Aug 13, 2012 | Innovation, Leadership
Being different is the guts of innovation, no matter how good, how big (or small) how effective, how cheap, if it is not different, none of the rest will matter a whit.
Why is it then, that we have processes and disciplines that weed out the deviances from the norm?
Who is to say the norm is right?
The bloke who always disagrees, has an odd view of the world, irritates, and creates discord is usually the first to go when times are tough, and when the boss needs to demonstrate his machismo, but sometimes, just sometimes, the deviate is right.
Those who see the world differently to most are usually those who have the potential to come up with something new, something that disrupts the status quo, they may also just be a pain in the arse, so the management task is to balance the odds, moderating the risk while cultivating the environment in which the whackos will flourish.
As George Bernard Shaw said, “all great things start as blasphemies”
Jul 29, 2012 | Leadership, Personal Rant
Recently my local council took a decision under extremely dubious circumstances, and against the wishes of much of the local community, and their own guidelines.
In preparing for my 3 minute opportunity to voice my disgust at the decision, and its inevitable outcomes, I broke my objections down to three components that the council leadership should consider as they imposed a decision made in isolation of the wishes of the community, for reasons that had nothing to do with the good of the community.
- Morality and legality. Just because something is legal, does not necessarily make it moral. Just because you may be able to manipulate the existing regulations to accommodate a 7 story apartment block overshadowing an area you listed as a heritage area does not make it right to do so, particularly when the financial basis of the alterations are at best, obscured.
- Transparency of leadership. Those who wish to lead, particularly those who are elected to do so have an obligation to ensure that decision-making is a transparent process. Without transparency, the leadership is compromised past repair very quickly. Look no further than the mess in Canberra for confirmation.
- Consistency of decision-making. A decision made today, must be consistent with those made yesterday, and if not, the reasons for the inconsistency must be overwhelming, and transparent to everyone affected.
Whilst my impassioned pleas did not change the decision, when I look back on it, the headings to which I spoke still resonate.
By the way, I am still angry, and with council elections now very close, at least some retribution is coming. Just a pity it is too late for to prevent the disaster emerging from the hubris, incompetence, and self interest of the those about to lose their sinecures at the developer honey pot.
Jul 4, 2012 | Innovation, Leadership, Marketing
Contrary to much common usage, these two concepts are not synonyms, they are very different.
Creativity is the process of dreaming up something new, while Innovation is the process of making use of the new stuff.
How often has Van Gogh, or Beethoven been accused of being innovative? Just sometimes, when the discussion is about the way an artist wields his palette knife, or the structure of a symphony. Usually they are described as creative, because what they created opened a door that had not been opened before, made connections in a new way.
Make no mistake, creative and innovative need each other, one does the art, the other brings in the benefit. Van Gogh after all died mad and broke, must have been creative without innovative, but his brother recognised the value of his work, and made a buck. He was innovative.
Most artists create something for the intrinsic value, it sounds great, looks good, or feels right, whilst the innovator finds a role for the art to add some monetary or exchange value.
To be creative, you need, according to John Cleese who knows a bit about this stuff, Space, Time, Time, Confidence, and Humour. Yes, I know “Time” got two mentions, to understand why, you will have to listen to Cleese’s presentation, which should not be a problem, in fact to my mind, should be compulsory.
Jun 25, 2012 | Change, Leadership, Operations
Much has been written about the management of change, and it usually focuses on the challenges, acknowledging just how difficult change really is.
When you turn it around, and consider what happens in successful change programs, there is very little management, and a lot of selling.
Leaders lead from the front, demonstrating the behaviors necessary, whilst managers push from behind. Demonstration is the oldest, and still the best form of selling, so when those whose work place, and the processes they operate are subject to being changed seeing those with the decision making power demonstrating the altered behavior makes the change easier.
You do not manage change, you sell it.
You sell it to your employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, and anyone else who will stand still long enough to listen, and most importantly, believe.
May 8, 2012 | Change, Leadership, Management
With apologies to my economist friends, the notion of demand elasticity can be applied to the status quo in an organisation.
Embedding change in an organisation is remarkably hard, the status quo is capable of absorbing lots of punishment, and when the belting is over, it re-asserts its dominance, simply be being the “way things are done around here”.
It seems that when all the mumbo jumbo is culled, there are only two tools available that ensure you can make changes stick.
- Change processes such that there is no going back. This can mean all sorts of things, but essentially, the option of reverting to the old way must be removed. Weather you do it in an afternoon, or incrementally is just a question of management tactics, so long as doing it incrementally is not a cop-out.
- Change the people. Pretty nasty this, and has all sorts of implications, legal, moral, and the impact on survivors, but it remains that people make organisations work, and if it is not working, some stern action is required.
Apr 3, 2012 | Leadership, Management, Small business, Strategy
A small manufacturing business I work with, operating in a domain now dominated by a few huge retailers, and cheap imported products, is facing a dilemma.
Three key people are leaving at pretty much the same time, for different reasons, just with difficult co-incident timing. This is a small business, there is no “bench” of executives who have been mentored, trained, and nurtured so that they can step in at short notice, no such luxury in an SME to whom every dollar of cashflow is critical to survival .
The purpose for this business to exist is to showcase the great products coming from Australia’s food basket, the Riverina, this is what makes them different, and gives all stakeholders, customers, suppliers, employees, and those who fund the business, a reason to keep on supporting it through the current challenges.
It seems that the opportunity presented by this sudden and unwelcome personnel churn is to start again, almost from scratch, to rebuild the processes, and renew the sense of shared purpose amongst the employees. That task however, is a bit like getting to the top of a sand-hill in a desert, and seeing just another sand-hill rather than the expected oasis.
The key distinction between leaders and managers is that leaders find the grit to climb this extra sand-hill, ways to bridge the gaps between peoples differing experience, expertise, and expectations, so that there is a shared purpose that is larger than an individual. Leaders are not leaders because they are always right, but because they listen, learn, and enable others to do the same. That is the opportunity facing my small client, to be a leader, and to remain one of the very few Australian owned food manufacturing businesses left.
