I chose this article because of its relevance to our own business; we are often asked to carry out combinations of training and facilitation and need to be well aware of the difference and the implications for manning and design. We also have to be very open about the fact that some of our team are excellent at one rather than the other (our experience is that not all can excel at both) and that the required skills are very different.
The author is from ‘The Centre for Facilitation’ based in Leeds University and clearly has an interest in putting forward the virtues of facilitation; he emphasises the distinction between the skills of facilitation, training, consulting and coaching in a helpful way but takes a rather extreme, black and white view about the need for separation.
He starts by offering the traditional definition of facilitation as being about the process rather than the content and confirms the lower emphasis on the personality and charisma of the facilitator, compared to the training role. This helps to explain why so few good trainers excel at pure facilitation, we much prefer to be the centre of attention! But I would differ from the author in his two rather extreme and purist conclusions:
- That a facilitator should not offer content contributions even if he/she knows the subject
- That you can facilitate any discussion, no matter how technical it is and how ignorant you are
To the first conclusion I would say - why not? - if you have something to move the discussions on, as long as you do not allow it to push you into a continuing instructional role.
To the second conclusion, I would argue that you need to understand enough to know what is going on; I can recall being asked to facilitate a highly technical discussion for a senior group about market research and regretting the fact that my lack of preparation and failure to understand the language caused me to lose control of the process.
When comparing the training and facilitating roles, the author again shows his black and white tendencies by suggesting that a key difference between the two roles is the design and timing flexibility required for facilitation, which does not exist in a training context. While accepting that the facilitator has to be even more flexible, I would not agree that all trainers have to stick to a fixed agenda; as with facilitation, one of the key success factors in a tailored training event is the courage and perception to step away from the fixed agenda while still achieving the learning objectives in a way that matches the audience needs. All good trainers will know how it feels to meet a course on the first morning and find that they know far more, or far less, than you have been told; sticking to a fixed agenda in these circumstances is likely to deliver certain failure.
The article makes some interesting points about the different styles of facilitation though at times it becomes rather too theoretical. He does however make the excellent point that there must be agreed clarity beforehand about whether the facilitation should explore the personal dynamics of the group or confine itself to the business issues; he suggests that some facilitators have their own agenda and will enjoy exploring and counselling the team on behavioural problems, at the expense of arriving at the required solution. A good facilitator can get to the required solution despite the behavioural problems, rather than trying to solve them.
The author mentions many ‘tools and techniques’ that a good facilitator has available, without telling us what these are; perhaps you have to go to the ‘Centre for Facilitation’ to find out. One example tool - putting participants into parallel issue groups to make the best use of time - perhaps indicates that there is not too much rocket science involved.
Overall this is a helpful article that reminds us of the differences and the potential pitfalls. However it would have been even more helpful if it had accepted the fact that the real world of client led training means that some designs have to include a combination of training and facilitation skills. Guidance on how these two elements can be integrated within a tailored design would have been even more beneficial.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2011-01-01-youre-a-facilitator-what-do-you-do/
Thursday 3 February 2011
‘Creating Shared Value’ by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, Harvard Business Review, January 2011
This article had to be a certainty for review because Porter was perhaps the leading figure in strategic thinking during the second half of the last century and at MTP we have always been keen enthusiasts of his work, particularly his views on competitive advantage and the famous ‘five forces’ framework. After reading the article for the first time, I asked MTP’s strategy specialist Chris Goodwin for his views because I found little that was new and was reluctant to be critical without some reassurance.
I found that Chris had already read the article and had similar reservations. The basic premise of Porter and Kramer’s argument is that there is a need to ‘reinvent capitalism’ by adopting the concept of ‘shared value’; directors of companies should no longer make decisions based on maximising company value, they should look at the combined impact on society as well as their own shareholders. By taking this line, the authors are challenging the view of economists through the ages - including Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and more recently David Henderson - that businesses benefit the economy and society most by furthering their own interests. As Adam Smith put it ‘I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.’
