Jun 2, 2021 | Governance, Leadership, Strategy
Successful businesses in my experience have several things in common, and in general do most of them well.
Focus.
They are sufficiently disciplined to be able to assemble and deploy resources against a limited number of objectives and opportunities. This requires that there is a robust strategy in place, as they have made a series of choices about what they will do, and what they will not, which are all clearly understood throughout the business. Being all things to all people is never an achievable outcome, so they leave it alone.
Niche.
In one way or another, all successful businesses I have seen operate in a niche, where they have sufficient scale to be relevant to their selected customer base. This is the same for a small local business as it is for a multinational, each in their own way have defined a niche and set about owning it. Of great value is the niche that others do not recognise, where competition does not exist, or is marginal.
Leverage.
Leverage is doing more with less, so it follows that the greater the leverage of assets, the greater the success. Of course, when taken in purely financial terms, leverage can lead to disaster, as leverage also increases risk, but when looked at from the lens of human capabilities it works. It also works when you consider outsourcing as leverage, keeping your most valuable assets doing jobs that deliver greater returns. In successful companies, the jobs that just must be done to keep the machine grinding, are broken down to repeatable processes and done at the least cost, so the assets released can be deployed to deliver optimised results.
Differentiation.
In the absence of some sort of differentiation that increases the value of an offering to a group of customers, all you have is price. When price is all you have, you will, eventually, lose.
External sensitivity.
Being able to ‘feel’ the changes as they happen in their competitive environment and react before others marks not simply good businesses, but ones that have the DNA to be sustainable, as they incorporate in their DNA the ability to change early, and often. This does not imply a moveable feast of strategy, rather an agility in the implementation, which requires a considerable dose of leadership.
To my mind, businesses that are able to keep themselves in front of the ‘market Takt time’ are well placed to prosper.
Robust and shared culture.
‘Culture’ has become the rallying cry of all sorts of pundits, and self-proclaimed experts, but is clearly a major differentiating factor in good businesses. The cliches of all rowing in time and in the same direction apply, but the best definition is still Michael Porters definition: ‘Culture is the way we do it around here’ holds. In addition, when setting out to measure culture, as we are increasingly trying to do, I have yet to see any measure of culture that make a lot of sense beyond the simplest, ‘bad news travels quickly, & untainted, to the top’. When I see that, I know there is a robust culture in place.
Collaboration.
Part of superior performance is understanding where your capabilities are best deployed, and from time to time, a collaboration makes sense as a means to leverage both yours and another’s capabilities into an outcome neither could hope to achieve on their own. Collaboration is a really challenging thing to pull off, as it requires that both the businesses and all the personnel understand that their own best interests are best served by serving the best interests of the partners.
They have a detailed understanding of their strategically important customers.
This may not always be their biggest, although that helps, but those that will deliver sustainable profits into the future. Every large and important customer started as a small one, the trick is to pick those that will, long term, make a difference to your business, which can only be done when you can make a difference to theirs. This implies some sort of key account strategy is in place.
Robust financial management.
It should not need to be said, but sadly, genuinely robust financial management is not all that common. Anyone can deliver the statutory accounts required, but it takes creativity and understanding of the complexity of customers and markets to produce useable management reports that reflect the current, and more importantly forecasts of the state of the business.
Of all the reports, cash is the most important. All the sophisticated marketing, procedures, and cultural initiatives become redundant in the absence of cash.
Header cartoon credit: Hugh McLeod at www.gagingvoid.com nails it.
May 19, 2021 | Governance, Leadership
The characteristics of leadership we expect from the local non-profit, to the largest businesses in the country, to the Prime Minister, are pretty much the same.
Trust.
We need to trust those who lead. However, trust is never just given, it must be earned by the behaviour we observe. It is also incremental, built over time, it is fragile, and can be brought down in a minute by one bad example. The test, if there is such a thing, is whether we believe that the private conversations the ‘leader’ is having are the same as the public ones, and would they be prepared to say those private things on the 6 O’clock news. By this test, many in prominent so called ‘leadership’ roles in this country fail. Dismally.
Dependability.
Dependability is a component of trust. It has many forms, from delivering on the big promises made, to turning up on time for an appointment with the local hairdresser. In any leadership role, no matter the size, when a real leader finds themselves from time to time unable to deliver, they do not walk away from the fact, they acknowledge the failure, learn from it, and move on. To many, this is the essence of leadership, to me, in it is simplest form, it is only common courtesy painted on a wider canvas.
