Harmony with Conflict

We homo sapiens are a strange species.  Individually and collectively we are very active but the activity manifests itself in constructive and destructive ways with a multitude of views as to what constitutes each category.  Let me explain with three scenarios, starting with the so-called war on terror.  Many people are fighting each other with an intent to kill and destroy.  Each group believes opposing groups are wrong.  Each individual believes he or she belongs to a group that is right.  The logic doesn't stack up does it?

The second scenario is a work environment where the employees expect decent wages, the shareholders require adequate returns on their investments and customers expect value, quality, responsiveness and support.  It is rare that all these expectations are in harmony, even though the Chairman might spin a tale at the Annual General Meeting that suggests otherwise.

Lack of harmony can be experienced in my third scenario, family life.  There are conflicts between children and parents, brother and sister, husband and wife.  Not continuously, of course, but nevertheless lack of harmony is not unusual.

So far in each of the three scenarios I have described, I have highlighted conflict.  On the other hand, harmony also exists.  So between individuals, between groups, within societies and nations, there is plenty of harmony and good feeling living alongside conflict and contempt.  So where's all this leading to?  Well the question I ask myself is, can harmony exist without conflict?  I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the answer is no.  I will try to explain my thinking.

Harmony requires a preponderance of agreement whereas, conversely, conflict requires a preponderance of disagreement.  The key issues in each case can include matters such as religion, politics, recreational pursuits, distribution of wealth, racial and gender equality, territorial ownership, access to education,........  I'm sure you can think of many more.  But views vary widely and subjective consensus is often very difficult to achieve.  Declarations of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' add fuel to disagreement or conversely, can be a catalyst for harmony.  Of course, 'right' and 'wrong' are the two extremes of a black-to-white spectrum where there are many shades of grey.

Achieving subjective consensus is very difficult when you consider the complexity of the relationships arising from the issues that I have raised thus far.  I do believe it is naive and potentially very dangerous to try to control this complexity with very simple initiatives.  Consider, for example, the conflict in the Middle East between Islamic State and a number of opposing forces.  The current military strategy adopted by a US-led coalition of assuming Islamic State is 'wrong' and the opposing forces are 'right' and continuing to play-out a pseudo zero-sum game where the winner takes all, is, in my opinion, destined to fail.  There needs to be a desire on all sides to look for strands of harmony within the current backdrop of violent conflict because if harmony can be reinforced it is possible, in my view, for it to live alongside some residual conflict and achieve a workable equilibrium.

I like this quote from Frank Matobo: "True learning always creates a paradox of promoting disagreement in order to create a consensus."

Expertise Limited - A Growth Business.

Is your business struggling?  Do you need expert advice?  Well there's plenty about but should it really be the first port of call?  Let's start with the definition of an expert.  Here's one:

A person with great knowledge or skill in a particular area.

Now I'm not doubting that people have great knowledge.  Indeed I believe we all do.  I know that my knowledge can help others and I know that others' knowledge can help me.  Knowledge is a wealth with a fantastic property that allows you to give it away but still retain it.  That means an expert can sell her knowledge over and over again.  Some recipients of the knowledge can sell it on, alone or packaged with other knowledge, and I think you can see why Expertise Limited is not really limited.  It is a massive and growing industry.  But is it really adding value to the world economy?  Like many simple questions there's often not a simple answer and it's worth creating a story to explore the typical intervention of an expert into a problem company, how he might bring beneficial expertise and why the benefits of the expertise might not be realised.

Cock Up & Co manufactures widgets.  It is a well established UK company, employing around 200 staff and until recent times it produced about 2,000 widgets a year.  But for the last couple of years, sales have been falling as a result of foreign competition, mainly from China.  In its last financial year it produced only 800 widgets and posted a £100k loss.  Desperate for an injection of fresh ideas into the company, the managing director brought in Bull Shit Limited, experts in business improvement programmes.  The experts were given a free rein and very soon came up with a plan that was aimed at streamlining Cock Up's Engineering, Production, Sales & Marketing and Administrative processes.  The improvement strategy was based on lean manufacturing, which would cut costs, improve responsiveness, enhance competitiveness and not only bring Cock Up back into the black but also increase its market share and thus grow its business.  Sounds good doesn't it?!

The managing director of Cock Up is a shrewd old bird and before signing up to a contract with Bull Shit, decided to ask their lead consultant a few questions:

Cock Up: "How big is your company?  How long have you been in business?  What's your sales turnover and profitability?"

