Feb 7, 2022 | Governance, Management
Successful people will tell you to concentrate on the things you can control, be aware of, and prepared for those you cannot. Stressing about those you cannot control adds no value, the best you can do is anticipate the impact they may have, and shape your response in advance.
Managing a business is the primary example of an environment where managers sometimes obsess about things out of their control. Meanwhile, they often ignore or undermanage those they can control, and that deliver sustainable returns.
There are many components to a successful business, the only one that is common to all is cash. It is like oxygen to people, we cannot survive without it.
Therefore, it makes sense to ensure that in every decision you take, part of the consideration is the impact on cash.
Too often I see decisions made, that on the surface make some sense, but when deeper investigation occurs, are counterproductive. The most common is the almost instinctive urge to drop price to meet some competitive pressure, usually accompanied by reassurances that volumes will be increased as a result. 4 times in 5, it results in less cash, and less profitability. Management is way too often surprised at this outcome.
There are 7 things you can control, broken up into two buckets represented by the income statement and balance sheet, that have a direct impact on your cash position.
Price
Volume
Margins
Overheads.
Accounts receivable
Inventory, or in a service business, Work in progress
Accounts payable.
The first 4 are recorded in the income statement or profit and Loss, which records the revenues coming in, and costs going out that are directly influenced by trading activity.
The last three are recorded in the balance sheet, reflecting the cash value of the business and are again directly influenced by management decisions.
Each of these 7 components are linked in a macabre commercial dance, every action on one can and often does, influence most if not all of the others to varying degrees.
It is the responsibility of management to manage these levers to deliver the maximum return to the business, and ensure that decisions made are in line with the strategic priorities.
No business can survive without cash, so it is incumbent on every employee, even if just in their own self-interest, to look after the cash of the business as if it were their own.
Feb 2, 2022 | Governance, Leadership, Management
The Reserve Bank released the latest inflation figures a week or so ago. The year-end number was 3.5%, significantly influenced by a few highly volatile items like petrol. Stripping those out, the underlaying rate was 2.6%. These numbers do not bode well for the RBA target rate of 2-3 percent average over time.
It would appear that despite the denials, the reserve will be forced into increasing the official rate well before their earlier undertaking not to do so until 2024.
From the graph in the header, should we sneak back to official rates above 6%, last seen in the late 80’s, we will have a cohort of managers making strategic decision in an environment they have never experienced.
That is not a good omen.
I well remember paying 17.5% rate on my first mortgage around 1983, an experience that will never be forgotten. The little equity I had built up in the previous 2 years since borrowing the money to buy that first house, was swallowed up while my very young family ate a lot of potatoes and sausage.
Managing a business in a period of inflation puts a lot of pressure on things the cohort of younger senior managers have not ever had to worry much about to still deliver acceptable returns. Now they will be faced with some nasty choices:
- Increase prices, annoying customers, and risking volume loss, and the associated relative increase in overheads.
- Annoying stakeholders by holding prices resulting in decreasing margins as inflation driven costs increase.
- Cutting costs which in a crisis normally means cutting ‘heads’, which rarely makes you popular in the lunchroom.
- Reducing investment in everything from advertising to R&D and new product introductions, which has the compounding impact of making tomorrow’s cash flow and profitability that much harder to generate.
The most usual course for the inexperienced is to generate lots of words, but take no or only ‘fence-sitting’ action until their options have closed in. They then stir into action with emphasis on the last two options, leaving it to the following leadership to pick up the pieces.
The much harder work of refining product portfolios, brand development, generating operational ‘flow’, ensuring strategic alignment, building resilient supply chains, process flow optimisation, business model innovation, and all the rest, should not be activities stimulated by some sort of crisis. They are the responsibility of managers always, but often lost, obscured in the better times when getting a bit fatter is the most common characteristic.
Header Image credit:. Source World bank.
Jan 24, 2022 | Leadership, Management, Strategy
As I observe the better performing manufacturing businesses around, I see some components not spoken about in any of the verbiage that comes from the various interest and political groups.
These common themes are:
They are close to customers.
This means they are less price sensitive than competitors and are focussed on building a bigger pie in collaboration with their customers. As a result, they always outperform those trying to grab a bigger part of an existing pie using price as the primary driver.
They have high level trade skills.