There are two ways in which an article of this kind can be challenged. One is whether its arguments are valid; the other is whether there is anything new. After discussion with Chris we would jointly suggest that there could be challenges on both counts. The challenge to his basic premise revolves around the definition of shareholder value and the distinction between short and long term creation. If Porter is saying that it can be in the long term interests of the company and its shareholders to take the impact on society into account, we would strongly agree. BP’s shareholders might wish with hindsight that their management had taken this view when deciding on their risk strategy for instance. But if he is saying that directors should go beyond that and use shareholders’ money to fund their definition of benefit to the wider society, we would have to disagree.
And if the article is arguing for a longer term approach to value creation, we see nothing new in this. We see the CEO of our biggest client, Unilever, rejecting the temptations of short term profit and focussing on a strategy of long term sustainability, because that is where the company sees the longer term benefit to both shareholders and society. The idea of balancing profitability with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been around for some time and in some ways it seems that Porter is just giving it a new label. To suggest that this is ‘fixing capitalism’ is to say the least an exaggeration and in any case the argument that capitalism has been broken down by the financial crisis is highly questionable. It is the banks that are the problem rather than industry as a whole and most economies are looking for existing capitalism to solve their deficit problems by providing growth and creating wealth.
So we agree that some boards of directors can and should take account of their responsibilities to society but we would argue that this because they judge - rightly or wrongly - that this is in the interests of their companies’ sustainability and long term shareholder value. But they should go no further than this and Porter’s attempt to provide a framework for them to share their value with society as a whole is neither realistic nor necessary. It might of course be in the interests of Porter and Kramer’s new consultancy to provide ‘social impact services’ but that’s another story ...
Click here to read the article in full;
http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value/ar/1
I found that Chris had already read the article and had similar reservations. The basic premise of Porter and Kramer’s argument is that there is a need to ‘reinvent capitalism’ by adopting the concept of ‘shared value’; directors of companies should no longer make decisions based on maximising company value, they should look at the combined impact on society as well as their own shareholders. By taking this line, the authors are challenging the view of economists through the ages - including Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and more recently David Henderson - that businesses benefit the economy and society most by furthering their own interests. As Adam Smith put it ‘I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.’
There are two ways in which an article of this kind can be challenged. One is whether its arguments are valid; the other is whether there is anything new. After discussion with Chris we would jointly suggest that there could be challenges on both counts. The challenge to his basic premise revolves around the definition of shareholder value and the distinction between short and long term creation. If Porter is saying that it can be in the long term interests of the company and its shareholders to take the impact on society into account, we would strongly agree. BP’s shareholders might wish with hindsight that their management had taken this view when deciding on their risk strategy for instance. But if he is saying that directors should go beyond that and use shareholders’ money to fund their definition of benefit to the wider society, we would have to disagree.
And if the article is arguing for a longer term approach to value creation, we see nothing new in this. We see the CEO of our biggest client, Unilever, rejecting the temptations of short term profit and focussing on a strategy of long term sustainability, because that is where the company sees the longer term benefit to both shareholders and society. The idea of balancing profitability with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been around for some time and in some ways it seems that Porter is just giving it a new label. To suggest that this is ‘fixing capitalism’ is to say the least an exaggeration and in any case the argument that capitalism has been broken down by the financial crisis is highly questionable. It is the banks that are the problem rather than industry as a whole and most economies are looking for existing capitalism to solve their deficit problems by providing growth and creating wealth.
So we agree that some boards of directors can and should take account of their responsibilities to society but we would argue that this because they judge - rightly or wrongly - that this is in the interests of their companies’ sustainability and long term shareholder value. But they should go no further than this and Porter’s attempt to provide a framework for them to share their value with society as a whole is neither realistic nor necessary. It might of course be in the interests of Porter and Kramer’s new consultancy to provide ‘social impact services’ but that’s another story ...
Click here to read the article in full;
http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value/ar/1
‘Measuring the effectiveness of Learning & Development’ by Mary Jane Flanagan, Training Journal, December 2010
Feedback indicates that blog readers still appreciate reviews of articles about measuring Learning & Development effectiveness, even though the conclusions are normally highly unconvincing. Perhaps readers enjoy searching for the holy grail, perhaps it is reassuring to know that others have had similar problems in their searches and experiments.
As with similar articles, the opening paragraphs emphasise the need to measure ROI while giving no indication of understanding of what it really means. Perhaps my financial background means that I am too pedantic here but there is a real equation that can be forgotten in the loose talk of many training consultants; ROI is incremental profit as a percentage of investment and the problems arise from isolating and quantifying the incremental profit in a world that is complex and ever changing.
The author does not even try to address this issue but moves immediately into five non-financial metrics that are interesting and useful to measure but which do not necessarily relate directly to ROI. These are:
1. Motivation of people
2. Productivity and development of people
3. Net promoter scores
4. Labour turnover
5. 'Mystery' visit results
The choice of metric perhaps indicates that the author’s bias and experience is towards employees that are directly customer facing, rather than the mix of roles that might typically face us in a range of training activities. It is hard to see how 3 and 5 above could be usefully applied to a cross-functional group of managers whose business skills and knowledge need to be improved.
There is also a lack of practicality in some of the suggestions to apply the metrics. Employee motivation surveys - before and after - are suggested without mentioning the likely cost and the problems of isolating the impact of the course from the many other motivation factors in an organisation. Similar problems apply to number 2 above; the author’s idea of a ‘Values Wheel’ is not without merit but again the suggestion that you can take a ‘before and after’ score out of 10 for each criteria is simplistic in the extreme.
The ‘net promoter’ score makes the assumption that those who rate a product 9 or 10 out of 10 are likely to recommend it to others and then proceeds to suggest again that ‘before and after’ measurement can be applied to measure ROI. Even if those being trained are directly customer facing, this approach assumes that there are no other factors driving customer satisfaction; and for others being trained, you need to define the customer - who will often be internal - as well as measuring their feedback. My own thought was that measuring the proportion of 9s and 10s is more useful as measure of feedback on the learning experience - on the basis that these are the ones who will really apply their learning - but this is really only a variation on conventional ‘happy sheet’ measurement.
Measuring labour turnover is subject to the same problem of other influences and also makes the assumption that low turnover is always good; some turnover can be a useful driver of change and it all depends on the types of people who are leaving. The idea of mystery visits is also limited to those who are external customer facing; hardly something you can apply to those involved in providing internal services or more indirect product benefits.
So overall this article is not impressive. It presents as solutions a number of approaches that can only be used in specific contexts and ignores the key problem that faces anyone who wants to evaluate Learning & Development; how do you isolate the benefits of training from all the many other factors in a business and how do you quantify the impact? Unless you accept these questions as the main challenges, you will get nowhere, which is precisely where this article takes us.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2010-12-01-measuring-the-effectiveness-of-ld/
As with similar articles, the opening paragraphs emphasise the need to measure ROI while giving no indication of understanding of what it really means. Perhaps my financial background means that I am too pedantic here but there is a real equation that can be forgotten in the loose talk of many training consultants; ROI is incremental profit as a percentage of investment and the problems arise from isolating and quantifying the incremental profit in a world that is complex and ever changing.
The author does not even try to address this issue but moves immediately into five non-financial metrics that are interesting and useful to measure but which do not necessarily relate directly to ROI. These are:
1. Motivation of people
2. Productivity and development of people
3. Net promoter scores
4. Labour turnover
5. 'Mystery' visit results
The choice of metric perhaps indicates that the author’s bias and experience is towards employees that are directly customer facing, rather than the mix of roles that might typically face us in a range of training activities. It is hard to see how 3 and 5 above could be usefully applied to a cross-functional group of managers whose business skills and knowledge need to be improved.
There is also a lack of practicality in some of the suggestions to apply the metrics. Employee motivation surveys - before and after - are suggested without mentioning the likely cost and the problems of isolating the impact of the course from the many other motivation factors in an organisation. Similar problems apply to number 2 above; the author’s idea of a ‘Values Wheel’ is not without merit but again the suggestion that you can take a ‘before and after’ score out of 10 for each criteria is simplistic in the extreme.
The ‘net promoter’ score makes the assumption that those who rate a product 9 or 10 out of 10 are likely to recommend it to others and then proceeds to suggest again that ‘before and after’ measurement can be applied to measure ROI. Even if those being trained are directly customer facing, this approach assumes that there are no other factors driving customer satisfaction; and for others being trained, you need to define the customer - who will often be internal - as well as measuring their feedback. My own thought was that measuring the proportion of 9s and 10s is more useful as measure of feedback on the learning experience - on the basis that these are the ones who will really apply their learning - but this is really only a variation on conventional ‘happy sheet’ measurement.
