Jun 10, 2021 | Change, Governance, Management
Culture change is perhaps the hardest challenge to be faced by any leader. It can evolve over time, with patience and commitment, but every successful change I have seen comes after a catalytic event of some sort.
Many years ago, I worked for a manufacturing business that had built a new factory in the west of Sydney, which had more than its fair share of teething problems. The production the factory was supposed to absorb and build upon came from an inner-city site that had been operating for almost 100 years.
In those years there had been built up a powerful culture of management Vs workers, and fierce demarcation battles between the many unions on the old site, several with only one or two members, desperately trying to build their position.
This toxic mixture was transferred to the new, automated site with the predictable results. Manufacturing productivity was appalling, labour relations non-existent, demarcation disputes ongoing, the place was on the brink of being closed as the biggest disaster since the Titanic.
In a desperate dispute, to make a point, someone (no charges were ever laid) resorted to arson in the warehouse. The damage was extensive, and the already hobbled ability to produce saleable product was almost destroyed.
However, it was a monumental catalyst for change.
In the middle of the night, I found myself driving a forklift, working shoulder to shoulder with warehouse and production staff clearing stock from the refrigerated warehouse into trucks for transport to outside storage.
This would have been absolutely unthinkable just 24 hours before.
Suddenly, everyone in the plant recognised that their jobs were about to go, forever. The unionised workforce recognised that those in so called ‘management’ were just people who wanted, like them, to do as good a job as they could. We found it was easy to communicate without the artificial barriers that had existed, and we all had a common purpose, to survive.
Within a few months, after enormous effort and collaborative changes unthinkable before the fire, the business had been transformed. The fire had been the catalyst for a determination to acknowledge the failures of the past, and to accept massive change was necessary, welcome, and in the interests of every stakeholder.
In a small way, this is what is needed in Australia.
A common purpose, clear and consistent communication, determination, and goodwill.
This does not mean there will not be fierce debates, and difficult decisions that need to be made, but it does mean that there is a general understanding of why those decisions were made.
After royally stuffing up the reaction to the fires in December 2019 and January 2020, the government recognised their failings when the Corona virus took hold. It served as a catalyst, and suddenly there was bi-partisan and general community agreement that change was needed.
We moved forward.
As things quietened down, the collaboration and goodwill dissipated, partisan politics and apparently ill-considered and reactive decisions taken by fragmenting politics at all levels re-emerged, driving people apart.
Question is, can we restore the emergent culture of goodwill and collaborative communication that served us well in the crisis? It is the same question commercial leaders need to ask of themselves after experiencing a catalytic event.
Do we have the leaders capable of driving the culture change necessary?
How do we assemble the resources necessary?
Can those with vested interests in the status quo, resistant to the changes, be shunted to the sidelines?
In the case of ‘Australia Inc’, failure to respond will leave all our children and grandchildren poorer: financially and emotionally.
Header cartoon credit: Dilbert, again. Scott Adams and his mate have a knack of hitting that vital nerve.
May 26, 2021 | Governance, Management
I was astonished when I recently went back to all the stuff I had written to copy and paste a simple explanation of cash flow into something I was doing. I had written a post some years ago, but not in the detail required in this instance.
Astonishing because I rabbit on about cash flow all the time.
Cash flow is the measure by which SME’s live and die.
I encourage as strongly as possible, repeatedly, that those I work with do a weekly rolling 13-week cash flow forecast.
It saves a lot of grief, and once set up is simple to do.
The real benefit of cash flow understanding for an SME is that it is cash, it cannot be ‘managed’ by various accounting practices, you either have it or you do not. Understanding the detail of where it comes from, and where it goes, and when, is the single most important metric for any business. This is particularly the case for an SME without a depth of reserves to accommodate when things go pear shaped.
So here goes.
Cash comes in from only a few sources. Most comes from being paid by customers in an ongoing business, but it can also come in from borrowings, sales of assets, capital injections by the owners, and incidentals like dividends.
Cash goes out in a similarly limited manner. Payment of purchases from suppliers, for anything from leases, capital items, manufacturing inputs, wages and salaries, to paper clip purchases, and repayment of borrowings, dividends, and tax payments.
In the presentation of statutory accounts, the required cash flow statement is broken into three parts.
Cash flow from Operating activities. This records the cash generated, and where it is used in the course of the normal operating activities of the business.
Cash flow from Investment activities. This records cash going into and out of investments that are outside the normal operating business. For example, a business deciding to invest in an adjacent business to firm up control of the supply chain, would record the investment in this part of the cash flow statement, as they would any subsequent dividends that were received.