They have a higher rate of apprentices and tradesmen in their ranks. In the absence of publicly available vocational training, they find ways to deliver it to employees internally. This determination often extends to their key suppliers, adding glue to the supply relationships and enabling innovation through their supply chains. Skilled tradesmen are valued not only for the skills they have, but as people who have combined trade skills with experience, and are therefore tertiary qualified by an alternative route to a university degree. They are often better able to get stuff done as a result. Their deep respect for trade skills results in less turnover of personnel, delivering a substantial competitive advantage.
They seek tertiary educated employees.
The education does not have to be specific to the businesses, they are seeking people who have demonstrated a capacity to apply themselves, learn, and who are curious about what is going on around them. This looks expensive on the surface, but it gives them an ‘intellectual edge’ in the competitive game.
There is a continuity of leadership, and leadership style.
While the individual leaders might change over time, the style remains consistently participative and flexible. This leadership culture comes with a very clear set of performance expectations for individuals and the operations, which evolve in parallel with the strategic and competitive demands of the market.
Optimised and messy live together.
While there is a very strong focus on optimising operations, there is also a recognition that innovation, which is expensive, risky and messy, is fundamental to future competitiveness. They find ways to live with the ambiguity that comes from focussing on optimisation for the existing major part of the business, and exploration at the ‘sharp end’ where they are building the base for tomorrow’s cash flow.
They have big ambitions.
Their strategic planning sessions are not just extrapolations of the current in a nice location with a few beers for bonding. They deeply question the assumptions that shape the business, and allow many voices to be heard, and they reach for the ‘big’ outcome.
This is all effectively anecdotal, coming from observation rather than published data, so it may be a bit flimsy, but it does pass my ‘pub test’.
Header cartoon Credit: Hugh McLeod at www.gapingvoid.com
Dec 15, 2021 | Leadership, Management
What happens if you are on the receiving end of negative feedback during a debate, or an ‘executive heckle’ during a presentation?
How do you respond?
Our natural reaction is to push back, to defend your position, which creates friction and ‘heat’.
That is what happens when you respond to a negative proposition with ‘Yes but’. You are setting yourself apart from the questioner, defending an alternative position.
By contrast, had you responded to the heckler with ‘Yes and’: what you have just done is agree with the heckler, at least partially, and then been able to move onto the reasons why it is an ‘and’
This subtle but fundamentally important distinction was brought home to me years ago. I was in a running debate with the MD of a conglomerate to whom I reported as GM of a division at EBIT. I had taken over as the GM after 5 years as Marketing manager, running the logistics, and part of the sales in my spare time. It had been turned around from a disaster into a commercially aggressive, successful and profitable entity.
The MD’s latest ‘brain-fart’ at the time was to incorporate the division into the much larger core division of the company. The much larger division was monolithic, and relatively unprofitable, lacking the innovation, commercial skills, and ‘can do’ culture of our much less bureaucratic smaller division. The MD’s view was that an amalgamation would bring to the larger division the commercial hard edge of its smaller cousin, thus making the larger entity more responsive.
My view expressed strongly was that to amalgamate the smaller division into a larger division would kill the very culture that had been built which made the smaller division successful. There were better ways to address the problems of the larger division than risking smothering the culture of the smaller one.
It was a debate I lost, and resulted in me leaving a short time later, rather unceremoniously.
With the great benefit of hindsight, and from experience gained in the almost 30 years since, what I should have done instead of saying ‘yes but’, and having the argument, which I was certain to lose, was to say ‘yes and’ agreeing that the problems of the larger division were real and needed fixing. I could have then suggested creative and practical solutions to the problems. Instead, I unknowingly chose to lose the argument.
It still may not have worked, but the odds would have moved dramatically into my favour. However, at about 40 years old, and having been given the responsibility of running the business, almost my perfect job, I was too self-unaware and perhaps arrogant to acknowledge the inevitable failure of the path I unwittingly chose to argue the case.
Simple and subtle changes of words can have a profound impact on the response they bring.
Dec 8, 2021 | Governance, Management
It is bonus time again, approaching Christmas. Many businesses have some sort of bonus scheme that matures at this time of year and are wondering if it is worth the effort.
Does it give you a return on the investment of time and money, or is it just an expected part of employee’s salary? Does it have the potential to result in disgruntled employees when they do not get as much as they expect or think they are worth, or worse, are angry that someone has got more than them?
Both are very common problems.
Conceiving and managing a bonus scheme is a really tricky management challenge.
We tend to give bonuses with little consideration of the psychology behind what makes them work, under what circumstances and in what contexts. We tend to take the easy way, which is just to tie it to a combination of increased revenue, some dodgy assessment of performance done by the manager, and profitability.
If you have a bonus scheme and want to see how they work best, go down to your local club that has pokies, and observe those playing. Compulsive, repetitive, continuous, despite knowing in the long term they cannot win, but the short term, they just might. This is the sort of behaviour that if mirrored in your business may be very productive in the short term, and destructive in the medium to long term.
Context is very important. For tasks that are repetitive, often referred to as ‘left brain’, financial rewards do increase productivity. Conversely, once an element of ‘right brain’ the source of critical thinking, creativity, nonlinear outcomes is required, financial rewards not only do not increase productivity, but they can impact negatively.
A bonus scheme that acknowledges these differences, and delivers has five parameters you need to consider, and work with to produce the best combination for your circumstances:
- Type of bonus. Money or in kind? Money is usually the default, but in kind can be a powerful motivator, and is less likely to be dismissed just as part of the salary package. You could offer a dinner out with their partner, gift vouchers, a cruise, some local adventure, there are many and varied options. Most will be more effective than just money in most circumstances.
- Eligibility. Who is eligible, how is the eligibility for the bonus to be measured, collated and communicated? Is it for the individual, the work group, or whole company, is there a qualification period, is it the same for everyone irrespective of rank, or is it on some sort of sliding scale? A field of landmines to be navigated in making those choices.
- Measurement. Is the measurement quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of both? What are the administrative processes that will manage them, and keep it consistent? How transparent will the results be?
- Frequency. What is the frequency of the bonus? Is it monthly, quarterly, annual, on an agreed timetable, or are the time lapses between bonus occasions random, as are the rewards you get out of a poker machine?
- Reward type. Are the rewards themselves random, or against a sliding scale of value. Usually this will be cost, but when giving in kind bonuses, what is value to one person may not be to another. For example, a former client who was an avid racing enthusiast offered time in a go cart in the west of Sydney as a bonus. To several of his employees, the thought of racing a go cart was as far from a bonus as they could get, the thought of winning was a disincentive.
There is a huge body of psychological evidence underpinning the drivers of behaviour, and we are learning more every day. The best known are Ivan Pavlov, who recognised in the late 1800’s that specific behaviour can be stimulated by a cue that the ‘subject’ associates with the behaviour. You see this every day, as people respond to such things as a ringing in a theatre to announce the end of interval, the traffic lights at the end of your street, and so on. It is a learned behaviour in response to a cue. The second is B.F. Skinner, who in the 1950’s recognised that variable rewards were more powerful than those that were known, aka, the poker machines. More recently, Daniel Pink has written extensively about the mismatch between what science knows about motivation, and what business does.
Header credit: Once again, the wisdom of Dilbert graces the header. My continuing thanks to Scott Adams for creating the cartoons that explain my thoughts.
Dec 3, 2021 | Leadership, Management
How often have you heard the question ‘tell me about your weaknesses‘ in an interview of some sort?
As a corporate bloke climbing the greasy pole I heard it a lot, and it has popped up from time to time in the last 25 years I have been consulting.
It always struck me as the question disinterested people would ask, when they ran out of sensible questions.
However, all is not lost.
A recruiter I know looking to fill an interim role called me, and we got caffeinated, during which he expanded his view that I was partly wrong.
A part of his process is to define the four crucial ‘Must haves’ for a role he is filling. Towards the end of an interview, he asks the candidate to rate themselves on the 4, best to worst.
It is a more sophisticated way of asking the dumb question, and engages the candidate in a conversation about their self-confessed strengths and weakness in the context of what is important to the role, after the interviewer has had the opportunity to make their own assessment. Any significant divergences can be further investigated.
If I was interviewing for a B2B sales manager, I might have the following 4 ‘must haves’ :
Coaching – How do you work with front line sales people to help them improve their performance?
Attention to detail – Are you a detail person, or a ‘big picture’ person?
Creativity – Are you someone who finds creative solutions to problems, or are you best communicating and working with an established process.
Growth – How good are you at finding new avenues to grow, by better leveraging the resources you have?
Recruiting for a senior financial manager, or CMO, would require a different four questions, but you get the picture.
I was not the right person for the job my recruiter friend had open, we both knew that, but I came away from the conversation with a great insight into a common question, one that I have sometimes had difficulty answering politely (I once responded with ‘you will have to hire me to find out’. Did not get that gig).