Measuring labour turnover is subject to the same problem of other influences and also makes the assumption that low turnover is always good; some turnover can be a useful driver of change and it all depends on the types of people who are leaving. The idea of mystery visits is also limited to those who are external customer facing; hardly something you can apply to those involved in providing internal services or more indirect product benefits.
So overall this article is not impressive. It presents as solutions a number of approaches that can only be used in specific contexts and ignores the key problem that faces anyone who wants to evaluate Learning & Development; how do you isolate the benefits of training from all the many other factors in a business and how do you quantify the impact? Unless you accept these questions as the main challenges, you will get nowhere, which is precisely where this article takes us.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2010-12-01-measuring-the-effectiveness-of-ld/
‘Rolling the dice’ by Amy Duff, Director Magazine, January 2011
Risk is a topic that comes up a lot during our sessions on finance programmes in the context of control and project appraisal but does not always get its share of attention in the coverage of business decisions more generally. I was therefore attracted to this article because it seemed to look at risk more broadly, relating it to the behaviour of CEOs and success in business.
However I was disappointed because it was written in the rather superficial way that is all too typical of articles in Director magazine, which has become more and more lightweight in recent times. And it is based around a new (to me) questionnaire that is being marketed by an organisation called the Psychological Consultancy who are no doubt appreciative of the free advertising that the article provides.
However the article does make a few interesting points and the questionnaire will provide useful feedback; feeding the desire of most managers to know more about themselves is usually a popular strategy for trainers and consultants. But the key to the usefulness of any instrument of this kind is the extent to which it can help the individual manager and the organisation to be more effective and I remained unconvinced about this.
The questionnaire apparently separates managers into eight types of risk takers, as follows:
- Spontaneous
- Intense
- Wary
- Prudent
- Deliberate
- Composed
- Adventurous
- Carefree
There are short descriptions of the nature of each of the eight categories which were interesting and rang some bells, but there seemed to be a lot of overlap. Nevertheless it passed the first test of making me want to know where I and some of my colleagues would fall, particularly in the context of the entrepreneurial tendencies that are said by the author to be closely related to the risk profiles. Was MTP formed because we were all carefree and spontaneous? Sadly the answer was not clear because apparently a whole range of different types can start new businesses.
The only practical use I could relate to was the suggestion that the questionnaire can help to balance teams so that there are different types of risk takers in each one; this would seem to fit well with problems we have seen in companies where project teams are much too gung ho about projects and the financial person fights hard to hold them back. Clearly in those circumstances it is best if the finance person is not too spontaneous and carefree. But creating a balanced team with eight different types to consider feels rather complex and it would have been good to have less categories or at least some clustering of the eight types.
I would like to have seen more on this issue of balance but instead the article contains a number of comments from directors of small consultancies about their attitudes to risk and the extent to which it is ‘hard wired’ into fundamental nature or based on personal and business situation. This is an interesting issue but the comments do not provide anything new, other than the obvious point that risk taking is an essential part of business that has to be managed and balanced. I hoped that this article would have taken this obvious point into new and valuable areas but I was, to say the least, disappointed.
Click here to read the articles in full;
http://www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2011/1_Jan/leadership-psychological-testing_64_05.html
However I was disappointed because it was written in the rather superficial way that is all too typical of articles in Director magazine, which has become more and more lightweight in recent times. And it is based around a new (to me) questionnaire that is being marketed by an organisation called the Psychological Consultancy who are no doubt appreciative of the free advertising that the article provides.
However the article does make a few interesting points and the questionnaire will provide useful feedback; feeding the desire of most managers to know more about themselves is usually a popular strategy for trainers and consultants. But the key to the usefulness of any instrument of this kind is the extent to which it can help the individual manager and the organisation to be more effective and I remained unconvinced about this.
The questionnaire apparently separates managers into eight types of risk takers, as follows:
- Spontaneous
- Intense
- Wary
- Prudent
- Deliberate
- Composed
- Adventurous
- Carefree
There are short descriptions of the nature of each of the eight categories which were interesting and rang some bells, but there seemed to be a lot of overlap. Nevertheless it passed the first test of making me want to know where I and some of my colleagues would fall, particularly in the context of the entrepreneurial tendencies that are said by the author to be closely related to the risk profiles. Was MTP formed because we were all carefree and spontaneous? Sadly the answer was not clear because apparently a whole range of different types can start new businesses.
The only practical use I could relate to was the suggestion that the questionnaire can help to balance teams so that there are different types of risk takers in each one; this would seem to fit well with problems we have seen in companies where project teams are much too gung ho about projects and the financial person fights hard to hold them back. Clearly in those circumstances it is best if the finance person is not too spontaneous and carefree. But creating a balanced team with eight different types to consider feels rather complex and it would have been good to have less categories or at least some clustering of the eight types.
I would like to have seen more on this issue of balance but instead the article contains a number of comments from directors of small consultancies about their attitudes to risk and the extent to which it is ‘hard wired’ into fundamental nature or based on personal and business situation. This is an interesting issue but the comments do not provide anything new, other than the obvious point that risk taking is an essential part of business that has to be managed and balanced. I hoped that this article would have taken this obvious point into new and valuable areas but I was, to say the least, disappointed.
Click here to read the articles in full;
http://www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2011/1_Jan/leadership-psychological-testing_64_05.html
‘Profile of Jimmy Wales’, Sunday Times 16th January and ‘Wiki Birthday to you’ Economist 13th January
I’ve chosen these articles because, having reviewed a book on Wikipedia a few months ago and found it highly boring, I thought I would see if the Times and the Economist could make its founder Jimmy Wales any more exciting on the 10th anniversary of this Internet phenomenon. Facebook and Twitter may get the publicity but Wikipedia probably features more in the life of most of us, despite all the criticisms of its inaccuracies and limitations.
The Times article does bring Wales to life much more effectively than the book, which focussed far too much on technical issues. At a very early age, while other children played games. Wales apparently had a vision after his parents bought him his first encyclopaedia; ‘imagine a world in which every single person on the planet had free access to the sum of all human knowledge’. Thank goodness for all of us who now benefit from Wikipedia that he didn’t get out more!
Even though there was an early falling out with his co-founder that left Wales in full charge, he seems to be a very different person from the likes of Mark Zuckenberg of Facebook and is delighted that no-one wants to make a film about him. He is also not tempted by the riches that would come to him if he went down the Facebook and Twitter route and allowed advertising; he prefers to rely on the donations that keep Wikipedia solvent and has tried hard to keep the collegiate spirit going. Wikipedia really is an example of the ‘big society’ with its 100,000 volunteer contributors and principle of open axis. Wales retains the evangelical spirit and travels the world supporting Wikipedia’s global extension, now into 270 languages.
The Economist article acknowledges the achievement and the spirit behind Wikipedia but is more critical of the way it operates. It reveals how the campaigns to raise donations, while effective, have become annoying to many and how, despite the unpopular army of editors, inaccuracies are still to be found. Also hoaxers, announcing premature deaths or, for example, Tony Blair’s admiration for Hitler, find the free access principle irresistible. Wales insists however that inaccuracies are no more than are found in any reference work of its size and scope.
The more worrying criticism by the Economist is that Wikipedia has become ‘stiff and middle aged’; the number of articles has fallen by a third and it has lost the flexibility and dynamism of its early years. There are also concerns that it is not financially sustainable to continue to rely on donations but that any move to become commercial and use advertising would upset its contributors and lose the collegiate ethos that drives its content.
The next ten years will be interesting, maybe more so than the first ten. Perhaps we will then see the motion picture!
Click here to read the articles in full;
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/profiles/article510905 (subscription required)
http://www.economist.com/node/17902943
The Times article does bring Wales to life much more effectively than the book, which focussed far too much on technical issues. At a very early age, while other children played games. Wales apparently had a vision after his parents bought him his first encyclopaedia; ‘imagine a world in which every single person on the planet had free access to the sum of all human knowledge’. Thank goodness for all of us who now benefit from Wikipedia that he didn’t get out more!
Even though there was an early falling out with his co-founder that left Wales in full charge, he seems to be a very different person from the likes of Mark Zuckenberg of Facebook and is delighted that no-one wants to make a film about him. He is also not tempted by the riches that would come to him if he went down the Facebook and Twitter route and allowed advertising; he prefers to rely on the donations that keep Wikipedia solvent and has tried hard to keep the collegiate spirit going. Wikipedia really is an example of the ‘big society’ with its 100,000 volunteer contributors and principle of open axis. Wales retains the evangelical spirit and travels the world supporting Wikipedia’s global extension, now into 270 languages.
The Economist article acknowledges the achievement and the spirit behind Wikipedia but is more critical of the way it operates. It reveals how the campaigns to raise donations, while effective, have become annoying to many and how, despite the unpopular army of editors, inaccuracies are still to be found. Also hoaxers, announcing premature deaths or, for example, Tony Blair’s admiration for Hitler, find the free access principle irresistible. Wales insists however that inaccuracies are no more than are found in any reference work of its size and scope.
The more worrying criticism by the Economist is that Wikipedia has become ‘stiff and middle aged’; the number of articles has fallen by a third and it has lost the flexibility and dynamism of its early years. There are also concerns that it is not financially sustainable to continue to rely on donations but that any move to become commercial and use advertising would upset its contributors and lose the collegiate ethos that drives its content.
The next ten years will be interesting, maybe more so than the first ten. Perhaps we will then see the motion picture!
Click here to read the articles in full;
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/profiles/article510905 (subscription required)
http://www.economist.com/node/17902943
'Profit at any cost? Why business ethics makes sense' by Jerry Fleming, published by Baker Books.
I came across this book in a bookshop in the USA and was attracted by its style and its message, making a nice link with the Porter article above. I was not always impressed by the evangelical and almost religious fervour but I was impressed by some of the research, arguments and conclusions.
The basic argument is that you do not have to compromise on ethics to succeed; those who have compromised may achieve short term results but get found out in the end. He quotes impressive research that shows how those companies with good ethical records perform better than average in the stock market. This made me wonder about those who didn’t get found out and who would, by definition, be included in his sample but I thought I should not be too cynical when reviewing a book about ethics.
The author leans a lot on the work of Doctor Laura Nash of Harvard Business School who works on the principle that the best guide for ethical behaviour is to deal with others as you would wish to be dealt with yourself. She divides unethical behaviour into four types as follows:
• Deceiving
• Stealing
• Mistreating
• Coveting
The book then describes thirty business situations which anyone might face and says that any of the actions described would amount to unethical behaviour and are therefore likely to be detrimental to the organisation in the long term. I have to confess that I failed the test with some of them - like pricing based on known customer desperation, finding out a competitor’s likely tender bid, running down a competitor - but then tried to excuse myself by saying 'it depends'. (This reminded me of when I once ran a course on competitor intelligence for a major client and we found flipcharts produced by a competitor who had previously occupied the course room; despite agreeing that it was unethical, everyone wanted to have a look!)
One interesting observation in this book is that most managers become more ethical with age - maybe I’m the exception! - and that a way to encourage ethical behaviour is to ask those involved to say what epitaph about business behaviour would they like on their gravestone.
Maybe the book is idealistic and sets standards that are difficult to match; but it certainly gets you thinking and makes you question whether you are as ethical as you thought you were. Which must be good for all of us.
Click here to buy the book.
The basic argument is that you do not have to compromise on ethics to succeed; those who have compromised may achieve short term results but get found out in the end. He quotes impressive research that shows how those companies with good ethical records perform better than average in the stock market. This made me wonder about those who didn’t get found out and who would, by definition, be included in his sample but I thought I should not be too cynical when reviewing a book about ethics.
