7  Leadership lessons from my granddaughter.

7  Leadership lessons from my granddaughter.

Jun 12, 2018 | Leadership

Little kids are just amazing to watch, before they have absorbed the rules of thinking and behavior that we adults impose on them.

My granddaughter is just three, and yet she displays many of the leadership characteristics so admired in the libraries written about what it takes to be a great leader. Her only failing against the list is that she is as yet unable to clearly articulate the stuff swirling in her little head, but the palpable excitement at the world around her more than makes up for this minor shortcoming.

Relentless curiosity.

She is never satisfied with the first answer, and rarely the second, ‘Why’ being her favourite question. To an adult this can be annoying, so we set in place rules to avoid having to answer consecutive ‘why’ questions, and kids learn quickly not to. This is a lesson we should ‘unlearn’ for an engaging environment. Last week, at about the 4th ‘why’ to a question about the operation of a set of traffic lights to be seen out of their kitchen window, her mother responded  by saying ‘because I said so’, to which my granddaughter responded, ‘Mummy, that is not an answer’.

No boundaries.

Nothing is off limits, her boundless curiosity takes her all sorts of places both in her mind and physically. Last week walking with her in the local park, she took off to what she later told me was her favorite ‘place,’ which was an ants nest in a garden. Down on her haunches for 10 minutes she watched the comings and goings of a colony of ants, all the while asking questions I found I could not properly answer.

Feedback = Learning.

She is a little ‘info-sponge’. Give her an answer to one of her relentless questions she accepts, and you can almost see it get stored away, for use later on.  Walking back from the park, two tradies were struggling to get a heavy bit of gear off the back of their ute. Quick as a flash she told them they needed someone else to help, just like the ants. Then volunteered me.  Delegated to  by a three year old!

No feedback = Rebellion.

Being ignored is a sin to her. When she asks a question, or seeks attention in some way, ignoring her, or dismissing the effort leads to rebellion, displayed in a very diverse set of responses, from noise, to walking away muttering, to going somewhere she is normally not allowed to go. (best spot is under her Dads desk, amongst the rats nest of cables, where all sorts of mischief can be achieved in a very short time. Mums make-up once got a run, but the container was put out of reach, a problem she is no doubt still working on)

Try another way.

She has a box of Duplo bricks that get assembled, scattered around, and reassembled as something different, a legacy from her father at the same age dug out of our roof storage. While the attention span is still a bit short, she sets out to make something, usually from a picture in a book, then gets cranky because it is hard to see the similarity, but that does not stop her pulling bits off and replacing them with different bits in different places in an effort to replicate the picture. Usually they are unrecognisable to anyone but her, but she will tell you which bit of her construction relates to what in the picture.

Inclusion.

While she does love to be the center of attention, and often is, she is generally also happy to be just included in a conversation. She will happily sit beside Mum or Dad when there are several adults around having a chat, observing the conversation, and occasionally making some sort of contribution, usually one we adults fail to properly comprehend, but which is nevertheless valuable to her.

Memory of an elephant.

Even at her tender age, she is able to recognise a different answer to a similar question, and responds poorly to the inconsistency. In the absence of an explanation of why this time it is different, that meets some standard she seems to have evolved, the inconsistency niggles her. It will come back later at a seemingly random time in the form of another question, that seems to activate another series of ‘Whys’.

 

At three she is a joy, God help her parents when she is 16! However, by then she will probably have been conditioned by school, peers, the boss in her part time job, and even her parents, just to go along with the flow to make life easier.

I hope not, as that would nullify what I call Grandparents revenge, (the opportunity to engage with grandchildren, but then hand them back to their parents when the going gets tough), and diminish her, and the contribution she has the innate capacity to make to those around her.

 

 

Is the supermarket business model about to be retired?

Is the supermarket business model about to be retired?

May 30, 2018 | Governance, Leadership, Strategy

 

The face of the supermarket in the 2030’s is emerging, and I suspect it is not a face most of us will warm to immediately. The combination of artificial intelligence and the capacity to automate just about everything will render much of the current supermarket  business model  obsolete.

The model of Amazon Go and Chinese Hema supermarkets will apply particularly to convenience stores, in high traffic high rent areas, like the inner city and business centres. Our grocery shopping will be done on line by voice, and delivered by some amalgam of autonomous vehicle,  Amazon, Ocado, or delivery services like FedEx, Uber and others that will spring up, which will hook up with the owners of the automated Pick ‘n Pack warehouses.

