Tag: management

Being Steve Jobs

Imitating Steve Jobs is not a recipe for success

Wired Magazine asks is Steve Jobs’ story a cautionary or inspirational tale for entrepreneurs and managers.

It’s always worrying when any one individual is cited as being the role model for business leaders – over the years we’ve seen Jack Welsh, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and dozens of others lauded as being the perfect CEO.

None has probably lauded more than Steve Jobs, in many ways rightly so given the way he way he steered his business back from disaster and by the time of his death had made Apple the leader in a range of technologies that barely existed a decade earlier.

Despite Steve Jobs’ successes there’s no doubt he was a very difficult man – the stories of his bullying and striking fear into Apple’s staff are legendary and no-one has chosen to contradict them. For many people, he was impossible to work with.

George Bernard Shaw once wrote “the reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

No-one would have ever claimed Steve Jobs was a reasonable man.

Steve Jobs was unique – as is Apple, Microsoft, IBM, News Limited, Nestle, Joe’s Pizza Bar and the local plumbing supply shop. Every business is unique and different in it’s own way

For some of those businesses, a manager being an unreasonable asshole like Steve Jobs could be a recipe for success although disaster is probably more likely.

Disaster was the result for most manager and businesses in the 1990s who blindly copied the then eulogized Jack Welsh’s Six Sigma strategies or “Chainsaw Al” Dunlap’s slash and burn philosophies without appreciating the subtle differences between their organisations and GE or Scott Paper.

In business – as in life – there’s no “right way” or “wrong way” and thinking in a “yes” or “no” mindset, doesn’t work in a nuanced, complex world.

The Wired article on Steve Jobs itself falls into this binary thinking in asking readers if they are an “acolyte” or “rejector” of Steve Jobs’ methods. In reality, few people would totally reject every aspect of Jobs’ behaviour but few of us would be capable of totally imitating his behaviour.

Perversely, aping Steve Jobs is probably a career limiting move for managers. As Adam Hartung writes in Forbes Magazine, Steve Jobs couldn’t find a job today and someone with his quest for perfection would struggle with the bureaucracy of a corporation or government agency.

Like our businesses, each of us is unique and here’s a bit of Steve Jobs in all of us – at the same time most of us would also be repelled by many of Steve Jobs’ characteristics.

Simply copying someone else is neglecting our own strengths and acquiring someone else’s weaknesses. Surely it makes more sense to work to our abilities.

Similar posts:

Ranking managers

Microsoft’s problems are deeper than just a misused HR tool

Vanity Fair’s analysis of Microsoft’s lost decade focuses on an unlikely culprit – the management tool of stack ranking.

Stack ranking, or “forced distribution”, is the practice of listing staff members in order of effectiveness or placing them on a bell curve where those in the middle are satisfactory and those at the right hand of the graph are exceptional.

Those on the left of the curve or the bottom of the list are deemed to be underperformers and risk losing their bonuses or even their jobs should the company be shedding staff.

Like all business tools, stack ranking can be useful. One manager of a North American multinational who encountered this when working with an Indian outsourcer described how it was used.

“A senior manager told me how he applied it in his group. Of 300 people, everybody was given a ranking and were told that ranking and given a chance to put their case if they thought it was unfair.
Then the bottom 5% were culled. Tough but fair.”
So at the Indian outsourcer it was applied to large groups and the bottom tier were given the opportunity to put their case. There was some transparency and at least some fairness in the process.
Used poorly though, it can backfire, “using it for groups of ten is stupid and lazy” said that manager who later saw it introduced at his own corporation with catastrophic results.

The real problem at companies misusing tools like stank ranking is too much management.

Like the old saw of “too many cooks spoil the broth”, too many managers create mischief. To justify and protect their positions they build little empires and make work for themselves.

Give empire building middle managers a tool like “stack ranking ” and you have a problem where office politics and patronage become more important than technical skill or performance which is exactly what the Vanity Fair article describes at Microsoft.

Ranking employees in a mindless way is symptom of a bigger problem in an organisation. In Microsoft’s case, the problem is too many managers.

The solution to that problem is simple.

Similar posts:

Beating Buzzword Bingo

Some see buzzwords as an irritating curse of modern business, but they can indicate opportunity

One of the curses of modern business is the buzzword, a perfectly good word that is ruined by constant use.

The IT industry is particularly prone to buzzwords as people try to distil complex concepts into easy to understand terms – cloud computing is a good example of this.

More malign in the tech sector, and many other industries, are clueless managers and salespeople who try to baffle superiors, clients and staff with buzzwords to cover their total ignorance of what their business actually does.

