This is an article I wrote a few months ago. It sentiments seem as relevant today as they did then...
"In a recent conversation with a wise and experienced business owner he told me that rather later than many had the recession paid a visit to his business. More than a year had passed since many businesses had first felt the pinch of the credit crunch and yet during this time he had been able to continue with business mostly as usual. But then quite suddenly the volume of leads started to dry up, and prices and margins fell as competition increased.
However, most interesting was his reaction to this crisis. He could have cried into his coffee and blamed the market. He could have slashed headcount and gone into survival mode. But rather than look inward for the solution to his problems, he decided to look outward and drive up his sales. His view was that there was still plenty of business out there. After all, he said, his £3m business was just a very small part of a sector still worth £billions.
On reflection he realised that he and his business had got a little too complacent. They had operated with a “business as usual” mindset despite the myriad of changes going on around them. So my friend has fired up his sales team, reviewed their marketing strategy, and most of all got back on the road to meet and talk to the customers who his business had perhaps started to take somewhat for granted. His view was that it was complacency rather than the general economic environment that had made his recession.
So who is responsible for your recession? You, the general economic environment, or a bit of both? The businesses that credit the general economic environment for their woes have resigned themselves to a pessimistic powerlessness that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Consequently their business is functioning rather too much like it was pre-recession despite being in the middle of a rather deep and sustained downturn.
Although it is true that some sectors have been hit harder by the recession than others, construction for instance, I've come to see that what separates the performance of one business from another is not just the performance of their market, but moreover how effectively they have adapted to the changes in their market. Proof of the pudding being a construction sector business I visited last week that has grown market share, maintained turnover, and continued to return a profit.
The struggling businesses have changed little or nothing about their business and their approach to the market since the on set of the downturn. They are selling the same products, aiming to earn the same margins, using the same marketing techniques that they were before the downturn, and wondering why business is tougher now.
Some businesses have made some changes, but have stopped short of what politicians call a “root and branch” overhaul. Typically they will have laid off some staff, and put a bit more pressure on sales, but failed to take a step back and think about how they would run their business if they were to start all over again. There are surviving, but is “not dying” a worthy goal?
The businesses that are doing better than the rest have rigorously examined their organisation and their markets, and fearlessly driven change throughout. These fearless businesses have asked and answered questions like:
• What changes are taking place with our customers' buying behaviour?
• What product and services does the market want now?
• How will all this affect our cash-flow and profitability?
• Where have we allowed slack to creep into our business?
And most importantly:
• If we were to start all over again, what would be different?
So let me close by asking you 2 questions. Firstly, which of the following best describes your situation?
• We're keeping our heads down and hoping it will pass soon; we hope we'll survive
• We've made some changes but nothing too fundamental; we think we'll survive
• We've gone back to the drawing board and challenged every assumption; we're not surviving, we're prospering.
And which best describes the situation you'd like to be in?"
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Are Your Managers Managing
Many managers fail to give proper attention to their core responsibility - achieving goals for their business by getting the best from the people they work with – because they're too busy working on tasks, duties and problems that really should be delegated to the people they manage.
Managers, up and down the business from Managing Director to Team Leader, usually have at least two jobs. The first, quite obviously is leading and managing their area of responsibility. The other involves performing tasks and duties that are part of the functioning of their department or business. For example: managing projects, selling, preparing quotations, defining specifications, dealing with minor problems, writing minutes, and bookkeeping. Andy Stanley encourages managers to “only do what only you can do” and delegate the rest. But far too often ineffective managers spend so much time doing things that other people can do that they don't spend enough time really making a difference.
Mistakenly they believe that only they should handle the more difficult and complex tasks and consequently burden their to-do list with things should really be delegated. Ineffective managers therefore lead teams that are far less productive than they could be because their manager is too busy with the wrong things to provide the necessary support and guidance.
So why do managers not do enough managing?
Short-termism
Many managers measure their contribution incorrectly and measure their usefulness by tracking the quantity work they get through each day - something that may have been valid before they became a manager. But an effective manager's contribution does not reap dividends overnight. Getting the best from your people and achieving important goals takes persistence, patience, and time. A manager who is drawn toward little things will find that this will be at the expense of the big things that ultimately make a long-term difference. So allow yourself time to make a big difference and measure your contribution against the big things.
