Oct 18, 2010 | Management
The corporate obsession with planning, appropriate in principal often becomes just an exercise in managed optimism.
Many times I have witnessed, and been party to budgeting and planning sessions that are driven by a notion that all the bad stuff that has happened this year will not happen next year, and that the stars are at last aligned to a give us a “big one”, the bad stuff is behind us. This may sometimes be right, but other bad stuff usually takes the place of last years bad stuff, but we seem to be able to often tell ourselves that it won’t.
We often spend so much unproductive time planning — read kidding ourselves, that we get nothing useful done. A mate of mine, Tony Cassone has a truism he has been shouting for as long as I have known him, “son, you get one out of 10 for talking, the other 9 is for doing”
Once again, Tom Fishburne nails this tendency to corporate rose colored glasses with his biting “waterfall planning” cartoon.
Oct 13, 2010 | Alliance management, Collaboration
It is a pretty simple observation that for a group to act collectively, there must be a strong central reason for them to do so. The larger the group, the more difficult it becomes to maintain this sense of collaborative security, and more and more dissention to individual decisions occurs.
For this reason, for large groups to be successful there must be a very strong purpose into which all members “buy” and that has the effect of enabling them to deal with the individual decisions they may not like for the sake of the central purpose, so long as there has been due process exercised in the decision making process.
Consider the difference between the disregard generally apparent towards our political parties, and the high regard we have for the ideals of a group like the Salvation Army, irrespective of what we may think about their position on spirituality, and the music they play on the corner on Saturday morning.
Oct 10, 2010 | Leadership, Management, Strategy
This is a term I commonly use to describe a management style that I believe delivers the best results to any enterprise.
In one sense, central management is loose, against a clearly articulated and understood strategic purpose, it allows line management to make decisions, determine activity priorities, encourages mistakes by enabling calculated risk taking, experimentation, and just getting things done that delivers value to customers.
On the other hand, management is very tight, there is a rigorous planning and risk management regime that does not weed out risk, but exposes it to scrutiny, there is a culture of quantification, but equally, recognising not everything, particularly new stuff can be easily quantified, and there is a deep commitment to continuous improvement, and all its associated disciplines.
In these circumstances, creativity will flouish without losing sight of the main game, but it calls for the enterprise leadership to give up a key attraction for many leaders, using the office to get people to do whay you say on a daily basis.
Oct 7, 2010 | Customers, Management, OE, Sales, Strategy
Since man sought to organise themselves beyond family groups, geography has been the fundamental organising principal of almost all the institutions created, it was really the only thing that made sense. Everything from businesses to empires and the church(s) were geographically organised structures.
Since the 70’s, many commercial institutions have attempted to reorganise along a customer or product driven logic, largely with limited success. Geography and the transaction costs associated with removing the natural barrier of distance have conspired to make it difficult and costly, and the old management silos are hard to break down until the enterprise is in real trouble, as IBM was in the 80’s.
For the last 10 years at a huge rate the net has removed geography as a significant driver of organisational structures. It simply makes no sense to now have multiple overheads in neighboring geographies, when the net tools enable the sharing of everything immediate.
The outcome, structure your organisation to focus on what keeps it alive, customers!
Oct 4, 2010 | Alliance management, Collaboration, Operations, Social Media
Somehow, there is an evolutionally phenomenon at work that kicks in when a group gets larger than 150-200, the number that social research has repeatedly identified as the number of people that any individual can have a relationship with, first postulated by anthropologist Robin Dunbar, and now commonly known as “Dunbar’s number.“
As humans evolved, they did so in groups of 200 maximum, and there was little serious conflict inside the group, but there was constant conflict with the similar sized groups in the vicinity, even though they were to all intents and purposes, identical, apart from their group membership.
We now have social media seemingly rewriting the rules, or is Facebook and similar networks the electronic equivalent of a genetic mutation?
In a situation where you have many more than the genetic 200 having a sort of a relationship facilitated by the net, what implications does this mutation, if that is what is, have on the way we should be thinking about using, and regulating access to these sites, and what are the implications in the management of conflict?.
These are very big questions for the next 20 years thay deserve more than a passing, and ideaology driven response.
Sep 29, 2010 | Management, Small business, Strategy
All businesses are conflicted, small ones more obviously than larger ones.
On one hand, the immediate urgency to do whatever necessary to generate the cash to pay the bills, and on the other, the necessity to build capability, relationships, and definitive market position, all critical elements for commercial sustainability, but there is rarely enough time to do both as well as you would like.
There is no easy answer to this dilemma, but in my work with small businesses there are a number of strategies, largely borrowed from large businesses that pay dividends:
- Act like a larger organization internally, by doing things such as having a formal monthly management meeting, regular formal performance reviews, an overt strategy generation process that involves employees, and detailed operational planning.
- Delegate both responsibility and authority clearly. Often those who start businesses do so because they want to feel in control, and delegation does not come easily
- Spend 50% of your time (assuming you are the CEO) outside the businesses with customers, and demand chain partners building relationships.
Small businesses benefit hugely from these disciplines, partly because they are so important for the smooth running of any businesses, and partly because it acts as an “insulation” to the unanticipated. Most in small businesses do not see the need, as they are in daily contact with all in and around the businesses, and therefore, some of these things are seen as unnecessary bureaucracy, when in reality they are more like shock absorbers.