Amazon Alexa and other technology deploying voice ordering ensures a limitation of options, to those that favour the seller. With voice, we get the convenience of ordering from the couch, but in exchange we give up the visual cues of a store where we usually have several options, with differing characteristics and price points, and the resulting capacity of marketers to hang their hats on a point of differentiation to a group of consumers, a niche in the market. Voice removes all that, and will offer you only the one or two that the seller recommends, but their recommendations will be based on their commercial objectives, revenue, margin, and stock rotation, not yours, which are likely to be entirely different.

The recently announced deal between Ocado and Kroger adds a whole new dimension. Ocado is the first entirely e-commerce grocery business that I am aware of, to have leveraged themselves into a controlling position, and it took a while. Like all on line supermarkets, it struggled with fresh produce, and the higher customer acquisition costs that  are the result of having no physical shops. Ocado launched in 2000, went public in 2010, but did not turn a profit until  2014, a modest 7 million quid on a turnover of a billion. The logic appears to be developing and licencing their technology, but little happened  beyond the deal with the John Lewis owned Waitrose until Amazon bought Whole Foods in August 2017, which jump-started a rush into the technology to automate order receipt, pick, pack, and delivery.  Suddenly everyone was chasing them, and in November 2017 a deal was struck with Casino in France, and talks with others advanced quickly, culminating with the Kroger deal.

Kroger is deeply threatened by the Whole foods purchase by Amazon, and while Wal-Mart dominates US grocery, Kroger is a strong second, but has not had a viable on line offering. The potential for Amazon to convert some or all of Whole Foods sites into local delivery warehouses seems pretty real to me, which would give the relatively low on line grocery share in the US (estimated at 1.5% Vs 7.5% in the UK) a real kick along, and potentially add Kroger to the conga line of US retailers heading for the liquidator.  From Ocado’s perspective, the deal offers access to the biggest grocery market in the world for their technology, and led to a share price jump that will be making patient investors reach for the bubbly.

If we think that here in Australia we are insulated from all this, we are in la la land. While the distances here add to the complication, it is a predictable number, and therefore manageable by algorithm. I predict that one or both of the gorillas will be on a plane to talk to Ocado very quickly, if they have not already, although Coles might be pre-occupied with moving out of home, and resetting up in their own digs. Wesfarmers have been badly burnt by the Bunnings foray into the UK, brought to an embarrassing end last week by the sale of the former Homebase business for 1 pound, and would I suspect be wary of supporting an investment of this type for a departing problem child. It might just be an ideal time for Woolies to get a jump on them?

Who will pay for tomorrow’s hospitals?

Who will pay for tomorrow’s hospitals?

May 23, 2018 | Governance, Leadership, rant

I did not watch the royal wedding. That does not mean I am a republican, or anti-monarchist, it simply means I am not interested.

If they want to get married, let them get on with it, they do not need the approval of the masses. After all, they are both adults, both famous for being famous, and one has already been there and done that!

I am also not interested in going to church. That does not mean I have no moral compass, or personal code that has as a base what could loosely be termed the 10 commandments. They make sense irrespective of your brand of faith.

What I am interested in is the replacement of important questions and issues, such as how we live together, how we treat others, and who pays the piper, by this wild and to my mind absurd, emotional response to two thirty somethings getting married.

It seems to me that the things that got us were we are, no longer hold any sway.

We have a tax system that is broken, at a time when we voters appear to be demanding more and more. Those with the power, which really means those few individuals running multinational corporations, hold the power to, and are personally paid to ensure the institutions they run pay as little tax as possible, and they have the resources to find the cracks in the system through which they can wriggle.

Amazon is a prime example, along with their digital multinational friends. They are disrupting retail, and a host of other domains, while investing heavily in new services in the cloud. Great you say, they deserve to be successful, and they do, but Amazon is doing it by more than just being the smartest in the room, they are being subsidised by their competitors.

Amazon trades at what  is effectively break even, yet it will probably  become the most valuable company in the world very soon. It has grown by reinvesting their profits into becoming bigger and more powerful across their areas of operation, and as investment is a tax deduction, they pay no tax.

Their competitors do pay tax, they are largely those who were around before Amazon emerged, but will not be around much longer to pay for the schools and hospitals we all want.

Who will pay for them then?

Not Amazon or Apple, or Google, or Netflix, they are reinvesting in growth at the expense of their competitors, and in the process denying our kids a place to go to school.

Amazon has flipped the system.

Listed companies are usually judged by their profitability, usually on an absurdly short term basis.  Companies sweat the books and beat up their staff to deliver on optimistic forecasts of quarterly profitability. By contrast, Jeff Bezos makes no or negligible profits and has made vision and the long term the source of share value.

Amazing!