I don't know how to be a manager
Only a minority of managers have received much management training as too often their business simply assumes that they will just figure it out for themselves. However, good management is not easy and there are very few people who have enough natural talent to figure out this complex discipline all on their own. If you give a person a choice of two tasks: one they feel comfortable with, and another where they don't really know how to do it, most people will gravitate toward the former; which explains why unskilled managers don't give top priority to their managerial duties.
So what should managers focus on?
The things that will improve the performance of their people, achieve important goals, and generally improve their business. Things like forward planning, quality one-to-one time with staff and colleagues, team meetings, listening to customers, gathering information about the market, setting clear expectations about direction and performance, driving through key improvements, helping people to enjoy their work, and making key policy-shaping decisions.
How can you change your focus?
Managers who don't do enough leading and managing because they're too busy with other stuff, inevitably realise that they're not keeping up with the workload and ask for help. Unfortunately the help they ask for usually isn't support in learning how to be a good manager, but the recruitment of junior managers who can help them with the managerial workload. Consequently a department that only needs one manager now has two or more, none of whom know how to do the job properly and spend most of their time doing something other than leading and managing. In fact an additional layer of management will probably just increase costs and slow down communication both up and down the organisation. So first of all find out how much leading and managing your existing managers do and if it’s not enough, don't recruit because it won't fix the problem.
Managers should always put their leadership and management responsibilities first and only once these have been properly attended should they go to work on the other more hands-on tasks and responsibilities. A manager who then finds that they now don't have enough time to complete these other duties should not compromise on being an effective manager, and instead do what good managers do and delegate the hands-on tasks they don't have time to do.
Managers, up and down the business from Managing Director to Team Leader, usually have at least two jobs. The first, quite obviously is leading and managing their area of responsibility. The other involves performing tasks and duties that are part of the functioning of their department or business. For example: managing projects, selling, preparing quotations, defining specifications, dealing with minor problems, writing minutes, and bookkeeping. Andy Stanley encourages managers to “only do what only you can do” and delegate the rest. But far too often ineffective managers spend so much time doing things that other people can do that they don't spend enough time really making a difference.
Mistakenly they believe that only they should handle the more difficult and complex tasks and consequently burden their to-do list with things should really be delegated. Ineffective managers therefore lead teams that are far less productive than they could be because their manager is too busy with the wrong things to provide the necessary support and guidance.
So why do managers not do enough managing?
Short-termism
Many managers measure their contribution incorrectly and measure their usefulness by tracking the quantity work they get through each day - something that may have been valid before they became a manager. But an effective manager's contribution does not reap dividends overnight. Getting the best from your people and achieving important goals takes persistence, patience, and time. A manager who is drawn toward little things will find that this will be at the expense of the big things that ultimately make a long-term difference. So allow yourself time to make a big difference and measure your contribution against the big things.
I don't know how to be a manager
Only a minority of managers have received much management training as too often their business simply assumes that they will just figure it out for themselves. However, good management is not easy and there are very few people who have enough natural talent to figure out this complex discipline all on their own. If you give a person a choice of two tasks: one they feel comfortable with, and another where they don't really know how to do it, most people will gravitate toward the former; which explains why unskilled managers don't give top priority to their managerial duties.
So what should managers focus on?
The things that will improve the performance of their people, achieve important goals, and generally improve their business. Things like forward planning, quality one-to-one time with staff and colleagues, team meetings, listening to customers, gathering information about the market, setting clear expectations about direction and performance, driving through key improvements, helping people to enjoy their work, and making key policy-shaping decisions.
How can you change your focus?
Managers who don't do enough leading and managing because they're too busy with other stuff, inevitably realise that they're not keeping up with the workload and ask for help. Unfortunately the help they ask for usually isn't support in learning how to be a good manager, but the recruitment of junior managers who can help them with the managerial workload. Consequently a department that only needs one manager now has two or more, none of whom know how to do the job properly and spend most of their time doing something other than leading and managing. In fact an additional layer of management will probably just increase costs and slow down communication both up and down the organisation. So first of all find out how much leading and managing your existing managers do and if it’s not enough, don't recruit because it won't fix the problem.
