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
Mar 21, 2021 | Governance, Leadership
I have been dismayed by the quality of the language coming from our leaders, deteriorating as it has for the last 45 years I have been watching closely.
With several notable exceptions on both sides of the house, the standard, if measured by the insight and understanding delivered to the listener, has dropped to the level of a Sunday school teacher proselytising for their invisible friend.
“Political language……. Is designed to make lies sound truthful, and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind’
So said George Orwell in his essay ‘Politics and the English language’ published in 1946.
Orwell thought this manner of language use to be a ‘contagion’ devoted to hiding the truth.
It seems to me that the contagion has well and truly dug deeply into our political ‘leaders’ now, with Scotty from Marketing being the current flagbearer.
I almost miss Pauline Hansen’s outrageous mishandling of not only the language, but people’s common sense and the truth, when listening to Scotty blather on. It is easy to dismiss Hansen as a looney, of little consequence beyond a small and decreasing group of loonies. It is way harder to dismiss the impact of a Prime Minister defending the indefensible, taking credit for anything good that happens despite his ministrations, and abrogating any form of responsibility for those that tank.
A little bit of truth, transparency and humility would go a long way to restoring the shattered trust, we the electors have in those who end up in the various parliaments around the place.
Mar 11, 2021 | Change, Leadership, Marketing
Every successful strategy I have seen, heard of, read about, or imagined, has three common factors. The first is obvious, the second and third less so.
-
-
- The strategy is implemented.
- The strategy is communicated widely as a story, that draws stakeholders in, giving them an emotional stake in the outcome. It is backed by research facts and figures, speculation, and opinion, but at its core, it tells a story.
- The strategy is modular, evolved from the bottom up, not delivered intact in final form by the hand of some commercial demi-god. One section builds on, and in turn relies on other parts of the strategy, for the wider impact. Each part is interdependent of all other parts, to some extent.
This organic structure enables strategic evolution in response to the changing external environment and internal learning as the strategy implementation evolves, without losing sight of the objective. The path to the end has many possible sub paths, but the end is clear.
A successful story has a beat, a rhythm to it that responds to some sort of incident, observation, or crisis, and a resolution, all built up in a series of ‘beats’ each of which has each of these elements escalating into sequences and a climax of some sort.
The emergent strategy, like an organic structure, has a range of base materials organised as self-contained units that combine to form an ever increasingly complex and interdependent system.
Developing a strategic model that has the potential and opportunity to evolve is not something that comes easily from a template, or ‘packaged’ advice. It is extremely context sensitive, fragile in early stages, requiring constant expert attention and nurturing.
Call me when you need some of this ‘strategic gardening’ to enhance your performance.
Header cartoon is once again courtesy of Scott Adams and Dilbert
Feb 22, 2021 | Change, Leadership
I cannot help but be amazed by (what I regard) to be delusional crap coming out of the mouths of politicians from both sides, after Facebook exercised its power and chopped Australia off the map.
Michelle Rowland, the Labor shadow communications minister wondered if ‘it was the beginning of the end of Facebook in Australia. This reflects the mutterings of the Minister, Paul Fletcher, who should know better, and I am sure he does. However, he is gagged by the naive simpletons in the government who simply have no idea of the power of the platforms they have allowed to dominate the landscape.
I well recall the confected emotion generated by the debate about media diversity in the 80’s and 90’s. The claim that our democracy, and perhaps even lives would be threatened by the erosion of a diversity of ownership across what are now legacy mediums, and how the regulations put in place to ensure that diversity would benefit us all.
So much for diversity. Two global multinationals dominate in some areas, while an American media magnate dominates across the legacy mediums, making billions in profits, and crying for help against those who ate his digital breakfast.
The threat by Google to cut off search in this country, now seemingly off the table, is being seen as a win for the government. ‘Google backed down’ is the claim.
No, Google simply took a step back to see what would happen next. The clusterf**k that would have been the landscape of Google cutting Australia off the map is almost unimaginable. Geometrically worse than Facebook taking the same action, as so many businesses use the tools provided by Google to run their internal processes.
We have two lessons coming from this exercise in global power.
-
- The shallowness of the strategic thinking going on in Canberra, and to be fair, most other world capitals, and how their power has been knackered by a couple of digital unicorns.
- How absolutely necessary it is for businesses, particularly SME’s who are very vulnerable, to take back control of their own digital lives.
When you need a catalyst for your thinking on these sorts of existential risks, let me know, I can help.
Feb 8, 2021 | Leadership, Management
From time to time we all must deal with those difficult people, the ones who believe absolutely in something that is clearly nonsense. They just know they are right, and are hellbent on ensuring that everyone else knows it.
I have learnt to feel sorry for them, although it did take the best part of 45 years to reach that point, from one of anger all those years ago, evolving into contempt, then progressively dismissing them as nutjobs, then ignoring them.