Cash flow from Financing activities. This category records cash coming in from sources such as bank loans, and capital raising, as well as cash going out in repayments and dividends.
For most SME’s, the first is the major item, with only occasional intrusions from the other two, so I tend to just lump them together.
The format is the same for each. The source of the funds, and the use of the funds.
It is often useful to break the captions up a bit for a greater level of detail.
For example, you might break cash received from customers by geography, type of customer, or product group, all of which can give you a more detailed view of which parts of your business are working as expected, and which are not.
Coming out of pro-actively managing your cash flow are a number of other key improvement strategies, amongst which are:
- Reducing your cash-to-cash cycle time, which reduces working capital
- Managing inventory down without compromising supply,
- Actual cost of goods sold analysis rather than relying on some arbitrary standard,
- Positive relationship management with funders, especially valuable when you are looking for more capital
- Cash can act as a leading indicator of trouble with an individual customer or supplier, or indeed of a market segment in which you compete,
- Goodwill coming from being able to pay your bills on time, every time,
- Cash is the basis of several important investment analytical tools; a robust history makes the numbers even more credible
- Most importantly for most owners of SME’s, pro-active cash flow management delivers peace of mind.
Managing your cash is management 101. Unfortunately for many, it has become surrounded by accounting jargon, and mixed up with the more complex practises employed in the P&L and Balance sheet. Alan Mullaly when in the throes of saving Ford from extinction, demanded a daily cash balance assembled from operations around the world. If it can be done daily in an operation as complex as the global Ford organisation, it should be really simple for you to do it weekly.
Cartoon credit: Scott Adams and Dilbert again make the point better than I can.
Apr 23, 2021 | Analytics, Management
Every plan I have ever seen, business plan, strategic plan, house plan, office layout plan, is made up of a set of assumptions about the future.
To varying degrees these assumptions are based on two sorts of ‘facts’. These so called ‘facts’ are not accurate reflections of reality, but expectations with varying degrees of validity. They seem to fall into two categories:
-
-
- ‘Facts’ about the future, often distorted by perspective, misunderstanding, incomplete information, and a host of other variables.
- ‘Facts’ that are really just an extension of the status quo extended into the future.
These ‘facts’ are then fed into a process of some sort and used to develop a plan in the mistaken belief that the future will look little different to the past.
Therefore, the first responsibility of anyone doing a plan is to find a mechanism to test the key assumptions in the plan, and adjust as necessary.
Failure to test the key assumptions, which are the drivers of the performance of the plan when implemented, is the best way I know to really stuff it up.
Having a plan that does not reflect reality ensures either: that every decision that will be made during implementation is suboptimal, leading to poor outcomes, or that the plan is discarded, and normal chaos resumed.
I am never sure which is the worse outcome.
Apr 21, 2021 | Management, Sales
The best word in sales is ‘Free’, it will close more often than any other, by a long stretch. However, being free also implies there is no value to the ‘buyer’ and in any event, it is not really a sale. Only when there is an exchange of some sort can it be termed a ‘sale’
At best a ‘freebie’ is a ‘bait’ of some sort that may lead to a sale.
As a freelancer, I am tempted often to give away a lot of time and advice for free, partly to demonstrate expertise, which may lead to a sale, and partly because I am asked, and am able to do so to help. It is also partly because I find it difficult to just say a flat ‘No’
Recently I had some assistance from a professional to address a problem. It was someone I knew quite well, and have helped a bit in the past, pro bono. As I turned up for the appointment, I was asked if I had some time afterwards so the professional could, as it was stated, ‘pick your brain‘ in a specific area where I have deep expertise. As it happened, I did have the time, so said it was OK.
The upshot is that I gave away an hour delivering expert advice, while paying full tote odds for the appointment and professional advice I had gone there to obtain.
Stupid me.
I should have used the second most powerful word in Sales.
‘No’
It is hard for us to say ‘No’.
We all like to be liked, we like to be asked, and to be seen as an expert, and we do not like to be seen as ungenerous, or even a jerk.
However, is my time and expertise of any less value than the professional I was talking to?
As humans, we also want what we cannot have. Wanting something just out of reach is a driver of behaviour. Saying ‘No’ moves the opportunity to learn something or get something that is just out of reach further away, making it more attractive, and adding to the perceived value of that something.
Watch what happens at contested auctions, as the price goes up, those remaining in the bidding become more desperate to win.
There are many ways to say ‘No’, but the essential element is that it must be clear.
If you apologise, say ‘Sorry’, the door remains open, and you feel a little guilty, when there is no need for you to apologise.
