Tag: management

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Knowledge and power

Can we use the data revolution effectively and well?

In the 16th Century English courtier Sir Francis Bacon declared “Knowledge is Power”, something certainly true during the conspiracy prone reign of Elizabeth I.

Today the data available about ourselves and our communities is exploding along with the computer power to process that information to turn it into knowledge.

We see that knowledge being used in interesting ways – US shopping chain Target recently described how they used data mining to determine, with 87% accuracy, to figure out if a shopper is pregnant.

That 87% is important, it says the algorithm isn’t perfect and bombarding a false positive with baby wear advertising could prove embarrassing, or in some families and societies even fatal.

A good example of data misuse are the two unfortunate Brummies (alright, one’s from Coventry) who were deported from the US for tweeting they were “going to destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe”

For the US immigration and homeland security agents, they ready the jokey tweets by the Birmingham bar manager through their own filter and came to the wrong conclusion, although it’s likely their performance indicators rewarded them for doing this.
This is the Achilles heel in big data – used selectively, information can be used to confirm our own prejudices, ideologies and biases.
In 2003 we saw this in the run up to the US invasion of Iraq with cherry picking of information used to build the false case that the ruling regime had weapons of mass destruction that could attack Europe in 45 minutes.
For businesses, we can be sure data showing the CEO is wrong or the big advisory firm has made the wrong recommendations will be overlooked in most cases.

Despite the Pollyanna view of a world of transparency and openness driven by social media and online publishing tools, the information is asymmetric; governments and big business know more about individuals or those without power than the other way round.

In a world where politicians, business people and journalists trade on their insider knowledge rather than competing in the open, free market we have to understand that filtering this data is essential to retaining  powers and privileges.

Usually when the data threatens the existing power structures it is repressed in the same way a dissenting taxpayer, citizen, employee or shareholder is discredited and isolated.

At present there’s lots of data threatening existing commercial duopolies, political parties and cosy ways of doing business.

The fact many of those in power don’t want to see what their own systems are telling them is where the real opportunities lie.

Entrepreneurs, community groups and activists have access to much of this data being ignored by incumbents, it will be interesting to see how it’s used.

Why Dick Smith is wrong about overseas buyers

Foreign investors are desperately needed in Australian retail

Last week’s announcement that Woolworths will sell their Dick Smith chain of electronics stores wasn’t surprising and neither was the reaction of the chain’s founder to the idea of the business being sold to a foreign buyer.

For all his legitimate concerns about Woolworth’s growth model, Dick Smith is wrong about the sale of the stores. It’s almost essential for Australian consumers and business that the chain is sold to a foreign retailer.

When Dick sold his business to Woolworths in the early 1980s it was the beginning of a long consolidation process across Australian industry that now sees most business sectors dominated by duopolies or – at best – three or four incumbents.

In retail, the Coles and Woolworths duopoly dominates groceries, liquor and petrol. The power of these companies was illustrated yesterday with Coles’ announcement of price cuts to various greengrocery lines.

Having a new player enter the market is always an improvement; in neighbourhoods where foreign retailers like Costco and Aldi operate or where a keen, smaller operator decides to compete with the big boys the response is always better prices and service.

More importantly bringing in overseas owners will bring in fresh thinking and new ideas. New blood in the retail sector may even stem the brain drain where many young, innovative future business leaders are forced overseas because of the limited opportunities in the incumbent duopolies.

Where Dick is right is that the electronics retail business is dying as fat profits in the sector are a distant memory in what is now a tight margin, fast moving consumer goods industry. To make things worse, consumer electronics aren’t even fast moving in the post GFC economy.

Adding to the retailer’s pain the collapse in margins has happened at the same time commercial rents have risen dramatically with Sydney now being cited alongside Hong Kong, London and New York as the world’s costliest shopping strips.

While suburban shopping centres don’t have the same rents as the Pitt or Bourke Street Malls, they still have risen dramatically in the last decade, catching all retailers in a vice between rising costs and falling margins.