Any business that pays more tax than it is legally required to do is not acting in the best interests of shareholders, or so the mantra goes, as was so dramatically stated by the late Kerry Packer in 1991. Therefore  in this day of internationalised supply chains, and low tax regimes in fly blown little islands scattered around the place, they register as businesses, and engage in legal but morally bankrupt practises.

In Australia we have in addition the sight of personal greed, cronyism, and utter lack of personal and corporate integrity being brought into the light by Royal Commissioner Hayne and colleagues. I am sure that this level of malfeasance exists elsewhere, most probably in greater volumes, but that does not make the sight any more palatable. Most probably nobody will go to gaol, a few will be banned from being directors for a while, and there will be mutterings of regret forgotten almost before the words are out. Then we have the competing pollies promising handouts of money we do not have, a bill our kids will have to pay in one way or another.

Who will pick up the real bill for tomorrows hospitals?

 

 

 

 

 

How will the banks ever recover our trust?

How will the banks ever recover our trust?

May 7, 2018 | Customers, Governance, Leadership

Over the last decade, banks, and other financial institutions have spent billions, I have no idea how many, but guess multiples,  on telling us they are our friends, there for us, reliable, trustworthy, yada, yada, yada.

That investment has gone.

Poof.

Billions gone in a puff of Royal Commission smoke.

Then the stinky smell of the smoke is intensified by the APRA report into the CBA, released on April 30th, which is critical of the internal management and governance of the CBA.  While the CBA has been in APRA’s gun, there is now no reason to believe that the others are not similarly tainted. Just look at that doyen of financial rectitude, AMP for evidence of that.

I am not sure how much we all knew before all this came about, as most of us seemed to know at some level we were being screwed by the financial institutions, but the extent has come as a surprise, even to the most cynical amongst us.

If the boards of all financial institutions are not deeply concerned with these issues, they should be, in fact I would contend they are not doing their job if they are not.

Which opens two key questions:

  1.  How they can possibly recover the trust of their customers and the community?
  2.  In the absence of that trust, what alternatives do we as customers have?

So what is it that the financial institutions need to do to earn back our trust, and once earned, keep it. Trust has to be earned, it is never just given.

  • Transparency. Until we are able to see all the squalid details of the financial business model, be able to make informed choices, and have the current bunch of directors acknowledge their individual and collective failures, we will never trust them again. Probably the only way forward is increased regulation, or perhaps a more meaningful application of the existing regulations. A change to mandatory fee for service rather than commissions throughout the industry would remove the cause of much of the dishonesty at an operating level. Trust is impossible without transparency.

 

  • Communicate relentlessly. Having something of value to say, and saying it consistently, in many different ways is essential. This does not mean more fluffy advertising, and competitive product pitches attacking us from every angle. It means that we, the customers, have to be able to understand the value that is added by our financial institutions, and the cost of that value.

 

  • Measure the right things. Every business has financial objectives to meet, but confusing those financial objectives with the behaviour that delivers them is a bad mistake. In the end, the financial results are the outcome of a whole range of activity and behaviour, which when right will deliver the results. The old adage that you get what you measure almost always applies, and the financial institutions have been measuring the wrong things.

 

  • Manage behaviour and build a new culture of service.  Ensuring that behaviour is consistent with a revised set of values that will apply is essential. These should evolve from the Royal Commission report and the need for every business to be able to define its purpose. The boards have a big task in front of them to change the cultural norms that drive behaviour.

 

  • Be prepared to  be wrong. When a mistake is made, and we all make them, admit it openly, while adding what you have learnt from the experience, and what you will do in the future as a result. The sight of various board members setting out to absolve themselves of responsibility is a very bad ‘look’ and should not be tolerated by us as consumers, or the regulators.

 

  • Take responsibility. Responsibility and accountability seem to be sadly lacking at present, and this needs to be reversed. Hopefully, it will evolve as part of the cultural renewal I optimistically forecast.

 

  • Be human. The pace of change has outrun our collective ability to absorb it. Automation in the name of efficiency is fine, until the automation removes people from the equation. People deal with people they know like and trust, so there is a real challenge for  the banks. Be known, liked and trusted again.

 

One of the structural problems the industry has to face is a very human one. We all want something for nothing, and nothing usually means we would rather pay more, but not see the payment to avoid feeling the pain. The result of this is the generation of hidden commissions, and sliding scale charges, rather than fee for service.  Commissions wherever I see them change behaviour, create a short term financial incentive, that is their purpose, and usually become a part of the status quo. In most cases, and certainly in the financial services industry, this practice is not in the best interests of  those who ultimately fund the commissions. The whole financial services business model is based on commissions, which is like building a skyscraper on quicksand, bound to unravel at some point.