Managers should always put their leadership and management responsibilities first and only once these have been properly attended should they go to work on the other more hands-on tasks and responsibilities. A manager who then finds that they now don't have enough time to complete these other duties should not compromise on being an effective manager, and instead do what good managers do and delegate the hands-on tasks they don't have time to do.
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Are Squeeky Windscreen Wipers Spoiling Your Ferrari?
I saw a re-run of Top Gear recently in which Clarkson was dashing across Europe in a brand new, top of the range Ferrari (a 612 Scaglietti if you’re interested). As you might imagine Clarkson was waxing lyrically about the poise, power, style, and general brilliance of this Ferrari, and yet despite all of these amazing qualities he was not enjoying his time with this Ferrari at all. In fact it was driving him mad in his usual animated way. Why? Because of one small but significant and very irritating problem: squeaky windscreen wipers.
Clarkson's frustrating experience got me thinking about a business that I know and love which in most respects is in a class of its own. They are the Ferrari of their sector and are recognised as the leader by their competitors. Except that quite often when I use them I am left irritated and disappointed by a problem that their otherwise inferior competitors do not inflict upon their customers. Why, I wonder, do your competitors avoid this problem, and yet you who are superior to them in every other respect force me to suffer this irritation? Why don't you fix your “squeaky windscreen wipers”?
But of course this is not the only business to suffer from “squeaky windscreen wipers”: a persistent weakness that undermines the best they have to offer. One company I know provides its customers with product quality that is surpassed only by their ability to respond in the blink of an eye to their customers' requirements. However, the way that incoming calls are handling is shoddy and means that they, like Clarkson's Ferrari, spoil their customers' experience.
I've worked in companies in which a whole department was a “squeaky windscreen wiper”. You've heard of the Sales Prevention Officer, well these companies had an entire Sales Prevention Department wholly out of tune with what the business was trying to achieve. I've also come across specific individuals who stood like King Canute stubbornly in the path of common sense and what everyone else is trying to achieve.
On another level a well-intentioned, hardworking individual may also suffer from “squeaky windscreen wiper” syndrome. Whilst it is true that we only give our best performance when we play to our strengths, it is also true that many people have one significant weakness that is in the way of their strengths achieving their full potential. For instance, I know of one director who is massively talented but is much less effective than he should be because he is singularly task focussed. Just a little more people and team orientation would transform his contribution.
So where are your squeaky windscreen wipers and are they converting the brilliance of your Ferrari into something as irritating as a rattling Morris Marina? Is there a process that is spoiling your customer's experience? Is there a team that is out of tune with the rest of your business and your customers? Or is there a personal weakness that is taking the shine off the brilliant performance you are capable of?
Whatever this weakness may be it will be worth your while getting it fixed. If you had a Ferrari you certainly wouldn't put up with squeaky windscreen wipers would you?
Clarkson's frustrating experience got me thinking about a business that I know and love which in most respects is in a class of its own. They are the Ferrari of their sector and are recognised as the leader by their competitors. Except that quite often when I use them I am left irritated and disappointed by a problem that their otherwise inferior competitors do not inflict upon their customers. Why, I wonder, do your competitors avoid this problem, and yet you who are superior to them in every other respect force me to suffer this irritation? Why don't you fix your “squeaky windscreen wipers”?
But of course this is not the only business to suffer from “squeaky windscreen wipers”: a persistent weakness that undermines the best they have to offer. One company I know provides its customers with product quality that is surpassed only by their ability to respond in the blink of an eye to their customers' requirements. However, the way that incoming calls are handling is shoddy and means that they, like Clarkson's Ferrari, spoil their customers' experience.
I've worked in companies in which a whole department was a “squeaky windscreen wiper”. You've heard of the Sales Prevention Officer, well these companies had an entire Sales Prevention Department wholly out of tune with what the business was trying to achieve. I've also come across specific individuals who stood like King Canute stubbornly in the path of common sense and what everyone else is trying to achieve.