Occasionally I still fail, as in the case with Liberal MP Craig Kelly, whose ignorance combines with insistence that black is actually white, makes my blood boil.
However, these days, I recognise that their certainty of an outcome blinds them to the facts that might lead to a different conclusion, they become so wedded to their own narrative that any contrary suggestion is dismissed as irrelevant or insignificant.
When you believe you know everything about a topic, how can you learn?
You simply stop listening. We believe we have all the relevant ‘facts’, our analysis of those ‘facts’ delivers a conclusion that becomes, in our own mind, self-evident and absolute.
However, when you are a rabbit that believes there are no foxes around, you are destined to be fox shit.
Failure to recognise the holes in our own thinking makes us blind to an alternative.
The alternative of course, is that occasionally, just occasionally, the apparent nutjob has a point, but it is so far out of the current accepted narrative that he/she is dismissed and in times gone past, punished for those views.
Such a person was Ignaz Semmelweis. He was a Hungarian doctor working in the Vienna General hospital in the mid 1800’s. Semmelweis proved the massive incidence of infection in the obstetrics ward was caused by the practises of doctors. Despite having masses of confirming data, and publishing several papers and a book, he was rejected by the medical community, so aggressively, he ended having a nervous breakdown and being committed by his colleagues to an asylum for the insane. Unfortunately he died in the asylum about the time the medical profession recognised the truth he had spent his life and health trying to deliver.
In this case however, I do not think Craig Kelly is any sort of Ignaz Semmelweis, just a nutjob who needs to be put somewhere quiet and ignored.
Jan 19, 2021 | Collaboration, Governance, Leadership
As we come to grips with remote working, we will also have to come to grips with the central challenge, of how do you create the sense of community and teamwork that requires face to face but is not as present in remote work.
More particularly, remote working groups that have a changing membership, often a rapidly changing membership.
Great sporting teams win because they have the right blend of talent to get the job done, then they practise and practice, and practice. What happens when the membership is not stable, when practice is not possible, simply because you cannot predict what it is that you need to be practising, and with whom.
Google has spent years and millions of dollars examining the characteristics that make groups successful. The starting point is that no Google employee is short of intelligence, otherwise, you simply do not work there, but some groups are extremely effective, and others are failures, when on paper, the group members appear remarkably similar.
They called it ‘Project Aristotle‘.
Google, if it has what we might call a core competence, it would be finding patterns in data. They have large data sets of the teams in their business, their makeup, demographically, ethnographically, education, experience, and so on, but they could find no correlation between all these variables, and the quality of the team output. It seemed almost random.
The problem was to identify how individual intelligence translated into group intelligence.
We seem to accept that teams that were working well are more productive, creative, and harmonious than those that do not, but we do not really recognise the drivers of those outcomes.
Eventually, an unexpected pattern emerged, that discriminated between high performing teams, and the others. The pattern had two characteristics of the interactions that occurred in the teams, that explained the performance differences.
Those behavioural patterns are:
Equality of conversational turn-taking.
When everyone in the team has the opportunity to speak, and is encouraged to take it, and the result is that team members hold the floor for roughly the same amount of time, the team works. It does not mean that everyone takes turns, it does mean that the culture and often unspoken norms of the group are that everyone is respected, and has value to be added to the conversation, and is therefore listened to equally.
Ostentatious listening.
Just speaking in roughly the same amount is not enough. Others in the group must be overtly and ostentatiously listening, taking in what is being said, and giving it the attention and thought it deserves. This particularly applies to the team leader.
Together, these two behavioural norms together create what risks becoming a cliché: ‘Psychological Safety’.
This is the willingness of team members to speak their mind, express opinions, and ideas, knowing that they will not be judged, that the group welcomes the views, even when they are against the ‘run of play’ or the expected. Psychological safety is the single greatest correlate with a group’s success. When team members have that safety, it unlocks their best ideas, their ability to collaborate meaningfully, and innovate creatively.
Contributing to the success of a team, on top of the two core drivers that deliver psychological safety, and contributing to them in meaningful ways, are 4 supporting behaviours.
- Team members get things done on time, and meet their obligations, in a manner that enables the team to perform its tasks to at least the standard they expect.
- Structure and clarity. Individual’s in the team have clear roles, plans and goals, and the decision-making processes the team uses are clear. When an individual’s goals and plans are aligned with those of the team, the impact is magnified.
- The work being done by the team is important to team members.
- Team members believe their work matters, and that it will create positive change.
Taking up the hard-won lessons from Google seems to make great sense to me.
How well do your processes to manage and leverage the intellectual capital, represented by your employees, work in the evolving working environments inspired by ‘The Bug?
Header credit: My thanks again to Scott Adams and his mate Dilbert.