For the canny supplier or contractor, the buzzword addled customer is a great sales opportunity as the customer’s managers are always grateful to buy a product tagged with some complex sounding terms that they can impress other with.

The security software vendors are very good at this as are management consultants who’ve literally written books stuffed full buzzwords guaranteeing them millions of billable hours.

One of the current favourite buzzwords is IPv6, the Internet standard replacing the current protocol that has run out of numbers. Saying you’re IPv6 compliant even when your business is more affected by cabbage prices in Shanghai is good to impress a few people who should know better.

Probably the greatest buzzword of the last decade was innovation. Every company, every new product and even government departments had to be “innovative” or lose credibility on the information superhighway.

Eventually though terms fall out of favour and innovation is one of those whose time has passed – those still dropping it into conversations today are usually 1990s MBA graduates who’ve dozed through the last five years of their professional development courses.

Watching out for those outdated buzzwords is useful not just as a sucker indicator for smart salespeople but also for job hunters.

For instance, when a company or recruiter constantly uses the word “innovation” in their job descriptions, you can be sure the organisation is one the least innovative on the planet, except possibly in the way management have structured their KPIs and option packages.

Generally the use of buzzwords in job descriptions or “mission statements” (another 1990s MBA fad) is inversely proportional to how applicable those terms are in the organisation.

For instance an organisation that claims it wants employees who are “self-motivated, curious and are selfless enough to seek what’s best for the company first,” is almost certainly run by control freaks practicing CYA management who mercilessly punish anyone under them foolish enough to take the initiative or ask questions.

Overall, buzzwords are a force for good as they let savvy employees identify those workplaces and managers that are best avoided. For those of us running businesses, it could mean opportunity or danger depending on what we’re selling to these organisations.

The greatest thing with buzzwords though is they are constantly evolving, meaning I get the opportunity to rewrite this column again in two years time by just changing a few words.

Innovation is already passé and “cloud” is peaking. What are next buzzwords we should watch for and enjoy?

Similar posts:

Giving a damn

Our works are what we are judged by – not the trinkets we gather.

Twenty years ago a lady unexpectedly passed away leaving her estate to her infant daughter. Included in the estate was a modest apartment in Sydney’s inner western suburbs.

For years, the unit sat on a local real estate manager’s books quietly gathering rental income and growing in value during Sydney’s great property boom.

Eventually the owner of the real estate agency tracked down the infant, now grown up and living in Boston. He’d hired lawyers and private detectives to track her down.

Most of us would have taken the easy course and flicked the property to the public trustee where the property would have quietly languished for years in the tender care of the dusty, but expensive, bureaucrats.

A few criminally minded ones would have sold the property and pocketed the cash, confident that no-one would ever know or care.

But Chris Wilkins decided to do the right thing and found the owner, doing anything else would have been a “heartless alternative.”

Having a heart and giving a damn is what matters.

Whether its in our work, how we deal with other people or the change we make to our society. This is what matters – big bonuses, a flash car, a ministerial position or invites to “insider” conferences are just trinkets for the egos of vain little people.

In an era where shareholder value, triple A credit ratings, executive remuneration and personal entitlements seem to stand above everything else, it’s good to be reminded that most people are doing the right thing by others.

At the end of our lives, we’re judged by our actions. What will you be proud to be judged by?

Similar posts:

When taxpayers hearts sink

Outsourcing can be a good thing, but governments often get it wrong.

Nothing is sadder than a government or business that believes it will gain huge savings through outsourcing.

Part of the 1980s management mindset is that outsiders can do a job better and cheaper than existing staff. Almost always this is proved to be expensively wrong.

The announcement the New South Wales Government will outsource Sydney Ferries is a good example of this. Media reports claim the “government is hoping to save hundreds of millions of dollars over the next decade.”

Good luck with that. As the people of Melbourne found when the Victorian government outsourced operations of suburban trains and trams the levels of service remained poor, subsidies increased and new level of bureaucracy developed to manage the disconnect between a private operator running a service accountable to the public.

Advocates of outsourcing always overlook the cost, time and skills involved in supervising contractors.

This is something the banks found in the early days of offshoring services as the claimed massive labour cost savings by moving operations to the developing world were offset by higher supervision costs.

Governments have a bigger problem with outsourcing as the public service generally lacks the contractual and project management skills to effectively specify and supervise major service outsourcing contracts.

A good example of this is the Royal North Shore Cleaning contract where the hospital has seen a fall in hygiene levelsas the contractor attempt to meet their KPIs under an agreement that has been designed primarily to save the area health service money.