On another level a well-intentioned, hardworking individual may also suffer from “squeaky windscreen wiper” syndrome. Whilst it is true that we only give our best performance when we play to our strengths, it is also true that many people have one significant weakness that is in the way of their strengths achieving their full potential. For instance, I know of one director who is massively talented but is much less effective than he should be because he is singularly task focussed. Just a little more people and team orientation would transform his contribution.
So where are your squeaky windscreen wipers and are they converting the brilliance of your Ferrari into something as irritating as a rattling Morris Marina? Is there a process that is spoiling your customer's experience? Is there a team that is out of tune with the rest of your business and your customers? Or is there a personal weakness that is taking the shine off the brilliant performance you are capable of?
Whatever this weakness may be it will be worth your while getting it fixed. If you had a Ferrari you certainly wouldn't put up with squeaky windscreen wipers would you?
Saturday, 14 August 2010
Leadership is Trust
Is the term “leadership skills” something akin to an oxymoron? The word skills as it is used in the context of leadership development suggests that one can go away on a course and whilst on that course become a better leader by learning and practicing some skills: a concept that is no more than a folly. Leaders are followed not because of their skills, but because of other factors that take far more nurturing and development than mere skills.
The capacity to lead emerges from far deeper inside a person and more than any other factor is based on the extent to which the leader is trusted. Trust in this context is not about whether you trust the person to not run off with your wallet, but something far more substantial: whether you trust the leader sufficiently to follow their direction and do what they say without much question. To follow the direction and instruction of another is to take a risk, for their direction and instruction may be flawed and result in undesirable consequences for the follower. Thus the willing follower - in the context of work - places their future prosperity in the hands of their leader. If their leader’s direction and instruction are right then the follower will prosper, and if the leader’s direction and instruction is wrong, then the follower backed the wrong horse.
So what are the factors underpinning trust? Primarily credibility and reliability.
Credibility is established over time and is the perceived capacity of the leader to succeed with their responsibilities and challenges they face. In simple terms a leader with credibility will be regarded by their followers as good enough for the job at hand. A leader lacking credibility will have uncommitted followers (another oxymoron) that doubt their ability to succeed. Credibility is developed when the leader repeatedly demonstrates their ability to make the right decisions, do the right things, and produce the right results. Credibility is a product of experience, skills, competence, and track record.
Although reliability is in part a product of the leader repeatedly demonstrating their capability, reliability is rather more subjective matter and has more to do with the leader’s character qualities, Qualities such as authenticity, integrity, resilience, kindness, willingness to trust, openness, and more besides.
Through repetitive demonstration of these attributes followers are able to come to know the heart and soul of their leader and know whether they have the quality to be relied upon. Leaders who mask their true self behind a set of manufactured leader-like behaviours that they learned about on a leadership skills course or read about in a leadership book only fool the already foolish. The majority of us see through this façade and experience at least an uneasy feeling that there is more (or less) to this person than they choose to project.
Therefore reliable leaders reveal their strengths and their limitations too; they admit when they’re wrong or when they don’t know the answer; they keep their promises and when they can’t they tell the truth; they keep a cool head when all about them are losing theirs; they are unselfish and willingly give their time and help in support of their followers; they see the strengths in others more quickly and more often than they focus on their limitations; and they allow people to get to know them beyond just their role at work.
In a nutshell, they are deeply trustworthy.
The capacity to lead emerges from far deeper inside a person and more than any other factor is based on the extent to which the leader is trusted. Trust in this context is not about whether you trust the person to not run off with your wallet, but something far more substantial: whether you trust the leader sufficiently to follow their direction and do what they say without much question. To follow the direction and instruction of another is to take a risk, for their direction and instruction may be flawed and result in undesirable consequences for the follower. Thus the willing follower - in the context of work - places their future prosperity in the hands of their leader. If their leader’s direction and instruction are right then the follower will prosper, and if the leader’s direction and instruction is wrong, then the follower backed the wrong horse.
So what are the factors underpinning trust? Primarily credibility and reliability.
Credibility is established over time and is the perceived capacity of the leader to succeed with their responsibilities and challenges they face. In simple terms a leader with credibility will be regarded by their followers as good enough for the job at hand. A leader lacking credibility will have uncommitted followers (another oxymoron) that doubt their ability to succeed. Credibility is developed when the leader repeatedly demonstrates their ability to make the right decisions, do the right things, and produce the right results. Credibility is a product of experience, skills, competence, and track record.
Although reliability is in part a product of the leader repeatedly demonstrating their capability, reliability is rather more subjective matter and has more to do with the leader’s character qualities, Qualities such as authenticity, integrity, resilience, kindness, willingness to trust, openness, and more besides.
Through repetitive demonstration of these attributes followers are able to come to know the heart and soul of their leader and know whether they have the quality to be relied upon. Leaders who mask their true self behind a set of manufactured leader-like behaviours that they learned about on a leadership skills course or read about in a leadership book only fool the already foolish. The majority of us see through this façade and experience at least an uneasy feeling that there is more (or less) to this person than they choose to project.
Therefore reliable leaders reveal their strengths and their limitations too; they admit when they’re wrong or when they don’t know the answer; they keep their promises and when they can’t they tell the truth; they keep a cool head when all about them are losing theirs; they are unselfish and willingly give their time and help in support of their followers; they see the strengths in others more quickly and more often than they focus on their limitations; and they allow people to get to know them beyond just their role at work.
In a nutshell, they are deeply trustworthy.
Monday, 15 February 2010
Video's
I can't believe it's been so long since I update the blog...must blog more!
We have just updated our About Us page with some short videos from our YouTube channel, if you've not seen them click here to have a look.
regards
Chris
We have just updated our About Us page with some short videos from our YouTube channel, if you've not seen them click here to have a look.
regards
Chris
Monday, 7 September 2009
I've Sold My Motorbike
I've sold my motorbike. Something I thought I'd never do. I bought my first bike 10 years ago and fell in love with biking, the speed, the camaraderie, the adrenalin rush, and being able to get miles away from it all in less than an hour. I've been to Spain, to Andorra, to watch Motorcycle Grand Prix (twice), to the Ron Haslam Race School (3 times), and all over the North of England and Southern Scotland.
And that's the problem, I've done everything I want to do on a motorcycle. I've learned to ride a motorcycle quickly, smoothly, and safely. I could learn how to ride it quicker, but then I'd be taking too much of a risk for my liking. I could go further away to rural France or the Alps, but I don't like to take a holiday without my family. So all my boxes have been ticked and it's not stimulating in the way that it used to be.
Although I still enjoy riding a motorbike, especially my KTM, curiously I found that enjoying it just wasn't enough. You know when you buy a new album and there's a song on the album that you just love, so you play it again and again, and one day you find that although you like the song it no longer gets your heart racing or your emotions buzzing. Well motorcycling has become like that for me. Good but not great. Enjoyable but not stimulating.
In the process of coming to this conclusion I've learned something about myself. I need new challenges, I need to be constantly learning and improving, and once I've reached a satisfactory level of competence with something, it's time to move onto something new.. All of which left me with a problem. I need a hobby, something that gives me some “me” time: time when I can relax and do something simply for the fun of doing it. So I've taken up golf. “Fun?” I hear you say. And yes it is a rather different kettle of fish to motorcycling. But it does give me many of the things I look for in a hobby: it gets me into the great outdoors, it does involve some exercise (although I won't get fit playing golf), and most importantly it's really challenging. So far it appears to provide more limitless opportunities to learn and improve than motorcycling, because learning how to become a great golfer does not involve crossing a line into life threatening risk-taking.
Now given that my articles and blogs are supposed to be about business, what are the lessons I've learned relative to business. Well since becoming more aware of my inherent need for learning and stimulation beyond enjoyment, I've turned my attention to ways in which I can transform my business and the results are really exciting. I've come up with a new to structure the commercial relationships I have with my clients, I'm repositioning the work that I do so that it produces more tangible results, and I'm developing some sound and workable ideas for two new businesses.
