Aug 24, 2022 | Governance, Leadership, Management
There has been an awful lot of trees cut down to accommodate the blather about the new world of post covid work. In an effort to condense the ‘debate’ and save a few trees, the following is what I have gleaned.
Humanity.
We humans are social animals, we need other people around us for our own psychological health and creative productivity. Therefore, the idea of general remote work becomes a potential mental health time bomb. We will adjust to it by mostly going back to the office. it is very unlikely to be 9 to 5, there will probably be more satellite offices, short term but regular meeting schedules, but back we will go in some form.
Proximity.
Physical proximity enables deeper communication than any other form. Even the distance apart in the office makes a difference to the nature of the communication we have with each other. Not just about work, but the tiny things that we do not notice until they are not there, and even then, often with hindsight only.
Trust.
Trust enables teams to work together. The less face to face contact, the harder it is the generate that trust, making teams harder to assemble, generate productive outcomes, then disassemble and reform for another project or purpose.
Belonging.
We are sustained by a sense of ‘belonging’. We are drawn to ‘people like me’ but when we do not see them, or see them only occasionally or over Zoom, the sense of belonging frays, leading to eroding productivity and sense of community.
WFH.
Working from home for many has been great, not having that commute every day. It is convenient for many. However, convenient is not always good for us. Going to the gym every day may not be convenient, but it is good for our health.
Leadership.
Leadership and the nature of that leadership has never been more important. In the past we had a few leaders, and a lot of managers. In a world where remote work is a consistent part of the output, just being a manager will not cut the mustard. We need more leaders, and have not trained them, which indicates problems for many, and opportunity for the few in the coming few years.
Alignment.
The alignment of priorities and performance measurement and the place each individual has in the scheme of this is critical. When an individual cannot see how their efforts contributes, to both those in their immediate vicinity and to the overall objective, the effort will become diluted. Working remotely in the absence of that focus on priorities and outcomes will lead to real productivity challenges for the enterprises, and personal ones for the individuals.
Culture.
Culture is a function of the leadership, and how the leadership permeates the organisation. Building a culture in a remote workforce is more challenging than when face to face is the norm. Some have done it well, but mostly they are the enterprises that have started life as remote enterprises, so those who join, and remain, have the right ‘remote work DNA’ from day 1. The holding company of website builder WordPress, Automattic springs to mind. Founder Matt Mullenweg set out to make the company completely remote from day one, but even he has co-working spaces in places where employees are concentrated.
Technology.
Technology is what has made this remote working possible, but it is also planting the seeds of our own disassociation with those we need around us for our own well-being. Like most things, too much of anything good becomes a problem.
Clearly, we are not yet ‘Post covid’. However, the workplace has changed over the last 2 years, and while the jury is still out, when it comes back the status quo will not be the same as pre covid.
There has also been a lot written about the great resignation, and its relationship to covid. My suspicion is that it is not covid specifically that has driven the change, although covid was the catalyst. The model we have been using to get the work done was over a century old, and getting pretty creaky. Covid acted as the catalyst for many to simply reconsider their working lives in the light of the tools that have emerged in the last 10 years, and they chose to make a change. Enterprises must adapt to these new models of work. Those that can’t will become rapidly extinct.
What have I missed?
Header cartoon credit: Tom Gauld
Aug 15, 2022 | Leadership, Strategy
Strategy is an exercise of informed fortune telling.
What will happen if we do this? Is that better than if we do that? How will others react, do the ducks really all align the way they seem to?
A thousand questions we set out to answer to allocate our resources to best leverage the outcomes we plan/hope will emerge.
It is a messy business, full of uncertainty, mistakes, dead ends, and outright failures, most of which we hear little about. Instead, we hear a lot about the few successful exercises in strategy, the few that work as hoped, or as is usually the case, not as planned, but great outcomes.
We read about the success because people can analyse them with the benefit of hindsight, which delivers to those developing the strategy, some level of prescient certainty that they almost never deserve. Fact is, your strategy will never be spot on, the magic is in the ability to adjust on the run, while achieving the outcome for which you planned.
The strategic process benefits from being subjected to informed and critical thinking being applied to the inputs, both quantitative and qualitative. The greater the level of critical thought and diverse thinking that can be brought to bear on a strategic challenge the better.
The context of strategy implementation is always different to the context in which you do the planning, simply because it is the future, and things evolve in unpredictable ways.
I expect that in about 12 months there will be a rush of erudite papers and articles reporting on successful Corona instigated transformations. These will make the protagonists look like they had great foresight others lacked, when in fact, while they ended up with the lollies, they were as confused and muddled as the rest of us during the lolly fight.
They had the benefit of hindsight to clean up their bedrooms before anyone came along for a look.
