Feb 11, 2013 | Change, Governance, Leadership, Strategy
How often do we hear that we learn more from our failures than our successes, that if we do not fail sometimes, we have not done enough, and that an innovative, exciting culture embraces failure? Thomas Watson Senior, creator of IBM once said “the fastest way to succeed is to double your failure rate.”
So how is it that we rarely see failure really celebrated if it is so productive? Such celebration is very rare in my experience.
An Canadian NGO, Engineers Without Borders has broken the mould, and published their “Failure Report” and attracted considerable attention, this article in the Guardian outlines the background.
How brave is that?
NGO’s depend for their funding from groups that you would expect to be pretty risk averse, they would hate to see their donations seemingly wasted, and admitting failure is on the surface at least, admitting to waste and potentially putting their funding at risk.
I wonder what would happen if Australia’s public companies were publish their own failure reports?
Rio Tinto’s foray into Aluminum , Harvey Norman missing the on line shopping revolution, Woolworths finally admitting Dick Smith had turned feral, James Hardie and asbestosis, Eddie and the Labor party, the list goes on. We get outside analysis, sometimes the entrails of failure are exhumed by legal processes, but never do we get the honest, gut-felt, reactions of those involved in the decision making examining their behavior, and taking responsibility for the failures. All we hear is the spin of the successes, and the message that the protagonists are all seeing, all knowing, who only act in the interests of others. Ducking of responsibility has become a management core capability, “I cannot recall” the last refuge of the villain.
How much better if we did as we say we should do, and celebrated failure as a part of the learning process, and that intelligent analysis of the reasons for failure, and the resetting expectations makes for a healthy culture.
Feb 4, 2013 | Marketing, Strategy
LAB, Lemming Avoidance Behaviour, or simply, avoid being like everyone else.
Whilst we are in the age of the “wisdom of the crowd” there is a profound difference between that wisdom and simple herd behavior.
We are not lemmings, but so often we exhibit their behavior, following the crowd, just because being a part of the herd is more comfortable than being an outlier, unless of course, we find the proverbial cliff. Standing out from the crowd, turning left when the rest turn right, making ourselves a target, is unnatural, because it is dangerous, and deep in our brains there are the evolutionary barriers to being different. They served a real purpose when there were sabre-toothed tigers outside the cave, but as the tigers are gone, the dangers are elsewhere.
Today, the danger is in conformity, blandness, commodity, to day, you need to stand for something that others value, something remarkable, something that makes a difference to others. The absence of difference, implies lemming behavior, and I believe to be successful, LAB is mandatory.
Try it, get the adrenaline pumping, feel the buzz, and have a chance to succeed.
Jan 8, 2013 | Management, Strategy
Ever heard of John R. Boyd? I hadn’t until I stumbled across this article in Fast Company magazine.
Observation, Orient, Decision, Action.
Instinctively it seems to make sense, Observing and understanding the pressure points, orienting your thinking to reflect the evolving situation, making resource deployment decisions to leverage the opportunities emerging, then executing on them, whilst going through the processes again, and again, as more information becomes available.
A variation on the Shewhart circle, which is now well known as the Plan Do Control Act (PDCA) circle in manufacturing, applied to competitive strategy with the wrinkle that the focus is not improving your own performance, but destroying the oppositions ability to compete effectively.
I have often said that getting inside your oppositions head is the best competitive strategy you could have. The OODA loop is simply a template to organise and focus the process.
Update: August 2017. I found this long article on Medium that also provides an outline of OODA. A useful addition.
Dec 18, 2012 | Change, Governance, Management, Social Media, Strategy
Like most newspaper groups, Fairfax has failed to evolve to accommodate the depredations of the digital revolution. Their business model is broken, and the way forward is unclear.
The one spot of light in a gloomy future was the NZ auction site “Trade Me” which Fairfax bought for $700 million in 2006, then floated 34% onto the ASX, and a further 15% last year, raising $422 million, leaving them with a 51%, share which they are now selling for $616 million. The proceeds of the sale, are being used to pay down the debt accumulated to keep a redundant business model alive, offering an opportunity for it to change before being terminal.
Trade me was delivering profitability, superior return on funds, and an important toe in the digital water, but is being sacrificed to keep the legacy business afloat while it tries to adjust. In addition, Trade Me, along with Fairfax’s other less prominent digital assets offer the opportunity to experiment, test, to learn how to survive and compete in the digital environment.
The lesson in all this is that if you do not cannibalise yourself, somebody else will accommodate, and the pain of chewing your fingers will pale into insignificance against the pain of being chomped around the waist by a white pointer. The irony however is that the only digitally sustainable asset in the house has to be sold to buy some time, but leaves the business without any significant cash generator in the digital space. At least Fairfax shares rose yesterday, so directors are probably happy this morning.
Dec 4, 2012 | Leadership, Management, Strategy
Listening this morning to a discussion about the value of a review of the GST sharing regime currently in place, a small part of the GST regime, I was reminded of the geometric nature of the complications that arise from complexity of a system.
The greater the amount of data, the greater the opportunity for analysis, apparently. However, the greater the amount of data, it usually follows that the level of complexity also increases, and as complexity increases so does the number of interactions, and cause and effect relationships that need to be anticipated and interpreted.
Unanticipated relationships that have an impact on the performance of the system, but have not been “risk-assessed” can create a huge risk to systems, simply because they are not in the rule-book. The system is supposed to be “fail-safe” so the response to an unanticipated situation is not enabled. Remember Lehmann Brothers, a massive institution that on paper was AAA, but in reality was so complex that risk was not easily assessable except with hindsight.
Finding the needle gets harder as the pile of hay gets higher, and the complexity of hay-stack increases.
How complex is your business model?
Nov 29, 2012 | Leadership, Management, Strategy
We measure return on the capital investments we make, there is an extensive, well understood, widely used set of tools that offer a framework for the calculations, most of us would be lost without them.
However, whilst we all know in our guts that there is a set of practices that together we would call great management, and the businesses they run are better than those run by “ordinary” management, there are few tools available. Trouble is, articulating what make great management has been a qualitative process, significantly informed by hindsight.
So what are the characteristics of superior management?
Seems to me there are three characteristics, that are all the result of extensive sets of individual and group behaviour:
- A well executed strategy that differentiates in a manner customers value
- The management team is a cohesive, but questioning bunch of trained, intelligent people who have a strong sense of team competitiveness. This characteristic is reflected in the groups that exist at all levels of the organisation.
- There are appropriate measures that drive continuous improvement throughout the organisation
For comparative purposes, the Worldmanagementsurvey.org site carries an extensive database with the results of a multiyear, multinational academic survey that offers an opportunity to benchmark management performance. It offers an opportunity to start the process of identifying the behaviours that lead to superior performance by management.