So my conclusions are, if you want to enjoy your work more, become more engaged in your work, and produce better than ever performance, make a change. Change your strategy, change your organisational structure, change your management-style, acquire some new skills and put them into practice, take on some new responsibilities, or simply do that thing you've been putting off for too long. Because if you want something you've never had, you won't get it by doing the same things you’ve always done.
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
What Hope is There for Politics
The MP's expenses scandal and the credit crunch have thrust the behaviour and performance of politicians into the limelight perhaps more than in living memory. Everyday television debates and radio phone-ins discuss whether our politicians can be trusted to do the right thing and look after our interests.
Regrettably I have come the conclusion that politicians cannot be trusted to do the right thing and the party political system has had its day. Why? Not because because all politicians are morally bankrupt, but rather because of a fundamental conflict of interests that lies at the heart of the party political system. Allow me to explain.
Most politicians would say that they entered politics because they wanted to change things for the better and for the most part I believe them. However, somewhere along the way this motivation morphed in to something far less altruistic and honourable: the pursuit of power. So how did this happen?
For a politician to achieve their ambition of “changing things for the better” they first need to get into a seat of power (e,g, councillor or member of parliament) because if they're not in power they can't change anything. Similarly if one a politician achieves a position of power they need to do everything they can to keep that position of power, because once they're voted out of their seat they are powerless again. So in order to “change things for the better” first you need power.
All of which means that the altruistic goal of “changing things for the better” must become subservient to the pursuit of power. Now these two goals are so different that they can't really coexist – as our hopeless party political system ably demonstrates. You can do one or the other, but not both, because the pursuit of power discourages integrity and changing things for the better demands integrity.
And here is where it gets nasty. Recent years have seen the emergence of spin and an ever increasing trend of nonconstructive criticism of anything the opposition do or say, no matter whether they are right or wrong. Similarly the political parties now make increasingly populist policy announcements that their have neither the finances nor the gumption to put into practice. All of which is driven by a desire to make the opposition look bad and to make “our party” look good with no regard for whether what is said is true or not.
So what we're left with is a party political system which is first and foremost about getting into and then holding onto power, which means that “changing things for the better” comes at best a very very distant second. So how do you think senior politicians split their time between “changing things for the better” and “the pursuit of power”? 10/90? 20/80? I'd be surprised if the ratio was any better than that.
Our politicians can't afford to the the right thing because they're afraid that if they do they loose that narcotic they struggled for years to attain – power!
Regrettably I have come the conclusion that politicians cannot be trusted to do the right thing and the party political system has had its day. Why? Not because because all politicians are morally bankrupt, but rather because of a fundamental conflict of interests that lies at the heart of the party political system. Allow me to explain.
Most politicians would say that they entered politics because they wanted to change things for the better and for the most part I believe them. However, somewhere along the way this motivation morphed in to something far less altruistic and honourable: the pursuit of power. So how did this happen?
For a politician to achieve their ambition of “changing things for the better” they first need to get into a seat of power (e,g, councillor or member of parliament) because if they're not in power they can't change anything. Similarly if one a politician achieves a position of power they need to do everything they can to keep that position of power, because once they're voted out of their seat they are powerless again. So in order to “change things for the better” first you need power.
All of which means that the altruistic goal of “changing things for the better” must become subservient to the pursuit of power. Now these two goals are so different that they can't really coexist – as our hopeless party political system ably demonstrates. You can do one or the other, but not both, because the pursuit of power discourages integrity and changing things for the better demands integrity.
And here is where it gets nasty. Recent years have seen the emergence of spin and an ever increasing trend of nonconstructive criticism of anything the opposition do or say, no matter whether they are right or wrong. Similarly the political parties now make increasingly populist policy announcements that their have neither the finances nor the gumption to put into practice. All of which is driven by a desire to make the opposition look bad and to make “our party” look good with no regard for whether what is said is true or not.
So what we're left with is a party political system which is first and foremost about getting into and then holding onto power, which means that “changing things for the better” comes at best a very very distant second. So how do you think senior politicians split their time between “changing things for the better” and “the pursuit of power”? 10/90? 20/80? I'd be surprised if the ratio was any better than that.
Our politicians can't afford to the the right thing because they're afraid that if they do they loose that narcotic they struggled for years to attain – power!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)