In order to maintain profits, training and staff development have been slashed. Once up a time, a customer would go to a Dick Smith or Harvey Norman store to get informed advice on the best gadget, those days are also long gone as poorly trained staff fight to sell the products with the best commissions.

Owners of the stores have made it harder to recruit and train motivated staff when employer consider hospitality and retail jobs to be temporary, low esteem positions with few prospects.

This deskilling isn’t just an issue for the retail industry – it’s something we’ve seen across the Australian economy in the last thirty years. As training and skills development has been seen as an unnecessary business cost.

Tourism Australia chairman Geoff Dixon’s recent comments about the Australian tourist industry having to accept being a high cost destination is a symptom of this disconnect. The local tourism industry has no chance of moving up the value chain when there is no service culture among staff and no long term management vision to develop one.

It would be unfair to just pick on any one individual or business for these problems. We have a structural problem in the Australian economy that’s fuelled by entrenched beliefs and habits of a stagnant senior managerial class.

We desperately need new people and ideas in Australian management to shake up the staid duopolies and oligopolies we’ve allowed to develop in the last three decades, that’s why Dick Smith is wrong to say a foreign owner for the electronics chain he founded would be bad for the country.

Image courtesy of Icelandit on SXC.hu

I don’t think I’ll write that

When self-preservation becomes self-censorship

A media release popped into my inbox from an old client recently. It was, to put it nicely, a total load of corporate tosh from an organisation that has been captured by its time serving management.

Having dwelt on this for a while, I went to write something about how this company had blown wonderful opportunities competing against a stodgy incumbent which had been given the opportunity to re-invent itself partly because of a new generation of smart, dynamic managers.

Then a little voice said “no, they’ll never invite you back; the mark of epically incompetent management is holding permanent grudges for pointing out their failures.”

So I didn’t write it.

In one way it doesn’t matter; much of what ails the Western world’s business communities is how a culture of managerial incompetence has been allowed to develop.

Almost everyone knows individuals who waddle from corporate disaster to debacle yet, despite causing the destruction of great slabs of shareholder value, move onto to higher positions and better paid jobs.

Some even get invited back to companies they’ve previously trashed.

We know who those people are; boards and big shareholders know who they are, yet they’ll still get hired.

Which is why its best not to upset them too much. For the moment, history is on their side.

Are KPI’s a business evil?

How misplaced bonuses, incentives & performance indicators can damage a business

One of the cornerstones of 1980s management theories is offering staff incentives for performing to certain benchmarks.

While the theory is good, it can go badly wrong. I encountered this personally when at PC rescue we started selling computers systems and, to encourage sales, offered our technicians a commission on any they sold.

Quickly we started getting negative feedback from customers, some didn’t like what they perceived as a hard sell and some believed technicians were more interested in selling a computer rather than fixing the problems.

In a few cases it turned out the customers’ suspicions were correct; we found some the techs had decided it was quicker and more profitable for them to sell a new system rather than to fix the problem they had been sent out to resolve.

We had to change our KPIs and it taught me a good lesson about assuming how staff will respond to incentives.

Courier companies are good example of what happens when incentives and performance indicators go wrong, all of us have had examples of deliveries going wrong because the drivers are under pressure to meet targets. In the worst case, you might get your computer monitor thrown over the front gate.

The systems that encourage this sort of behaviour can damage entire industries, as we’ve seen with the used car industry. For individual businesses, poorly implemented commission based structures, like ours was, eventually build distrust which is one of the reason why electronic stores like Best Buy are struggling.

Google’s recent changes to search are another illustration of what can go wrong with poorly thought out incentives with CEO Larry Page reported to have tied staff bonuses to “success” in social. As a consequence Google are prepared to damage their core business as employees scramble to meet their targets.

The definition of ‘success’ is part of the problem with performance indicators, a government agency I did some work with defines successful worker as having a hundred meetings a year which has some predictable results in how that department operates.

On the bigger level, badly thought out incentive structures are damaging our economy as senior managers are driven to deliver short term objectives while ignoring the long term growth of their business and sometimes even damaging the wider community in the process.