Focusing on cost savings when outsourcing is almost always a recipe for failure. In both business and government its rare that a function or operating unit is so badly managed that savings offset the increased management expenses.

This isn’t to say outsourcing isn’t always appropriate. Sometimes those savings are achievable – albeit not as often as proponents claim – and outsourcing can deliver skills that the parent organisation lacks.

Which is another concern about the Sydney Ferries outsourcing. The Sydney Morning Herald article referred to above says the following about the CEO of the winning consortium.

Mr Faurby, who has more than 20 years maritime experience, has never run a passenger service before. But he said he understood what it would take to improve Sydney’s ferries.

”It doesn’t really matter very much if it is a towage, tug company, or a container shipping company, or for that matter a ferry company … what matters is that you have the competencies to run it in an efficient, safe and effective manner.”

Um no. That’s 1980s management school thinking where every business – from airlines to software – can be reduced to selling soap.

Not having experience in running a passenger service with all the customer service issues that come when you’re dealing with the public is a concern. One hopes, prays even, that Mr Faurby and his employers have the wisdom to support the CEO with managers who do have a customer service ethos.

Then there’s the black hole of Australian public transport – ticketing.

While it’s impossible to quantify just how poor Australian governments have proved themselves to be with ticketing systems; Sydney’s convoluted, complex, siloed and passenger unfriendly public transport system adds another layer of complexity that the new management of Sydney Ferries is going to have to deal with.

There’s no doubt though that Sydney Ferries need reform; its management was incompetent and, beyond the usual cheerful deckhands, the staff were surly with little concept of customer service.

Done well, outsourcing Sydney Ferries could be for the better; but the emphasis on cost savings and what appears to be naive management expectations should make taxpayers’ hearts sink.

Similar posts:

Culture beats strategy

What does the executive car park tell us about a business’ management culture?

Writer and business consultant Joseph Michelli says”Culture beats strategy, in fact it eats it for breakfast and lunch”.

This was one of the key points in a recent webinar about online retailer Zappos and its customer service culture.

Joseph’s right, the culture of an organisation is the ultimate key to its success, if managers and staff work “according to the book” and declaring “it’s not my job” then you end up with a siloed organisation where management are more interesting in protecting and growing their empires over helping customers.

With Zappos it’s interesting how it appears easy the integration into Amazon’s ownership has gone and this is probably because both have service centric cultures.

Both companies seem to have avoided employing Bozos as Guy Kawasaki famously put it a few years ago.

Your parking lot’s “biorhythm” looks like this:

  • 8:00 am – 10:00 am–Japanese cars exceed German cars
  • 10:00 am – 5:00 pm–German cars exceed Japanese cars
  • 5:00 pm – 10:00 pm–Japanese cars exceed German cars

Guy’s German car observation is spot on. When I was running a service business, one measure I used for a potentially troublesome client was how many expensive German cars were in the executive parking spaces, it was usually a good indicator that an organisation’s leaders are more interested in management perks than maintaining their technology.

Another useful measure was where those cars are parked, a good indicator of management’s sense of entitlement is when executive parking spots are conveniently next to the building entrance or lift lobby while customers expected to find a spot anywhere within ten blocks.

It all comes down to culture and when management are more concerned about parking spots and staff about free lunches, you know you’re dealing with an organisation where the customer – or the shareholder – isn’t the priority.

Similar posts:

David Jones’ wasted decade

Poor decisions by unaccountable management are killing industry icons

In 2001 Australian retailer David Jones shut down their website.

Back then, the future was clear; profits were in financial services and certainly not in online sales or investing in improved stores and service.

Today the company released their strategic review that looks forward to financial years 2013 and beyond. You can downloaded it from David Jones’ investor website.

On Page 13, they show just how far David Jones has fallen behind their international competitors. Less that 1% of DJ’s sales are online compared to 4.5% of the UK’s House Of Fraser and 13% of John Lewis.

Australian executives claim they are in a global market for their talents which is why they deserve world standard remuneration. David Jones’ results show how hollow that mantra is.

The problems start with the board, five of the eight current David Jones directors were with the company when that decision was made in 2001.

None of them have been held to account.

David Jones illustrates the weakness in Australia’s business sector – largely unaccountable boards answering only to institutional investors who themselves have grown fat and lazy on clipping the compulsory superannuation ticket.

One hopes the some of the competitors who are displacing flaccid incumbents like David Jones are based in Australia or the locals may soon find that many of these sectors, not just in retail, will go offshore to better run companies.

Similar posts: