Mar 9, 2010 | Leadership, Personal Rant
National Womens day on Monday saw the leader of the opposition make an extraordinary promise.
Under a Coalition government, he is proposing to tax the big end of town a bit extra (presumably because he thinks they can afford it) in order to create a 6 month maternity leave right for all female employees, at their existing salary levels, I am unclear about the impact of the proposal on paternity leave.
Leaving aside the inequity, stupidity, and unique capacity to unite some unusual bed buddies, this proposal has three further profound failings:
- It clearly is a brain snap, not subjected to sensible costing and policy development disciplines, and therefore bound to be “binned” at some stage, so why go through the pain.
- Implementation would be a further huge distortion in the tax system, at a time when the system is breaking, if not broken, and with a major review about to be released to the public that has the objective of identifying, quantifying and removing the current huge inequities and distortions, where is the sense in adding another.
- Where is the evidence of a consistent set of values in the policy? Australians want to believe our politicians are leading us along a course that has at its foundation a philosophy, a set of values from which we can draw inspiration, and to which we can relate. Despite the evidence to the contrary, we appear prepared to give the politicians the benefit of the doubt in this regard. This policy proposal can only erode what little confidence we have in the foundation value system of the Liberal party, which is supposed to be about encouraging personal responsability, reward for effort, and the value of work, effort, risk, and personal integrity.
Abbott had been doing pretty well since becoming leader, his aggressive, no compromise style has injected some life into a listless opposition, but he has just shot the pooch with this nonsense.
Mar 8, 2010 | Change, Innovation, Leadership
Knowledge workers, and these days that is most of us, create value for their employers by leveraging their knowledge, but defining the ownership of that knowledge, and the flow of benefits from that knowledge, is a huge challenge, and becoming larger.
The recent court case between Mattell, owner of the Barbie doll franchise, and MGA Entertainment, owner of the Bratz doll range offers a salient example of the problems.
The designer of parts of the Barbie accessory range, after leaving Mattel went on to design the Bratz range for MCA, and the court held that Mattel was owed for the IP he had developed whilst working for them, but applied to the benefit of a later employer.
This scenario is a minefield for many businesses, and has far reaching implications on the way the employees and contractors are managed, and the ownership of ideas they have retained, or that evolve, even after they may have left employment. Simple no-compete contracts, which are the norm currently are a long way short of the mark in a knowledge economy.
In a knowledge based sector, retaining, motivating, engaging, and understanding key employees should take more time energy than just about anything else. Don’t leave it to the lady in personnel!.
Mar 4, 2010 | Leadership, Strategy
How often have you seen decisions taken that reflect a short term profit opportunity, rather than addressing a longer term need?
In politics, the word “spinable” can usually be substituted for profitable.
All organizations face the challenge of balancing short term expediency against the longer term, and usually tougher to sell, need.
A measure of the leadership of an organization is the extent to which they focus on the need, rather than succumbing to the siren song of expediency, and the extent to which there is a philosophical framework in place that guides these deliberations, and drives consistency of decision making over time.
Mar 2, 2010 | Leadership, Management, Personal Rant
“Training” has become the default position in many circumstances where employees are required to learn a new skill, revise an existing one, or become familiar with a new product or process. At the end of the process, most will retain little of the training.
By contrast, education is a process of developing the ability to think, ask questions, be critical without being personal, reflect on outcomes and find flaws in the hypothesis, or just join the dots differently.
It follows that education takes longer, is more challenging to the educator, is far more engaging for the “educatee”, and will pay greater dividends in the long run.
As Confucious is reported to have said;
“Tell me and I will forget,
Show me and I may remember,
Involve me and I will understand”
After all, you train dogs, you educate people.
Feb 10, 2010 | Change, Leadership, Management
Engaging a consultant usually means you have a problem that is deemed to require outside expertise.
This begs the question, “why would you engage someone who knows less about your business and its problems than you, to assist solving a problem?
The answer is simple, because the consultant knows less than you about the specifics, he/she is not constrained by the automatic assumptions that frame the way someone internal considers a problem, and is therefore able to ask questions free of the constraints of process, practice, and culture that develop in any organization. They are able to distinguish the wood from the trees because they do not wear the organization blinkers that internal people automatically assume.
Notice the emphasis on asking questions rather than giving answers?
A consultant who comes in and gives you answers should be shown the door, as he has just jumped to a conclusion on flimsy data. However, one who comes in and asks the difficult questions, ones that require a profound rethiknk of the status quo, is to be treasured. Such questions come from a breadth of experience in similar situations, and can lead to a solution that suits your organization by assisting you to come to the conclusions yourself through a process of helping you identify the impediments to the required outcome.
No consultant can know as much abnout your business as you, they just see it through different eyes, and from a less contrained perspective.
Feb 4, 2010 | Branding, Change, Leadership, Marketing
The corporate left brain/right brain conflict is alive and well in Jetstar.
Currently Jetstar is spending on TV advertising their Asian destinations, pushing that they are not just a cut price airline, at the same time they are facing a PR debacle, having left passengers in Penang airport for several days due to mechanical problems with an aircraft. (perhaps they should change their advertising; “an extra 4 days at your expense” not a great idea?)
Gail Kelly at Westpac got it horribly wrong a few weeks before Christmas, raising the banks home mortgage rate beyond the increase in the prime rate, how many advertising dollars did that send down the crapper? Anyone who actually thought about the pricing challenge from a customer perspective would have predicted such an outcome, that the mistake was made by the former CEO of St George whose culture was all about customer care is inexplicable. Even the vaunted Toyota is struggling with a recall in the US of 9 million cars with sticking accelerators, not a good addition to their market positioning.
The list of companies that sacrifice their long term position to get out of a hole in a crises goes on, and on. The corporate “numbers groupthink” takes over, no-one states the obvious, but uncomfortable truth that the P&L needs to take a short term hit for the benefit of the long term.
Very occasionally, someone does it right. The classic is J&J’s recall of Tylenol in 1982, and subsequent leadership in introducing tamper evident packaging. Short term cost was huge, but the long term position was enhanced enormously. Arnotts in Australia had a similar experience in 1993, and came out of it smelling like roses.
Why do most businesses continue to make the same mistake when faced with a crisis, a short term focused response?
My conclusion is that the power of the short term performance metrics overwhelms common sense, and the only antidote to this long term poison is to build a culture that genuinely sees customers as central to the reason for the business existing, and only by serving customers can commercial sustainability be achieved. This commitment to long term customer value needs to be a part of the culture, as fundamental to an organisations shape and actions as DNA.
