Believe what they do, not what they say.

Believe what they do, not what they say.

Apr 8, 2019 | Governance, Leadership

Last week I was reminded, again, to take what people told you with a grain  of salt, and to watch closely what they did, rather than believing what they said.

I watched as the CEO of a significant business took a decision that was in direct conflict with the values he regularly espouses to staff and customers, in the interests of a short term cost mitigation.

He did not seem to accept the inconsistency when it was pointed out.

In the early 70’s as a student, I did a couple of holiday stints as a door to door market researcher. In one project, we were banging on doors and asking which brand of cigarette was smoked (in those days, smoking was widespread). When the answer was one of a couple of premium brands, we had to persuade the respondent to show us the packets in the house, and half the time, it was one of the cheaper brands.

Had we accepted what they said, rather than confirming with what they did, the research results would have been even more rubbish than they were.

Putting yourself in the shoes of a research respondent is really hard. It requires empathy, close observation, robust but sensitive questioning, and savvy choices in who you talk to if the results are to be reliable. It also offers the opportunity to gather insights into behavior that enables better product and service design, uncovering unstated or unrecognised problems being faced.

I hesitate to mention, we are about to go into an election campaign, the reality is we are already there, with the welter of blather, tired clichés and bullshit about to overwhelm us, again. As a community, we should really point out to all who want our votes the truth of the post headline.

Illustration credit: Tom Gauld from Instagram.

Why is deep domain experience so valuable?

Why is deep domain experience so valuable?

Mar 15, 2019 | Communication, Leadership

As an old(ish) former senior exec sort of bloke, watching this crop of younger managers come through, I find myself disturbed.

It often seems that while they know the facts, and at an intellectual level, recognise the impact, they do not seem to understand them in any instinctive sort of way.

It is disturbing, particularly as I look forward in this country and cannot help but be pessimistic, and wonder where the general equivalent of the ‘corporate memory’ of Australia is hiding.

I grew up in the late 60’s and early 70’s. The social fabric of  the world was changing at a rate that arguably has not been matched since, or will again. Not the tech world, the one we inhabit daily. The music, to that time unquestioned social behaviour, our trust in the institutions, and Vietnam: a war my now grown children know almost nothing about, that changed everything.

Trying to articulate the difference between just knowing this stuff, and really understanding it is really hard, but try this, if you are now well into your 60’s.

Let it be. The Beatles

‘Close to you’. The Carpenters.

‘In the Summertime’. The Mixtures

‘Bridge over troubled waters’. Simon & Garfunkel

‘Looking out my back door’. Credence Clearwater

‘El Condor Pasa’. Simon Garfunkel

‘Up around the bend’. Credence Clearwater

‘Knock knock who’s there? Liv Maessen

‘Whole Lotta Love’.  Led Zeppelin

That is the top 10 singles in Australia in 1970. Throw in a few of the tracks that have a place in your personal history, to make the list 15 or so. On my list would be Leonard Cohens ‘Suzanne’.

Now, ask a 35 year old about the list, they will know some of the tracks, perhaps many, but it will be a list of songs, words on paper, perhaps even a tune, but there will not be a visceral connection.

They did not live through it, their understanding is intellectual, there is no emotional connection to their soul.

Having deep domain experience is the same thing, intuitive, visceral, extremely hard to articulate, but of immense value when harnessed.

 

Picture credit: New Yorker Magazine. (The second time I have used it).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem with politics

The problem with politics

Feb 22, 2019 | Governance, Leadership, Personal Rant

We are facing two elections here in NSW, one for the state government, and then federal almost immediately following.

What a mess we are in, disengagement, distrust, cynicism on the part of the electorate, and flatulent promises and claims by the body politic.

The problem is trust.

There is none.

When I apply what I have learnt in 45 years of commercial life to this problem of trust in politics, I come up with a few simple observations.

Lack of strategic clarity.

There is no consistency between the claims and stated objectives of each of the parties and the experience of those who will be voting. The same party cannot even get their messages consistent between the state and federal levels of the parties, so why on earth do they think we, the electorate will believe their conflicting, fatuous and hyperbolic messages.

No accountability.

As a director of several companies, there are rules that apply that demand truth be told to shareholders. Clearly these rules do not apply to politicians as they talk to their stakeholders, we, the electorate. I would be dragged into court if I told the sort of porkies, used facts selectively and out of context, and generally failed to answer any question in a substantive manner,  the way politicians do as routine. They take credit for good things over which they had no influence, and blame the others  for any outcome that can be painted as poor. They are simply unaccountable for their promises, there is no sanctions on them beyond the cliché about the ballot box being the ultimate sanction.