Competence.
Leaders must be Competent. Someone placed in a leadership role, who is an example of the Peter principal is corrosive to the rest of the organisation. Those being led must believe that the leader is someone who can get the job done. That does not mean they never make a mistake; it does not mean they are never unsure of themselves or exhibit human frailties. It just means that we believe that they have the wisdom, skills, and experience to get the job done. This extends further, by ensuring they teach others to be competent at their job, and the next one. Competence is a compounding quality they pass on to others.
Humanity.
We are herd animals, we rely on those around us for safety, and security. We have evolved and prospered as a species because we are able to collaborate and care for one another and rely on our neighbours in times of stress and crisis. Someone in a leadership position who does not care about those being led, is not a leader, at best they are a manager, dispensable and easily replaced.
In summary, you can always tell who the real leader is: they are the ones others follow because they want to.
How does your leadership style stack up??
May 17, 2021 | Leadership, Strategy
‘The smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they’d already solved. They’re open to new points of view, new information, new ideas, contradictions, and challenges to their own way of thinking.” Jeff Bezos
Strategy development is an inherently creative pursuit, you are seeking to visualise and articulate something that does not currently exist. Like any creative pursuit there are barriers to thinking in this manner, barriers that must be addressed if you are to build a robust strategic response to opportunities that may be very hard to see.
6 ways to achieve this elusive outcome:
- Forget finding the right answer. The ‘right’ answer probably does not exist, what does exist is the best answer today, that delivers another step on the road to the strategic objective. Looking for the ‘right’ answer is a way to ensure nothing gets done and that you drown in data.
- Don’t follow the rules. Every industry and market has ‘rules’. These are the assumptions that this is the way things always work. If you follow them, you will never come up with any combination of factors that delivers anything new. The best you can do is optimise, and while optimising is a very sensible and competitively necessary thing to be doing, it is not strategy.
- Allow yourself to ‘play’ with ideas. Try applying metaphors and similes to the situations you outline and see what happens. This is hard work, but it frees the mind. Just like little kids do not play by any rules, they make them up as they go, you should do the same. Throw logic out the window and enable the ‘inner child’ to come out, you may be surprised at what emerges. Like children, everybody is creative in their own way, it has just been beaten out of us by the education systems and life. Encourage the creativity by play, it is in these unrestricted and non-confrontational situations where tacit knowledge flourishes and is shared, and can be turned into original ideas.
- Get everyone involved. this is a cultural thing, and enables the seeds of creativity to grow. One of the greatest impediments to creativity is when someone thinks ‘this is not my job’. Strategy is everyone’s job. Being close to customers is typically the job of the salespeople, but look at what happens when your engineers and logistics people get close to them, all sorts of opportunities emerge because they are looking at things from a different perspective. It is challenging to create and nurture the processes and cultural drivers that encourage this sort of general engagement, but it pays great dividends.
- Ambiguity is your friend. It enables different thinking to be applied when the rules are unclear, so redefining the situation is easier.
- Be prepared, even happy to be wrong. So long as you recognise being wrong as a learning opportunity rather than one to apportion blame, this is a powerful practice. Recognising a mistake means you have tried something, learnt something, and moved forward. One of the realities that risks becoming a cliché is ‘Psychological safety’. This is when people are relaxed about being wrong, it is safe to call out mistakes while knowing it is about the process and conclusion, not the person. There is however a flip side to this ‘happy to be wrong’ choir. It is not an excuse for sloppy due diligence, or shallow consideration. This is a cultural tightrope that requires confident leadership to flourish
None of this is easy, if it was, everybody would be doing it. When you need the necessary outside assistance, let me know, I can help. Alternatively, Call Jeff, he has some time now, and has exemplified strategic creativity for the last 25 years.
Mar 29, 2021 | Change, Leadership
We seem to accept that the world is getting faster.
The tempo of activity is picking up in just about everything in our lives, and the 2020 pandemic did nothing to slow anything down. Instead, it operated as a catalyst to an increase in tempo across the board.
Trends that were evident, emerging slowly, suddenly took on a huge leap in tempo. The pace of government decisions, the evolution from supply chains and business models, remote work, and others, all accelerated. Perhaps the most astonishing is the speed at which a vaccine for Corona has been developed, tested, and is into the early stages of distribution. A process that would normally take years, condensed down into 10 months.
