Richard Merrick

Being connected

As I was going to be out of the country on business, I decided to let my bank and chargecard providers know, so that they didn't give me hassle on checks. American Express were, as ever fast, efficient, polite and gave me connections, references and anything else I might need if I did hit problems. A pleasure.
Then I rang my High St Bank - one of the big four, and recipient of much taxpayer cash. It took forever, via a mindnumbingly bad automated system, and when (after 12 mins) I did get to talk to a human, she made a note on file, but told me she couldn't action anything, as it was outsourced and computer driven. If I hit a problem, there is a long distance premium number I can ring to try and sort it out. Terrific,

The point is not to winge., but to remind ourselve that morale and attachement is about being felt to be part of something - connected, recognised, respected. There is a great article by Ed Brenegar here which is itself derived from a powerful discussion on a social website we are both part of.

American Express win. My High St Bank does not.

The real deal

For the last few months I have been detecting  a small, but real, increase in the instances where people seem to be rejecting the faux side of marketing. The appeal of automated telephone answering services that tell us our call is very important have long been a joke, but now we seem to be getting more substance.
Relationships are 1:1, and those between our companies, products and customers no different. If we treat them as a homogenous mass, they will treat us as a commodity. When production costs for most items have got as low as they seem likely to get, these intangible items become critical. Those brands that have lowered production costs by outsourcing, but kept prices high through marketing hype seem likely to get catch a cold. They have exported IP and "know how" at the very point where east is overtaking west on consumption. The real "magic" - the history, provenance, people and personality of the brand have been reduced to profit centres and marketing spends, and the brand becomes a zombie.
I did think I was in a minority thinking this, but articles like this may mean I'm (happily) not as isolated as I thought.
In the end, at a time where we are all truly visbile and connected, and accountable due to al the communication we have, we better be real. it's our only real asset.
Many years ago, Barry Staw at Berkeley coined the term threat rigidity effect. In essence, his thesis was that under pressure, busineses stick with what they know and are good at, reject what they are uncomfortable with, and man the barricades. I suspect this is the case with many leading brands, as they struggle to maintain indefensible margins bloated by undeclared outsourcing. Trouble is, they can man the barriers all they like, but they are on a road to certain failure. If they are not what they say they are, they will be found out.

Trust

Last night went to see Malcolm Gladwell talking at Birmingham Town Hall. He does have the knack of stating the obvious, except it 's rarely obvious. Relevant to the stream of this discussion though was the conclusion to his talk. His theme was the battle of Chancellorsrville in the Civil War - the one that Robert E Lee was supposed to lose, but didn't - mainly because of Joseph Hooker's overconfidence based on capabilities, assets and prior record - despite the fact all the warning s signs had been seen and recognised by the troops. Gladwell applied the comparison to our beloved bankers.

His conclusion? - in times of crisis, experts needs humility, not confidence. If you have an organisation predicated on trust, you might listen respectfully to somebody who says the emperor has no clothes.

work expands to fill the time available

Well, that's part of the reason it's so long since the lst post and I'm amazed how easy it is to let the habit slip when under pressure.

I have looking long and hard at change management issues of late, and suspect it is a comfort blanket. The reality is that you cannot manage change. we can do our best to identify key issues, and what a range of impacts will be (but we will be largely wrong at the micro level where change impacts at individual level). We can do our best to develop a mindset that helps us react to change on a positive basis. But I do not think we can manage it - it will find us, and it's then up to us.

coping with change is an individual exercise, and the ability and resilience of organisations is the aggregate of the inidividual responses. 

So. "change management"? - down to you.

for some interesting alternative views, see Holger Nauheimers work

Freshmen

Seth Godin makes an interesting observation in his blog today - Seth's Blog: Eternal September.

In all our businesses, we have to deal with this. This year alone, in one of my businesses, I've had to deal with external audits on social responsibility, in order to confirm that we do not use slave labour, that our dormitories are clean and similar. However, we only manufacture in the UK, and these audits are all predicated on outsourced production to low wage economies. So as in many other areas, we spend huge amounts of time doing things that generate very little value, but result in lots of boxes being ticked.

I often wonder what the impact would be if we qualified those we deal with. We don't go to college, and go straight into final year. Almost every area of endeavour we undertake productively is based on trust, not compliance. As Jonathan Aitken noted earlier this week in relation to MP's expenses, compliance kills conscience. If we comply with the rules, we do not have to think about what we are doing. I don't think so. Depends who sets the rules, and why.

Increasingly, I feel inclined to deal with those who are in the same year as us, and who help us move forward together. We can make separate rules and conditions of engagement with Freshers that reflect the effort we have to put in.

Priorities

As I drove into work this morning, I wondered what might happen if we started to look at important things, rather than sensational things.

·         Hans Rosling has posted a thought provoking short video that highlights our view of Swine Flu(which gets over 8000 press mentions per death) , versus TB (which gets 0.1 mentions)

·         The press is saturated with MP’s expenses, whilst unemployment at 2.2m is forecast to over 3m, with the young most severely affected.