Probably the ultimate level of damaged performance reward is the political system those of us in the ‘developed world’ have allowed to develop in the last fifty years; by rewarding politicians on being elected, we have a generation of leaders who are very good at winning elections but not terribly good at running governments.

While there’s little we can do about governments beyond being careful with our votes, we can watch our businesses closely to see what indicators and rewards work best for us.

Planned and monitored properly, bonuses and performance indicators can work well for a business blindly using inappropriate ones though often turns out to do more harm than good.

Booking a disruption

The ticket agency business is undergoing disruption. Have the incumbents noticed?

Last night, US based booking service Eventbrite launched their Australian service, which promises to disrupt some cozy local incumbents.

The Australian ticket booking industry – like most of the nation’s business sectors – is dominated by two large players; Ticketmaster and Ticketek, with the latter dominating most ticket sales for big events.

Like most Australian duopolies, both Ticketmaster and Ticketek have a comfortable existence. With almost every ticket for major sporting, entertainment and cultural fixtures sold through their services, they’ve been allowed to neglect investing in new platforms while reaping monopoly profits from both attendees and organisers.

The development of online ticketing platforms like Eventbrite and Australian equivalents like Sticky Tickets are part of the disruption coming to this sector.

All of a sudden, event organisers don’t have to rely upon the grace and favours of major incumbents and ticket buyers aren’t getting slugged with outrageous “administrative fees” by the agencies.

The ticketing sector is one of these areas where decades of business practices have allowed middle men to develop, now a whole breed of new intermediaries are using technology to challenge the incumbents.

Integrating other technologies like reporting services, mailing lists and social media platforms along with hardware like iPad, iPhone and Android based management platforms for those on the door makes these services even more compelling to event organisers.

Right now the big incumbents probably aren’t taking these services too seriously as their cashflows, and management bonuses, seem safe and unassailable. Like all challenged industries, it might take them some time to figure out there is a real threat to their positions.

It will be interesting when a big events organiser or sports venue decides to move across to one of the newer ticketing companies, then we’ll see how the big incumbents deal with the threat to their businesses.

The four why’s of Sam Palmisano

Basic questions drive effective business strategies

The New York Times’ profile of IBM’s outgoing CEO, Sam Palmisano, is an interesting study of how an established business can make well thought out long term plans through asking some basic questions.

Under Palmisano, IBM moved a large part of their business from manufacturing and distributing computers to more Internet based products and services.

A key part in IBM’s reinvention was recognising the PC hardware business was in decline as commoditisation of the computers and associated components eroded margins.

To counter this, IBM looked at the areas where they believed the margins would be for the next decade and decided they lay in “on-demand” computing – what we now call “cloud computing”.

What is particularly notable with IBM’s move to the cloud is this renting time on mainframes was the mainstay of their business up until the 1990s so the culture of reliable, accessible services backed by well priced plans is something not unknown to IBM.

Having decided on the on-demand computing strategy, IBM then looked at who would buy their hardware division. Here they acted strategically and rather than selling to the highest bidder – someone like Dell or a private equity firm – they sold to China’s Lenovo which enhanced IBM’s standing within the Chinese markets.

The notable thing with all of these plans is that they were made strategically and executed without the dithering we see at other companies struggling with similar issues. Yahoo! and HP being the two standouts in this area.

While smaller businesses can’t execute on the same scale companies the size of IBM can should they choose, Sam Palmisano’s thinking was guided by four key questions;

  • “Why would someone spend their money with you — so what is unique about you?”
  •  “Why would somebody work for you?”
  • “Why would society allow you to operate in their defined geography — their country?”
  • “Why would somebody invest their money with you?”

These four are something all of us could ask of ourselves and those around us. The answers to those questions are will guide what we do, where we do it and how we do it.

For IBM, the future is fascinating as a new CEO comes in and they apply their investments in cloud computing, consulting and data mining to bigger picture projects like the Smarter Planet initiative.

How this works for IBM and the other large technology companies remains to be seen although it’s quite clear that unlike many of their contemporaries, IBM’s management has a vision of where their business fits in the 21st Century.