Bull Shit: "We employ 20 consultants and we've been in business for 10 years.  Our turnover is £2million with a profit before tax of about £200k.

Cock Up: "Are you growing?"

Bull Shit: "No we have stabilised."

Cock Up: "So the improvement formula you are offering me hasn't been applied to your own company?

Bull Shit: "We are a different sort of business."

Cock Up: "OK but if my potential rewards are so fantastic, why don't you use your expertise to set up a business like mine?  Indeed why haven't you done it already?"

Bull Shit:....................(lost for words)

I think you can see where this is leading to.  Of course knowledge is valuable and when we discuss our business with others, we are trading knowledge all the time.  It is and should be a two-way flow.  Naturally it's always good to learn from others, but there aren't one-size-fits-all packaged solutions.  If there were, there wouldn't be any struggling businesses.  We just keep learning, but in the words of Peter Senge: "The more you learn, the more acutely aware you become of your ignorance."

Thanks Steve - My Personal Tribute to Steve Jobs.

Steve Jobs, who was the co-founder, chairman and CEO of Apple, was a brilliant entrepreneur, rightly recognised as a pioneer of the personal computer revolution.  He oversaw the development of the iMac, iTunes, iPod, iPhone and iPad, as well as the company's Apple Retail Stores, iTunes Store and App Store.  He had an uncanny knack of bringing a product to market that a consumer could be convinced was totally unnecessary, until purchased when the same buyer would wonder how it was possible to live without it!  That was certainly my experience with the iPad.  I remember watching the news coverage of Steve Jobs launching the original iPad, when he said:

"iPad is our most advanced technology in a magical and revolutionary device at an unbelievable price.  iPad creates and defines an entirely new category of devices that will connect users with their apps and content in a much more intimate, intuitive and fun way than ever before."

The lizard brain in me triggered a natural resistance to change from my trusted netbook for something that didn't have a keyboard and commands were entered by touching the screen - how unnatural!  Well although I didn't succumb to owning an original iPad, I did buy an iPad2 and I've never looked back.  Ironically, when I use my current notebook (also  Apple), which has a keyboard, on occasions I find myself inadvertently touching the screen and expecting a response!

I have been involved with computers from the punched card, mainframe days, when something with the processing power of an iPad would be housed in several rooms!  So I like to think of myself as being computer literate.  On the other hand, my mother-in-law, who is 82 years of age, has through the majority of her very active and diverse life, not been seduced by bits and bytes.  She is a very intelligent lady with a wide range of interests that include wild life, sports, history and politics and although her husband has long since found benefit in using computers for Internet surfing, online banking and shopping, etc, she has never found the need to follow suit.  At least that was the case until her daughter, my wife, recently bought her a shiny new iPad!  She took to it like a duck to water and very rapidly it made a real difference to her life.  She now has a vast amount of information on her favourite subjects available to her, as well as various means of communication with her family and friends.  That's thanks to Steve Jobs.

I know the change to my mother-in-law's life is not unique.  Steve Job's innovative and entrepreneurial talent has, in my opinion, made complex and powerful computer technology extremely simple to operate, so users can concentrate on what they want the computer to do for them, rather than what's going on inside.  This has made a real difference to millions of people's lives.  Now some might think it is wrong to pour praise on just one individual for the personal computer revolution.  Well in my mind it's not wrong to do that, because I think Steve Jobs' contribution was second to none.

Thanks Steve.

Management by Fear

I spent six years of my career working for a British conglomerate, seen as successful at the time, but with an endemic management style that I will never forget - management by fear.  It emanated from the man at the top, who was highly successful at managing a diverse portfolio of businesses with a mixture of arms-length and micro management.  How was that possible?  Well, the arms-length bit was to allow individual businesses to do their own thing provided, from a financial perspective, they met their budget and progressively throughout the financial year, key performance financial ratios.  The micro management came into play if the tree didn't look too healthy, at which point 'head office' would come in and examine the roots!

If you were to survive in a senior position, such as a business managing director, you had to be a particular type of person - a bastard!  The half-life of business managing directors was about eighteen months.  Nobody likes being a bastard for very long!  I suppose what I didn't like about my experience working for that company, was the underlying culture of fear.  Decisions were taken to try to ensure a flow of good news to the top.  For example, profit targets were met by cutting costs in areas where costs really shouldn't be cut.  It was a perform now and let's worry about the consequences later culture.