Oops, I think it is unravelling!!

To the second question, the options we have as consumers: currently none. There are many alternatives, many touted differentiators, but in essence they are pretty much the same, it is just the details of the business models that vary a bit. However, malfeasance such as we are seeing has a way of adding fuel to the innovation fire, and I suspect there will be options opening up very quickly that deliver some if not all of the characteristics that will build trust from outside the traditional financial services industry. This will certainly give the regulators a headache, and boards something beyond their current horizons to think about.

I wonder if many of the legacy businesses will still be around in their current form in a decade? I doubt it very much. However, the point should also be made that it is the people who run and govern these businesses that are to blame, not the institutions themselves. The financial institutions play a vital role in our economic and social lives, and are indispensable, unlike those running them, many of whom should be dispensed with forthwith, without any form of golden handshake.  Indeed, many should be thankful they will not be measured for striped suit and a modestly furnished suite at Silverwater.

 

Cartoon credit once again to the great Hugh McLeod at Gapingvoid.com

6 essential questions from the devil

6 essential questions from the devil

May 4, 2018 | Governance, Leadership, Management

Having a ‘devils advocate’ around you is one of the most productive relationships you can have in a complicated enterprise. Such a relationship enables the stripping of any position held back to its core, removing the bias, preconceptions, and power of the status quo, but leaving room for intuition born of domain knowledge, experience, and most importantly, data.

You should seek out and nurture such relationships.

The most successful commercial relationship I have had was with a bloke to whom I reported for a long time, in two different businesses. Vigorous ‘conversations’ took place as a natural part of determining the best course of action to take, the best allocation of limited resources, with each testing the positions taken by the other.

The eventual outcome was more often than not, one that would not have emerged without such a process, although we both knew who held the power of veto, and from time to time, it was used.

I was reminded of this relationship recently in a conversation with a client who had reached a conclusion I thought was absolutely wrong. It was based on flimsy information, the opinion of someone whose opinion in this matter was in my view skewed by some unfortunate and irrelevant bias, and a reverence for the status quo which appears to me to be destructive.

I went through my standard list of  ‘Devils questions’ to no avail. Tell me what questions I should have asked on top of those below in an effort to help him consider the real merits of the decision he was about to make.

  • What is the source of the data you are quoting? Without a reliable, robust and repeatable data source that stands up to scrutiny, an ‘insight’ based on it is just another opinion.
  • How did you get from the ‘data’ quoted to the ‘insight’ you appear committed to? I like to see logic chains, definable cause and effect, when gathering insights from data, and am wary of leaps of faith that do not have the authority of logic and experience.
  • What biases have you have built in from your background and experience? Nobody is immune from some level of built in bias, a good devils advocate holds up a mirror to them.
  • What other options could there be based on the same data? In most situations, there is more than one way to interpret and leverage data, opinion, experience, and outside knowledge. Playing the ‘options game’ as a part of a conversation is a very useful tool.
  • How do we test the insight without betting the farm? These days the ability to test has been multiplied a thousand fold by the digitisation of everything, it is no longer wise (if it ever was) to bet the farm. The scientific method rules!
  • What will you do if you are wrong? Learning from mistakes, and applying the learning is the basis of improvement, and without an inclination to learn from mistakes, you will be destined to repeat  them, usually for  the same reason they were made in the first place.  In addition, answering this question almost inevitably opens up other options for consideration that may not have been adequately considered, or completely missed in the conversation.

Devils can be very helpful when used well, but they also have the power to be destructive, so be careful with whom you dance.

 

Is marketing’s greatest failure in the boardroom?

Is marketing’s greatest failure in the boardroom?

Apr 23, 2018 | Change, Governance, Leadership

There have been libraries written about strategy, and particularly marketing strategy. There are now multitudes of tools and templates available to develop and implement, but the gap between the development and successful implementation of marketing strategy is huge, and hard to navigate.

Marketing is a functional silo on an organisation chart, as is Sales, Operations, Finance, HR, but unlike the others, marketing deals with unknowns, the future, whereas all the other functions deal with the past, or what is immediately in front of them.

Marketing is about the future, long term commercial sustainability, and its effectiveness is really hard to measure, other than in hindsight. There are lots of measures for things that have happened, which are the result of often many combinations of actions taken some time ago, so the measures are unable to change anything, just give insights to what worked and what did not.

As the senior marketing person in a very large business 30 years ago, I found myself often talking about advertising, segmentation, positioning, graphic design, and all the rest, around the board table, which either put others to sleep, or elicited opinions, usually uninformed, about the detail. However, when I talked revenue I had their attention.