We feel scammed every day as a result.

Governance, where is it?

The governance of government, and political processes generally, leaves a lot to be desired. It is appropriate that there are rules about the manner in which public money is spent. However, when the rules get in the way of common sense and equity, while leaving gaping holes through which the scammers can swim, it can be seen as a system that favours those in the know, at the expense of the rest of us. It is also the case that when  you regulate something, by definition, behaviour not captured by the regulations is OK, irrespective of the morality of the behaviour.  This can be clearly seen in the case of the financial services cesspool uncovered by Royal Commissioner Hayne. 

To be fair, public governance is a massive task of strategic and moral leadership,  and there are bound to be missteps, but we need to be better than we are, by a mile.

As a final observation, these people cannot govern themselves, why is it then so strange that we do  not trust them with the wider task of governing the rest of us?

Absence of cross functional collaboration.

When it is clear that the right hand does not know  what the left is doing, and seemingly does not care, why would we trust either? This not only applies to the functions of any individual government, but to each of the three levels we are burdened with, overlaid by the federated structure of states we are left with from colonial times.

We could not design a model better able to stuff up just about everything they touch if we tried!

The only antidote to all of the above is leadership. The sort of leadership  that takes responsibility, offers a compelling vision of the future and articulates a credible path towards it, is prepared to take difficult decisions and argue the logic publicly, then lives to be accountable for it all.

Pity there is so little of that going around.

 

Cartoon header credit: Again, Hugh McLeod at gaping void nails it!

 

10 tips on how to build a ‘learning organisation’

10 tips on how to build a ‘learning organisation’

Feb 18, 2019 | Change, Leadership

 

‘Learning organisation’ is a cliché mouthed too often by those who have no experience with such a rare beast. 

The key is not to try and help the organisation learn, it is to help the people in it learn by doing, spread the good outcomes, and nip the causes of bad practises before they become established as a norm.

‘Learning’ is a key part of an organisational culture that is able to evolve in response to the external pressures it faces, to best leverage the resources available.

To achieve ‘learning organisation’ as an outcome, you must change the natural order of most enterprises, by applying a huge dose of leadership.

That is what makes it so hard, so to succeed, follow these 10 tips!

Remove the fear of failure.

Fear of failure is perhaps  the greatest impediment to learning, as nothing new is tried.  Employees need to be given the confidence that following an idea that does not deliver will not result in retribution.  Experimenting and learning in collaboration with suppliers and customers offers rich rewards.

Employment policy.

Employ those who are prepared to try new things, be a bit different, seek challenges and opportunities to test themselves. Too often we employ people who ‘look like us,’ and as a result we get more of the same. Be aggressive about the sort of employees you want. Being selective at the beginning pays off in spades, as there is little as challenging as undoing a poor employment choice, for  the person let go, the person doing the firing, and for the survivors. That does not take into account the costs of recruiting, training, and the opportunity costs of a poorly performing employee.

Future focused metrics.

Use metrics that are based on leading indicators of performance, not extrapolations of past performance. These metrics are challenging to identify and track, but the effort will be worth it.

Cause and effect, not correlation.

Ensure the links between cause and effect are real. Too often I see outcomes attributed to something other than the real causes, mostly because it is convenient and easy, and there appears to be a causal relationship. True cause and effect can be challenging to identify and quantify,  but is essential to understanding how the future will shape itself.

Use data but be careful of data seduction

Data can be used well or poorly, but data has in itself a character of precision and certainty that can be misleading. Clean and objective data that removes assumptions,  the power of the status quo, and really digs into the reasons something worked, or did not work, is required. Data also has two faces. What has happened, and what will happen. The former, when interrogated effectively can tell you a lot about ‘what’ happened, but often the ‘why it happened’ is elusive, requiring testing. Data presented as a definitive picture of the future should be taken with a huge degree of scepticism, as the only thing for sure we know about the future, is that it will not be the same as the past.

Take action.

Nice words do not move anything. Nothing happens until you take action, then learn from the outcomes and improve next time, by ensuring that the action is taken against a framework that has in it a core assumption being tested. When you do this methodically, you get to understand if the assumption was right or wrong, and why.

Build in time to think.

Those who are always busy, pushed by external schedules, do not reflect on things, do not give themselves the opportunity and time to just think about what has happened and why, the opportunity for the  flashes of insight, questions that need to be  answered  to emerge must be present.

Diversity.