Strategy is messy because it lacks hindsight
Aug 10, 2022 | Innovation, Leadership, Strategy
When are the funds for an innovation initiative generally available?
At the beginning of a project.
When are the funds for an innovation project generally needed?
Increasingly towards the commercialisation, or completion of a project.
To me, this usual pattern of financial resource availability is arse about.
At the initiation of a project, the resource needs are peoples time, lab space, and the commitment from senior management., The need for financial resources is usually limited. However, it is this time that projects need to gather momentum, which means financial resources and forecast outcomes are included in budgets, and formal planning processes. The best way to ensure a project is supported is to ‘boost’ the promised returns and shorten the lead times.
Unfortunately, this locks in expectations that have impacts on the way projects proceed.
A project that promises 25% IRR in 18 months will almost always win the resources race over a project that forecasts 30% IRR in 5 years. This sort of financial analysis is how choices are usually made, ignoring the strategic implications of the differing projects. This is because we have not found a way yet to reliably tell the future, and immediacy is a powerful motivator.
On top of that you have the favouring of evolutionary ‘innovation’ over ‘revolutionary’ innovation.
Most successful businesses become successful by incrementally improving products and processes over time, and are prepared to spend money to keep the evolution going. The challenge of this is that it crowds out the revolutionary innovation, the ones that have the potential to change markets, rather than just do more of the same but just a bit better.
The examples of these abound.
When I was working for Cerebos in the early 80’s, we marketed a muesli under the brand ‘Cerola’. It was in the days when there were only a few breakfast cereals on the market, unlike today. Similarly, confectionary was less fragmented. We came up with the notion of a muesli bar, a ‘healthier’ snack than anything then available, with the convenience and taste of confectionary for kids lunch boxes. We did extensive product development, several pilot plant trials, and a little market research. In the early stages I had done a forecast profit and loss, timeline, and we had established the capital costs necessary for the changes to the existing muesli line. These were included in the Cerebos budgets as project ‘M’. The numbers were modest, but at the time, pushed as far as I felt comfortable. When it came to the final go/no go decision, the project was binned, as the forecast IRR based on my modest sales forecasts did not meet the hurdle. A year later, Uncle Toby’s came out with pretty much the same product and positioning, and did my annual sales forecast in the first month. Opportunity missed, and lesson learnt.
Kodak, that well known exemplar of the missed opportunity, not only invented the digital camera in 1975, they brought out the first viable digital SLR, the Kodak DCS-100 in 1991. While it was bulky, and expensive, it was the first. In 1994 Kodak supplied Apple with the ‘Apple QuickTake’ manufactured in China to a Kodak design. Also in 1994, Kodak brought out the NC2000 designed for photo-journalists.
So, Kodak did not miss the digital camera revolution, they led it, but simply failed to see beyond the boundaries of the photography business model as it had evolved over the previous century. They saw innovation as an evolutionary process, not revolutionary, as that carried the risk that their existing hugely profitable model would become redundant. None of the senior management over that time wanted to fund the risk of shooting the cash cow upon which they all depended.
Cerebos by contrast were shackled by a short-term focus on an unrealistic financial expectation that ignored the strategic value of the opportunity to generate sales, and also to open a new market that carried and solidified the Cerola brand.
In both cases, a huge opportunity that emerged from the fringes of their markets were subjected to a muddle headed and front-loaded financial calculation, ignoring the strategic implications of the opportunity.
Header source: The extensive StrategyAudit ‘slide bank’ built up over 30 years.
Aug 3, 2022 | Governance, Leadership, Management
We are in a climate of uncertainty. The next twist in the Corona pandemic, war in Europe, confrontation with China, and the daily scrambling at all levels of government, stacked onto the usual challenges of making decisions in a business, all make the current situation especially difficult.
The instinct is to wait a bit and see how it evolves.
However, having a bias to action, being prepared to do the groundwork, consider options that take a calculated risk, being prepared to back away with the learning of being wrong and having another go, is a key leadership characteristic in uncertainty.
Essential to leadership is taking decisions with less than complete information. You must then be prepared to adjust on the run, or even retreat when the planning assumptions are proven to be off target. However, there is a danger in being too aggressive. Sometimes delaying a decision is the best strategy. It is a critical balance.
Following are some ways you can bring some order to the decision-making process.
- Gather as much data as you can, but in uncertainty, it is the ‘gut’ of deeply experienced people who have ‘been there done that’ which often makes a critical difference to the quality of the outcomes from the decision. By definition, in highly uncertain times, there may not be much relevant data available.
- Ensure those experienced people are heard in the decision-making process. Ensure ‘due process’ is observed
- As part of the consideration exercise, undertake a ‘reverse 5 why‘ exercise.