John Boyd spoke about Tempo as being the determining factor in the OODA loop. The combatant that could realign their tempo quicker than their opposition won the fight.
Several Cafes in my local area of which there seemed to have been a pre-Covid oversupply, have not reopened. A characteristic of those that have reopened is that during and since the height of the closedown, they were able to evolve their business model. They introduced new products and services quickly, way more quickly than would have been the case in the absence of the virus.
In the natural world, the tempo of climate change appears to be quickening. The melting of the polar ice is now happening at a rate higher than the worst-case scenarios predicted just a decade ago. Compounding that is that the tempo of the melting is increasing as the seas warm, as a result of the reflective ice being gone.
All around us, the tempo of life is speeding up, and the speed is reflected in the speed at which changes in direction occur. As a result, it is becoming increasingly easy to be left behind, even when you are diligent about continuous improvement of your own operations, and in scanning the environment in which you compete for signs of ‘movement’.
It seems to me that long term survival will require significantly more attention to be focussed on the wider context of your competitive environment than has been the case in the past.
Finding the right means to deliver that wider and deeper understanding of the competitive pressures will evolve into a determining factor in commercial survival.
Tempo.
Tempo of activity, of decision making, of change, and of competitive action.
Do not be left behind, you will be shot down.
Header photo: John Bonham, legendary Led Zeppelin Tempo man.
Mar 24, 2021 | Change, Leadership
There has been a lot of commentary on what we as a manufacturing cohort, and the government should do to haul Australia out of the steady decline of manufacturing.
Most of it is good, thoughtful commentary, but we seem unable to move forward meaningfully on many fronts.
Question is, how will we know what works and what does not in the absence of specific and apolitical (in the widest sense of the word) measures?
Following are some thoughts distilled from the commentary, and relying heavily on the 2016 paper by the Australia Institute. On re-reading this paper, it seems obvious from my interactions that the numbers may have changed somewhat, but the trends are still in place, and probably more advanced. An update would be immensely valuable.
It seems sensible to me to articulate a few boundary items that need to be addressed before any detail can be reasonably considered.
-
- If we are to effectively manage investment and activity across the economy, we need a common base and clear definitions of what is included under ‘manufacturing’. In short, a common nomenclature.
- Following nomenclature clarity, we then need what is in effect a national manufacturing P&L, undiluted by fuzzy numbers from other sectors, free from confirmation bias, and understood by all. While we do have a range of measures currently via industry bodies, the ABS, and various government departments, there is no common base for measurement. This lack of commonality just serves to obscure the numbers, and more importantly, the trends.
- Having such an explicit set of manufacturing numbers would enable valid comparisons against which to measure progress. Comparisons to other parts of the economy, similar economies around the world, the components of the total numbers, items like employment, sources of inputs, impacts of investments, supply chain agility, all the things we do routinely for our own businesses. This would not be an easy task, but to my mind, it is a vital one.
- Having solid articulation of the current situation is the core of any sensible strategic planning. While we all know the plans will be flawed, and need to evolve with circumstances as implementation progresses, the process of strategic planning is essential.
- Eliminate the prospect of ideological change as governments change by deepening the recognition that for the economy to be sustainably prosperous, manufacturing is a foundation stone. Businesses will be more likely to invest when their time frame of policy certainty is longer than a few short years and managed by a bunch who spend their time watching what the loonies on Twitter think is a policy input. The debacle with energy policy, and lack of it, over the last decade should be a salient lesson for the future.
- Invest in education and research, the underpinning that businesses need to harness to deliver innovations products. We have a fine record of research on limited budgets, but a lousy record in the commercialisation, although there are individual examples that run against this observation. The intellectual infrastructure that delivered this fine record has been rotting for 35 years or more, and we are seeing the impact now. The cycle time of science to marketable product is more like 30 years than 3, and that time frame requires public investment. Sadly, we seem unable to grasp this simple notion. As a result, we have bureaucrats trying to pick winners in a 3-5 year timeframe, and the continuing erosion of investment in education.
We should take advice from some of the real geniuses that have passed through.
‘You cannot manage what you cannot measure’ is Peter Drucker’s often used quote with which I agree, partly. Einstein, speaking on the same topic also said, ‘Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts’.
Two geniuses having different views on the same topic. How confusing is that?
No wonder the Canberra clown factory and its state based training camps cannot get its head around the challenges.
Header cartoon courtesy Tom Gauld at www.tomgauld.com