If you say ‘I can’t’, does that mean you cannot now, but might at another time?
If you offer a range of excuses, the ‘No’ remains ambiguous, and everyone is confused.
Remembering that ‘No’ makes you more attractive, you do have options.
- Just be firm and say, ‘No’ I do not do that.
- ‘No’ I do not do that, but here is someone you could ask.
- Redirect back to you. Again, several sub options:
- ‘No. However, email me a few simple questions, and I will try to answer them quickly’
- ‘No, but I do offer calls up to 60 minutes for $XXXX fee.
- ‘That is a complex question, usually only answerable after a detailed examination, for which my project fee is $XXXX.
Use one of these, and the chances of some sort of conversion are real.
Unfortunately, in this case I did not follow my own advice, and so know that the hour I spent outlining the solution to the problem will not be valued and implemented, so we will have both wasted our time.
At least, I got a blog post out of it, so maybe there was some value after all?
Apr 8, 2021 | Leadership, Management, Operations
Have you ever started to read a book, and decided to miss chapter 1?
I guess few ever have.
Miss chapter one, and you miss the foundation of what is to come. It is the first impression, creates the context in which the book is set, irrespective of it being fiction or non-fiction.
Why then do most businesses and their advisors not read chapter 1 of the business improvement handbook?
I know they do not, simply because Cash is such a low priority in these conversations. It is left behind by management clichés and fluffy words about visions and missions.
These things are all important, but in the absence of cash, beyond reach.
How much cash does it take to run your business?
How long is your cash conversion cycle?
What are the sources of the cash you are using?
What are the trends in your free cash flow?
These should be chapter 1 of the business improvement handbook.
When you know the answers, you can move on to the things you can do better to free up more cash, then to the operational, customer and strategic challenges being faced, knowing how much cash you have at your disposal to address these challenges.
Let me know when you need some experienced assistance sorting all this out.
Mar 15, 2021 | Analytics, Management
We are all familiar with the Pareto Principal: the 80/20 rule, first articulated by Italian mathematician Vilfredo Pareto in 1906. Pareto saw this unequal distribution in all sorts of unexpected places, after first noticing that 20% of the pea pods in his garden produce 80% of the peas. (what is it about peas and scientific insight?) At the time, he was studying the distribution of wealth in Italy, and noticed that 80% of the land was owned by 20% of the people. Further study confirmed the ratio of roughly 80/20 held firm across just about everything he looked at.
In the years since, the ratio holds, and has become a point of ‘first principal’ in every field of endeavour from science to sport, nature, and our personal lives.
Why is it so?
The reason is simple when you think about it.
‘Accumulative advantage’ and the 1 percent rule.
We all understand that a dominating force in our lives is that the winner takes all. Nobody remembers who came second! To win, you only must be fractionally better, 1 percent, than the next best, but you get to take all the advantages. You win once, collect the advantages, which facilitates winning again tomorrow, and again taking all the advantages, and moving away just a little more from those that come in second. Over repeated cycles, the accumulated advantage of being just a fraction better means you take the lion’s share of the rewards.
The rich get richer!
As a kid I was a reasonable tennis player. The club at which I played held regular ‘social’ tournaments broken down into age groups. In my age group, there was a bloke who was marginally better than me, based on results. He beat me almost every time, it was always close, always hard to pick which of us was the better player while playing, but the results spoke for themselves. 1 percent (maybe in this case, 2 percent) made the difference, and I was the forgotten runner up almost every time. Since 2000, there has been 77 grand slam tournaments played, 2020 had only one, the US Open for the obvious reason. Of those tournaments, 3 players have dominated the men’s singles: Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Between them they have won 60 times. A spread of 77.9%, and hardly anyone could name more than 1 of the other winners over those years. Within those numbers, if you just look at the French Open, played 15 times since 2005, when Nadal won for the first time, he has won 13 times.
In a memo dated October 2, 2002, then Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer wrote to staff ”
“About 20 percent of the bugs causes 80 percent of all errors, and–this is stunning to me–1 percent of bugs caused half of all errors.”
Both are just more of the examples of accumulated advantage, the tiny ‘1 percenters’ that add up to a dominating number.
It is this tiny 1 % advantage that drives the 80/20 rule, the accumulated advantage that goes to those who have a tiny advantage, in a winner takes all environment.
In my work with clients, I use the Pareto principal as a core of the investigation into the sources of ‘baggage’ all businesses accumulate that can be eliminated. Then go a step further and encourage them to ‘Pareto the Pareto’. In other words, take Steve Ballmer’s insight, when you have identified the 20% that cause the 80%, go looking for the 1% that cause the 50%.