- Ensure you have what I call an ‘Andon‘ system in place. This term comes from Toyota, where there is an ‘Andon chord’ which anyone on the production line can pull to stop production in order to prevent a fault progressing to the next stage, and being hidden as a result. It works for Toyota, and has been adopted widely elsewhere as a means to deliver consistent quality
- Gather as many ‘metaphors’ and similar situations in other industries as you can, there will be lessons there. For example, disc brakes were developed first to stop trains in the 30’s, and aeroplanes during WW11, as drum brakes were woefully inadequate. Citroen introduced the first successful mass production of discs on their ground-breaking DS in 1955, and now they are on every car made.
- Leverage ‘reverse planning’ and ‘What if’ questions. Every decision is based on both data and some level of instinct. When considering the future, few questions are as powerful as ‘What if….’ Being prepared by asking a wide range of questions that subject the assumptions often made automatically, often without consideration, will prepare for the unexpected.
- Be very clear about the problem being solved. Any decision can have second and third order impacts, so consider them beforehand as far as possible.
- Never move away from being customer centric. When this becomes a slogan, or ‘core value’ whose only role is a place in the reception of head office, beware!
- Don’t be a wimp. Make the tough calls while being transparent that not all the information you may like is available, but that the very least it will be a learning experience.
As a final note, good decisions can sometimes deliver poor outcomes, and the reverse is also true, bad decisions can lead to good outcomes for all the wrong reasons. Do not confuse the two.
Header cartoon credit: Gapingvoid.com
Jul 28, 2022 | Analytics, Leadership
Psychology drives our behaviour, and yet we struggle miserably to forecast the impact it will have. Therefore, we cannot predict behaviour with any real accuracy, except with the benefit of hindsight, or across the average, assuming we ask the right questions.
There are five important psychological factors that profoundly impact the sorts of decisions, big and small we make every day.
Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, Fairness.
Psychologists put them together into the ‘SCARF’ model as they set about understanding the drivers of behaviour, which centres around ‘away’ movements to minimise threats, and ‘towards’ movements to maximise rewards.
Status. We all know it is important, that is how Mercedes manage to squeeze 4 or 5 times the money out of buyers than a perfectly adequate, reliable, and outfitted with bells and whistles Korean or Chinese alternative. It is why people pay tens of thousands for a watch, assume crushing debt to have a luxury car in the drive, and Louis Vuitton is the world’s most valuable luxury brand.
Certainty. Uber nailed this one. The time we wait for a taxi is different to the time we wait for an Uber, even when the Uber wait is longer. This is because we are waiting with certainty, we know when the Uber will arrive, we know where it is right now, and we can walk out of the building as it pulls up, which adds a feeling of status to the equation. By contrast, call a taxi and then wait, uncertain when it will turn up.
Autonomy. We all like to feel we are making our own decisions, even when we are not. We love that feeling of freedom, even when it is an illusion, or inside a tiny arena of personal space.
Relatedness. Human beings are social animals, we like to feel like others are aware of us, and concerned with our needs, views, and ideas. It is like being in a book club, there are psychological rewards to being in a group that values your presence. We also need the group for protection, as it is the outliers that become a lion’s breakfast.
Fairness. Instantly we rate things on a fairness scale, we like to be seen as fair, even when we are diddling the books. Is it fair that the bloke next door who does the same job gets paid 20k more?
None of these things appear in economic models.
It was Einstein (amongst others) who said, ‘not everything that matters can be measured, and not everything that can be measured matters’.
Jul 13, 2022 | Governance, Leadership
Building a culture of……. (insert your own word)iIs a bit of a cliché. I have seen it in many documents that purport to be describing the mission, purpose, and all the rest of a business. Often it becomes a melange of meaningless words that offer no sense of direction to anyone, no sense of what you do around here, and what you do not.
Culture emanates from the senior levels of an organisation, particularly the person at the top.
Walking the talk is the absolutely essential ingredient in creating a culture.
Walking through a significant Sydney factory with the businesses MD some months ago, one that has a culture, and resulting productivity to which other manufacturers should aspire, he made a simple gesture that personified the culture.
The factory bashes metal, so is inclined to accumulate dust, off cuts, and debris in many forms, but this one is clean enough to eat your lunch off the floor. As we were walking, he bent over and picked up a small piece of paper, looked up at me and said: ‘Culture becomes what you are prepared to tolerate’
Nobody in that factory would walk past a piece of paper, or any other sort of litter on the floor.
If you want an orderly factory, keep everything orderly.
If you want accountability, give people the authority to get the job done, and hold them accountable.
If you want to remove gossip, never talk about someone unless they are in the conversation
If you want transparency, be transparent.
People may listen to what you say, but their behaviour is driven by what they see you do.
Culture is like a house of cards: hard to build, easy to destroy, really hard to change.