Against that background, I have to say that I did learn a lot.  It was a period of my career when I was actively engaged in the direction of international business development.  The conservative, risk-averse, attitude of the company could sometimes be seen as an impediment to making overseas sales but on many occasions did ensure the company wasn't saddled with unnecessary financial risks.  When the company constraints seemed unnecessarily burdensome, there was always an escape route - forgiveness is easier than permission!  I practised this route a few times, which was risky.  If the outcome is successful, you won't be punished.  But unsuccessful outcomes led to instant dismissal.  I had to get out.  No, I wasn't fired but unless I changed my ways of bucking the rules, I was in danger of being shown the door.

So why do I think it is now necessary to explain an experience that happened almost twenty years ago?  Well it made me realise that any business culture, positive or negative, is infectious.  You need to go with the flow to survive.  A docile labrador doesn't survive with a pack of wolves.  When I moved on, some of the positive sides of the culture, like attention to detail and strong financial management, were assets.  But the negative side, notably a confrontational approach when subordinates were not performing, could be counter productive.  Let me be clear, the confrontation does not mean bullying but it does mean holding individuals to account for the achievement of their forecasts and not suffering fools gladly.  So someone can fail once, maybe even twice, but beyond that they are replaced.  I soon realised that this can lead to all sorts of unintended consequences like 'soft' forecasting, dangerous short-term cost cutting actions, good and 'filtered' news reporting, etc.

What happened to the company in question?  It came to a sticky end, with parts of it sold off and the remnants almost bankrupt.  For a while I mistakenly followed the majority.  In the words of Mark Twain:

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

Savage Silos - Destroying Companies, Countries and Communities

Anyone who has worked in an organisation, small, medium or large, will have almost certainly experienced silo mentalities.  A classic symptom is when departments or groups do not want to share information or knowledge with other individuals in the same company.  It doesn't mean individuals are not doing, in their minds, the best they can, but they are doing it within the boundaries of their own little empires.  It is anti systems thinking because it follows the false assumption that if my little empire does well and all the other little empires follow suit, the company, i.e. the sum of the little empires, will prosper.  Well sorry, the whole is not the sum of the parts.  If you get things right, it's greater than the sum of the parts but with silos, it's considerably less.  Each little empire is a silo and it thrives because people feel comfortable interacting within the boundaries of the silo and they feel threatened by any attempt to draw them, their knowledge and information out of those boundaries.  There have been a plethora of corporate fix-it programmes aimed at breaking down silos, including visions, missions, common values, goals........, which look good on PowerPoint presentations but, from my experience, rarely seem to have much impact in the bowels of the organisation.

Silos can destroy companies.

Let's now turn to countries and as an example, the UK.  Although I watch the political antics from afar, I am appalled by what I see.  The rise of nationalism, spearheaded by parties like UKIP and SNP, is an example of silo thinking on a frightening scale.  Also what amounts to anti immigration speeches by the prime minister, David Cameron, perpetuates the Little England, silo mentality.  It's all predicated on some false premise of ownership of a country rather than, at any point in time, a collection of individuals who happen to be residing within a territory with historically defined boundaries.  That collection of individuals was formed by migration of the species and thus immigration.  It has evolved and will continue to evolve, by migration and immigration.  Nobody 'owns' the country, it was there for billions of years before the existence of homo sapiens.  The continuing evolution of the population through migration and immigration, provides diversity and invigoration without which, the country would stagnate and die.

Silos can destroy countries.

There's a common factor in the silo mentality.  The clue is in the word 'mentality', which means 'way of thinking'.  People think, so the common factor is the person.  Yes that's you and me mate!  We are all silos.  We each have a range of behaviours that exhibit, to varying degrees, a lack of openness, selfishness, not working for the common good, etc.  So it's hardly surprising that when lots of 'mini silos' get together, common attributes attract each other and 'maxi silos' are reinforced.  What does this do for society?  Well it certainly damages it.  The strange thing is that when I analyse my own behaviour, I often feel much better when I force (and sometimes it does take a bit of force) myself to be altruistic, yet it doesn't come naturally.  A simple example is giving money to people who regrettably for them, need to beg in the street.

Silos can destroy communities.

So what should we do?  Well I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you wish to change the world start with yourself.