·         Post (or at the current stage) in the Banking crisis, credit is at best flowing like treacle.

·         Risk aversion is so endemic, that any potential risk gets magnified and leveraged. In the supply chain I deal with, every stage in the chain (from raw material to retail) sets its own requirements and strategy for things as diverse as product safety to ethical standards, with each party’s lawyers trying to lay off liability elsewhere. The end result is a torrent of administration and cost that adds no value whatsoever.

The list could go on. And on. We are being seduced into a strange sense of priorities.

I wondered what might happen if we chose to leverage things with potential – ideas, people, ventures and used the money we are spending on propping up obsolescent brands and businesses to grow the new areas our children can take advantage of.

You are who you associate with

I’ve been arguing for some time that traditional organisations are obsolescent. Founded on a 200 year old principle of command and control, they have partially evolved but now seem to be mired in processes and systems which make them highly resistant to, rather than tolerant of, change.

We have seen it with the banks, the insurers, the car industry and now here in UK, in spectacular fashion, with the Mother of Parliaments. The common factor seems to be that the apparent security of an organisational wall, the “status” of the senior managers / members, and the insularity from reality have been punctured by whistle blowers, viral networks, and the disinfectant of transparency.

And that’s before the generational gap. My daughter got married last week, and it was a wonderful opportunity to see 4 generations alongside each other – from the wartime generation, through boomers, X and Y to Millennials. It is clear that Gen Y, and certainly the Millennials will not put up with the traditional structures and authority that I was brought up on. Quite right as well – any organisation that relies on power rather than permission seems likely to fail (this side of a dictatorship).

It is a good time to revisit Seth Godin’s Lecture on TED. The ability of people to connect, link and work together has never been greater, such that conventional organisations will be outmanoeuvred as the brightest, best, (and importantly, most principled) go the way they choose, with those they choose.

You are who you associate with. Think about it.

Thinking outside the tick box.

There is an excellent article by John Kay in today's Financial Times that got me thinking.
At present we are faced with a host of issues where box ticking as he describes is paramount - it's a great way for people and businesses to side step responsibility, and feel they are safe. They are of course, wrong on many counts.
It also highlights the opportunities for those who can think, rather than tick. The market opportunities post recession, post swine flu, post fear are real and vibrant - but they do not fit the boxes people are ticking.
If we trust our judgement, experience and instict, and above all look at our customers and markets with fresh eyes and a mindset that is focused on their needs, and with an intent to help them, the opportunities become clear. Of course there are risks - when haven't there been? - but in a climate when your competitors are hiding in the long grass, and ticking boxes, if you show interest and intent your customers may well follow you - even if it's only out of curiosity. But it becomes a conversation, and a deeper relationship. You win.

New Organisational Paradigms

I've been witnessing today, at first hand, how fundamentally and fast things are going to change. I'm a big fan of Seth Godin, and have been a member of his Triiibes experiment since the outset.

Today, I picked up an interesting thread on the changing nature of organisations. In the past, I would have read, filed, reflected and moved on. Today, I made an observation, and found myself in a virtual, but very rewarding conversation with people whom I've never met, but who gave selflessly of their time and brain and helped me develop my thinking.

Thank you, Elizabeth Teklinski and Ed Brenegar for taking such an interest. This blog feels very underdeveloped by comparison to yours, but I find it challenging and positive.

The overiding thought is, we did this today for interest. The motive was curiosity and generosity. If the same sentiments applied at a fraction of the level inside a conventional organisation, it would make a world of difference.

Which is why I think conventional organisations have a real problem. Opting in to virtual working, with minimal control is unlikely to be an option, but a necessity.

Generation Y - between a rock and a hard place?

Generation Y - those born since 1980 are now entering management ranks and leadership roles in real numbers. They have grown through the era of prosperity, and their profile is different to anything that has gone before. They are seeking fulfilment in ways beyond money, expect to have life enriching experiences, and make high demands on employers. For an overview, see this excellent article published in the Spring edition of Leadership Trust's magazine, LT Focus.

But.

We are now entering a phase totally foreign to them. Austerity, frugality, job shortages. for a generation brought up on "yes I can", "no you can't" - in relation to jobs, careers, finance is a harsh message.

They are however where our future leadership is coming from, and they will need support, encouragement and understanding if they are not to be alienated and take their ball home. Even their managers, "Generation X" (those born after 1965 and before 1980) have not seen a recession the likes of the one we are in. in reality, neither have I. So we cannot pretend we know the answers, nor can we predict with anything other than vain hope. We have to discuss, dissect and manage uncertainty. I do not think directive leadership will do it - rather we have to find ways of extracting the best, the most original, from our own experiences and those we work with.

In coaching terms, it is very "non directive" - we cannot instruct, we must encourage, enable and respect thinkers who are prepared to articulate different thoughts, and be prepared to entertain ideas with go against the grain of everything we have been brought up to believe.

I think the good news is that that might take to places and ideas that open up whole new opportunities.