Change the status quo from one where you have to fit in, to one where differences are valued, celebrated, and actively sought. This is not about gender, it is about thinking styles and differentiated skill bases.

Accountability. 

When no one is accountable, few will be prepared to take the initiative. Being transparently accountable, creates a bias towards action, which leads to learning. 

Process stability. 

This is a prerequisite for improvement. Unless you know which variable moved, and caused the outcome being examined, you have no chance of improving. Process stability is an essential ingredient of any improvement exercise, and improvement is all about learning.

These 10 tips have significant areas of overlap, and have in themselves cause and effect relationships. When you need someone to help untangling the mess, give me a call.

 

Header cartoon credit: another by the great Hugh McLeod of gapingvoid.com

How to find the ‘Zig’ when others are ‘Zagging’.

How to find the ‘Zig’ when others are ‘Zagging’.

Feb 11, 2019 | Change, Customers, Leadership

 

Being a part of the herd may be comfortable, but it is rarely sustainably profitable at levels greater than the cost of capital.

Finding points of differentiation, the means by which you can be distinctive preoccupies most thinking marketers, those factors that customers value that attract them to your offering rather than going up the street.

It also means, by extension, that you have made decisions about the nature of the market segments or niches that you wish to serve.

By definition, if you are setting out to be all things to all people in the hope that you will not alienate anyone, you cannot also differentiate, as it means that you are not distinctive in some meaningful way that adds value to specific types of customers.

Differentiation covers more than the value proposition and copy on your website, it follows through to the visual elements of your branding, and most importantly, the behaviour of your employees, channel partners and stakeholders. By reflecting the few factors that will make those ideal customers react to your differentiated offering in a niche they inhabit is a valuable building block. Everyone is familiar with the  cliché ‘a picture replaces a thousand words,’  which is never truer than when communicating a differentiated offer to specific group of users in a defined market niche. A graphic artist will call it a ‘Visual identity’ and it is worth the investment to refine it.

One of the best known ‘Ziggers’ is the recently deceased Herb Kelleher, co-founder and CEO of Southwest Airlines. Southwest retained an unbroken 43 year record of profitability in an industry that had wild fluctuations in profitability, and many of those airlines that set about killing Southwest in the early days are themselves now history, like Pan Am, or in and out of Chapter 11 like United.

Southwest focused on simplicity and their customers. When others employed spoke and wheel routing, they went point to point, as others added services like allocated seating and differing classes, Southwest did not, and they flew just one type of plane (Boeing 737) , making servicing easier, and while everyone else went to war with their employees, Southwest turned theirs into apostles for their employer.

Differentiation is more than being different, those differences must be of sufficient value to some customers, that they would  not go anywhere else.

 

   

 

 

Who gets the blame when the Financial Services Royal Commission is distorted and ignored?

Who gets the blame when the Financial Services Royal Commission is distorted and ignored?

Feb 6, 2019 | Change, Governance, Leadership

The release of Royal Commissioner Haynes final report into the Financial Services industry has been instructive in many ways.

One that will not get much media coverage is the manner in which the various political and interest bodies respond and reflect on their own part in the mess. By contrast, every person watching the various commentary will immediately come to a conclusion about the trustworthiness of those in whose hands is the commentary on the report, and the formulation and implementation of the means by  which the eggs will be unscrambled.

The refusal of Royal Commissioner Hayne to be a part of the governments spin job by refusing the treasurer a handshake for the cameras is instructive. It could be passed off as a bit rude, the reflection of a personal relationship  that needs some repair, or simply a reflection of Justice Haynes absolute lack of  faith in the goodwill of the Treasurer and the Government.

It would be surprising if it was not the last one.

On being interviewed on the ABC later that night, the Treasurer refused to answer the simple question ‘Was the Government wrong in voting against the establishment of the Royal Commission 26 times?  Followed with the equally simple ‘was it the threat of a backbench revolt that finally led the Government to agree to conduct the Royal Commission?’ 

We live in a complex world, ruled by a voracious appetite for the product of an ‘always on’ media, which has responded not by reporting facts, but  by supplying more shallow, opinionated, uninformed and juicy grist for  the mill.

Added to which politicians of all shades pick and choose selectively the numbers and quotes that reflect their established positions, ignoring anything else that might get in the way of a press release.

It is not the media’s fault, it is ours.

We no longer value truth, facts, and a contrary fact based opinion, although we crave them all.

The outcome is that we assume when a public figures lips are moving, they are either lying or blaming someone else.

The only solution is the implementation of what Ray Dalio would call ‘radical transparency’. 

Photo credit: ABC news