during the invinvibles tour how he handled the pressure of a tight test, said “Pressure, this is not pressure, pressure is having an ME 109 up your arse at 400 miles an hour, this is just a game of cricket.”
Oh, the other reason I feel Anzac day is special, it is my beautiful daughters 28th birthday.
Happy birthday Jenn.
Lest we forget.
Apr 22, 2013 | Change, Governance, Leadership
It is always intriguing to get into a debate with one of my director peers about the way forward for an enterprise. Opinions vary, and the “chat” can become animated, as one did a few weeks ago. As a result, I jotted down a few points to email as a follow up, just for sport, (perhaps commercial suicide) but on re-reading, they seem to make sense. Following is a language edited version.
Bill, managing and promoting growth has a couple of dimensions:
The first is managing the customers, market dynamics, and value proposition that keeps the bills paid, the second in being able to look around the corner and see what is coming next. Not just in terms of the old “same/similar product/new customer/new market” matrix, but the genuinely new stuff, the revised business models, products that break the consumer usage mould, packaging of technology that genuinely changes the dynamics, i.e., the future.
This second part is really hard, but there are a few things that every success seems to have in common, that we need to consider:
- We need to understand what it is that we deliver, our purpose, why are we here?. Steve jobs did this better than anyone when he defined Apples purpose when he returned in terms of design, not the hardware or software, but the way in which consumers interacted with the product, and the design of the way it worked, and without being too wanky, its soul.
- See better than our competitors what it is we need to know to be successful in the future, indeed, we need to anticipate who may become competitors as the technology underpinning our business evolves. Those who saw the impact of the net first in terms of behaviour and the disruption of markets that occurred did best. Again, Jobs saw the future, and put bits of existing technology together in different ways and came to the market with revolutionary and disruptive products. By contrast, Jeff Bezos saw the future, and built Amazon to leverage that vision. In our business 3-D printing seems to have the potential to be a significant disrupter, it may miss us, but will not go away, so shouldn’t we be learning about the technology?
- Learn to unlearn, as they way we do things today will not be sufficient to survive in the future. This I see as a significant failure of the existing management, and our own demands of them. Rarely, outside the public sector have I seen a management so risk averse, but really, whose fault is that?
- Pilot, experiment, and take a lot of small steps, some of which individually may seem “flakey” but together provide the opportunity to learn. See comment above.
- Reward the behaviour you want, not just with money, as whilst money is important, far more important to our employees is recognition, and further opportunities to stretch their minds and build experience. They may move on with that knowledge and experience, but that is the world we live in, but while they remain, they contribute at a high level, and when they leave, they do so thanking us, not turning to Twitter to dump on us.
- Learn to live with the discomfort of not really knowing what is next, the disruption of the status quo that is fundamental to finding tomorrows successes. The twin notions of managing a project portfolio, and being prepared to pivot any project as circumstances demand rather than being wedded to some artificial business plan and operating budget should be embraced.
Unless we can agree that this list has some relevance to the way we direct the business, one of us has to go, and I would prefer it be me, as I do not want to be branded as one of the directors who failed to see the “crappola” coming, and when it hit, did not have the sense to turn off the fan. Besides, you are the chairman, and my peers like to be told what to do, so my departure can be seen as a “smoothing” of the board debates.
In short, it is my contention that we must manage the present, and invent the future, and to do this we need to develop a far higher degree of management ambidexterity, and sensitivity to our rapidly evolving marketplace.
I look forward to our next conversation.
Mar 28, 2013 | Governance, Innovation, Leadership, Operations, Small business
Manufacturing is not just an amalgam of industries, far more importantly, it is a capability, a way to capture imagination in a physical form.
In discussions about manufacturing, its slow demise in Australia, the level and type of support it should receive, its importance to long term prosperity, and the links between manufacturing and innovation, we leave one really important factor aside, one I suspect it is just not generally recognised. We define “industry” with the assumptions and words that came with the explosion of manufacturing in the last 100 years, the “food” industry, the “Auto” industry, the “Airline” industry, and so on. We do not seem to recognise that the capabilities are “cross industry” that the definitions we use no longer hold, if they ever did , beyond adding a bit of convenience to the language.
The lines are blurring further, rapidly and irrevocably.
Is Apple an electronics designer and manufacturer (Mac computers), a service provider (itunes) , or a product marketer (ipad)? My answer: They are all, and none of the above. Rather, Apple is a marketer that delivers its value proposition via a range of operational and sales channels that have nothing to do with the generally accepted definitions of industries. Certainly Apple has been able to leverage their collective imagination better than any other enterprise I can think of.
The next step is a truly scary one for many, the advent of 3-D printing.
Within a very short time, 3-D printers will be as available and cheap as desktop computers, all you need is a digital design file and a printer. We will be able to produce everything from simple household items to highly specified parts for our cars, produced in our kitchen.
The marvelous wind powered devices of designer Theo Jansen have been printed in miniature, and work just like the full sized ones, and dramatically make the point. If you can imagine it, you can now print it!
Manufacturing is about to go through a change as profound as that brought on by the steam engine.
20th century notions and boundaries to “manufacturing” are as outdated as a bow and arrow in a gunfight, so we must change the language and intellectual boundaries of the conversation if we are ever to make any sense of the dynamics at play.
Mar 14, 2013 | Governance, Innovation, Personal Rant, Strategy
Leaving aside the fact that it is an election year, and rhetoric is the usual fare served up, there remains an economy to run.
Lots of space will be allocated to “Innovation” plans, the Manufacturing jobs announcements a few weeks ago, the Arts creativity and Innovation plan announced yesterday, big announcements, lots of largely recycled money that probably will not be delivered, and hot air expended, but what of the real dilemma?
Governments govern, they (attempt to) create repreatable processes that exclude variation and eschews risk, whereas innovation requires a high tolerance for risk and failure, the absolute opposite of the risk appetite of Government. Distinctly oil and water here!
How do we encourage and support startups, the innovation lifeblood of the economy? The stuff we can dig up and flog at commodity prices cannot in the long run be anything but a race to the bottom of the price curve, and we will lose, as we are unprepared to accept the labour, environmental and public oversight deficiencies of our less fussy international competitors.
At a time when our exports of services are declining, can we ignore the opportunities in tech startups and services? When Google puts its money where its mouth is, and gets together with a few entrepreneurs with a track record of success as they have with the Silicon Beach Action Group, should we listen?