Marketing is all about revenue, particularly future revenue. The other stuff is the paddling under the surface that enables the generation of the revenue, but the real measure of marketing effectiveness is revenue and margins over time.

In every business I have ever had anything to do with, marketing expenditure is treated as an item in the P&L. By definition, items in the P&L are expenses or past sales revenue. This is inconsistent with the notion of marketing being about building the foundations of future revenue.

The closest analogy is a piece of capital equipment, they are always purchased to fill one of two roles, sometimes both:

  • Increase the volumes available too be sold,
  • Increase the productivity of the processes.

Those purchases are recorded in the journals, posted to the appropriate ledger account and reported in the cash flow statements, and the balance sheet, not the P&L. The greater irony is that capital items are depreciating assets, whereas marketing  investments, when done well are appreciating assets, unrecorded anywhere except the P&L as an expense until the business is sold, when the accountants start talking about ‘Goodwill’ being the difference between the realisable value of the physical assets, and the liabilities on the books.

There is a structural paradox here. We treat a potentially appreciating asset differently to one that can only depreciate, just because it is hard to measure.

This challenge of measurement is the biggest one marketing people have to hurdle. The turnover of marketers in senior roles is the fastest amongst the functional heads in large corporations because we generally do not recognise the essential long term business building nature of marketing investments. We treat it as an expense to be cut at the slightest cloud on the profitability horizon, and the marketing people with it.

One of the challenges here is that to achieve these long term outcomes, marketing requires the co-operation and  collaboration of all the other functions, without the organisational authority to direct. The CMO has to be a leader across functions. He/she has to build the respect and co-operation of other functional leaders, often at odds with their short term function specific performance measures.

25 years ago, I and my marketing team, failed to convince the board of the then Dairy Farmers Co-Operative to invest the required capital in new equipment to launch a new brand of flavoured milk. It was to be packaged in plastic bottles, with a screw cap, to be sold at a very considerable premium to the products then only available in the gable top cartons, and we proposed to sell it to different consumers. Nobody had done this before, we were banking on tapping into a market completely under-serviced by existing packaging and branding. The Operations Manager at the time believed in the project, and put his neck on the line by committing  his R&M budget to refurbish some older gear in the absence of capital approval, and I ‘stole’ the required advertising funds from another brand.  We launched Dare Flavoured milk, and it delivered the fastest return on investment I have ever seen, and 25 years later, it is still going strong, delivering revenue and margins to the now overseas owners of the business.

If marketers started talking about revenue generation, rather than the more common ‘marketing-speak’ like positioning, segmentation, and all the insider jargon generated by digital, they will be taken much more seriously around the board table. Building support amongst other functions to acknowledge the long term impacts of intelligent marketing, is necessary for long term prosperity, and the only real measure of marketing effectiveness.

The management task is all about getting the most out of the assets and capabilities of your business, and it is marketing management that carries the usually unarticulated responsibility to drive the collaboration necessary to achieve the best outcomes.

This task has four dimensions:

Operational management, strategic management, Financial management, and performance ,management.

Strategic management is all about the manner in which you address your market opportunities and challenges, and has a long term focus on commercial sustainability.

Operational management is the manner in which you deploy and utilise the assets of the business on a day to day basis to add value that customers are prepared to pay for.

The financial management of a business provides the basis for the assessment of success, or failure. It is a scorecard that is capable of comparison, across activities, business functions and timeframes.

Lack of a good financial management framework is a bit like walking blindfolded into a minefield, you might be lucky for a while, but eventually you get blown up.

Financial management is far more than just running the numbers, and ensuring compliance with the tax and corporate rules, it is about being in a position to make the choices that need to be made across the business every day, that shape not just today, but build the resilience necessary for commercial longevity. Understanding the numbers is a core part of every management job, not just of the financial people.

Performance management. Performance management is all about getting the most out of the assets and capabilities your business has, and can purchase in, maximising the productivity of the assets of all types you have deployed.

Manufacturing is the backbone of the economy, and is not taken sufficiently seriously by current national leadership. While we migrate to an economy whose GDP is less dependent on ‘hard’ assets, to one that emphasises ‘services’ we fail to adequately factor in the foundations that manufacturing delivers. In our age of ‘digitisation’ the value coming from increasing productivity is ill defined by the measures employed in the past. We need a new suite of measures, based on the old, but adapted to reflect the reality of a changed world. This is particularly as it is now an international race, without the protection of geography, and less of the artificial protection of regulation, despite the regular hiccups that result from populist politics, and just keeping up requires a substantial effort and investment.