The author leans a lot on the work of Doctor Laura Nash of Harvard Business School who works on the principle that the best guide for ethical behaviour is to deal with others as you would wish to be dealt with yourself. She divides unethical behaviour into four types as follows:
• Deceiving
• Stealing
• Mistreating
• Coveting
The book then describes thirty business situations which anyone might face and says that any of the actions described would amount to unethical behaviour and are therefore likely to be detrimental to the organisation in the long term. I have to confess that I failed the test with some of them - like pricing based on known customer desperation, finding out a competitor’s likely tender bid, running down a competitor - but then tried to excuse myself by saying 'it depends'. (This reminded me of when I once ran a course on competitor intelligence for a major client and we found flipcharts produced by a competitor who had previously occupied the course room; despite agreeing that it was unethical, everyone wanted to have a look!)
One interesting observation in this book is that most managers become more ethical with age - maybe I’m the exception! - and that a way to encourage ethical behaviour is to ask those involved to say what epitaph about business behaviour would they like on their gravestone.
Maybe the book is idealistic and sets standards that are difficult to match; but it certainly gets you thinking and makes you question whether you are as ethical as you thought you were. Which must be good for all of us.
Click here to buy the book.
'Smart moves management' by John Thedford, published by Emerald Book Company
This is another American book that caught my attention and that I felt was worth reading and reviewing. It is in sharp contrast to the more conceptual thinking that comes out of places like Harvard and is a typical example of a successful businessman who wants to pass on his secrets of success to others. Normally I am not impressed by such an approach but in this case I was, maybe because a lot of the advice was counter-intuitive.
The best example of this counter intuitiveness was his early advocacy of a 'prosperous wage strategy', paying people more than the market rate in order to achieve his key performance indicator of low labour turnover (he does however distinguish between 'healthy' labour turnover - caused by firing low performers - from 'unhealthy' turnover which is losing good people). He believes that this high wage strategy will give you better people who will, over the long term deliver greater value, despite their higher cost. He also advocates an element of overstaffing on the basis that understaffing will almost certainly be a value destroyer, particularly in personal service businesses.
He develops this theme further by stressing the importance of continuity of management; that moving managers around adversely impacts relationships and causes dissatisfaction among the managed. 'People don't leave companies, they leave poor managers' is his argument. He believes that keeping the right managers in place is the biggest single driver of growth and profit, maybe something that football league clubs - apart from Manchester United of course - would do well to heed.
Clearly selection of the right people in the first place is key to this strategy and the importance of this process is stressed, as is the need to move people out quickly if the fit to the job is not right. He has a rather questionable black and white view about people's ability to change - that it is zero - and believes that you must build on the strengths of those who are selected and work round their weaknesses.
All this is rather more interesting than I expected even though, unlike the previous book, there is no research to back up the author's convictions, just his belief and track record. I don't agree with everything he says and found his style of structuring his thoughts as 41 'smart moves' to be irritating but I found his willingness to challenge conventional thinking, particularly around people costs, to be refreshing and thought provoking.
Click here to buy the book.
The best example of this counter intuitiveness was his early advocacy of a 'prosperous wage strategy', paying people more than the market rate in order to achieve his key performance indicator of low labour turnover (he does however distinguish between 'healthy' labour turnover - caused by firing low performers - from 'unhealthy' turnover which is losing good people). He believes that this high wage strategy will give you better people who will, over the long term deliver greater value, despite their higher cost. He also advocates an element of overstaffing on the basis that understaffing will almost certainly be a value destroyer, particularly in personal service businesses.
He develops this theme further by stressing the importance of continuity of management; that moving managers around adversely impacts relationships and causes dissatisfaction among the managed. 'People don't leave companies, they leave poor managers' is his argument. He believes that keeping the right managers in place is the biggest single driver of growth and profit, maybe something that football league clubs - apart from Manchester United of course - would do well to heed.
Clearly selection of the right people in the first place is key to this strategy and the importance of this process is stressed, as is the need to move people out quickly if the fit to the job is not right. He has a rather questionable black and white view about people's ability to change - that it is zero - and believes that you must build on the strengths of those who are selected and work round their weaknesses.
All this is rather more interesting than I expected even though, unlike the previous book, there is no research to back up the author's convictions, just his belief and track record. I don't agree with everything he says and found his style of structuring his thoughts as 41 'smart moves' to be irritating but I found his willingness to challenge conventional thinking, particularly around people costs, to be refreshing and thought provoking.
Click here to buy the book.