A Message to David Cameron

I am appalled at the government’s blasé attitude towards climate change.  Yesterday’s (26/1/15) Commons debate rejecting a bid to suspend fracking for shale gas, ignoring the Environment Audit Committee’s warning that there were “huge uncertainties” about the environmental impact of fracking, shows a complete disregard for the future of society by those who are entrusted to govern the country. Apart from the uncertainties relating to the impact of fracking on the environment, there is overwhelming evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is directly responsible for climate change, yet most UK politicians are clearly in denial mode.  Lord Hailsham was right when he described the UK government as an elective dictatorship.  No matter how strongly people feel about an issue that affects the whole of humanity for generations to come, the government of the day acts totally irresponsibly putting some short-term economic arguments before the future of the planet.  It’s disgraceful.

Drucker's Disciple

I made the career transition from engineering to management in the 1970s and it was, to put it mildly, a shock to my system.  Engineering is a highly respected profession and although the answers to all engineering problems are not known, the questions that have to be asked to establish solutions, can usually be formulated.  Management, on the other hand, is not an applied science.  It is an attempt to control complex organisational systems usually, although most managers would not admit to it, by employing trial-and-error problem solving and asking the right questions is not easy.  As a young engineer I could always consult a senior or principal engineer if I needed assistance and usually their help and guidance were invaluable.  As a young manager, it was more difficult to seek help, pride had something to do with it but also, I found the opinions of more senior managers often were no better than my own.  That might sound arrogant, but for complex business decisions, there are not always precedents against which others can provide useful guidance.

What about management consultants, business schools and respected gurus, how can they help?  Well in a previous post, 'Business School Crap', I was a bit disparaging about some of the outputs of business schools and maybe I went over the top!  I do believe, however, that attempts to apply simple models and tools to complex business problems can be dangerous.  Less scrupulous, or perhaps naive, consultants sometimes cherry-pick the outputs of business schools and offer quick-fix solutions to ailing businesses.  There are, however, respected management practitioners and that leads me to world-class gurus and my long-held admiration for Peter Drucker.  I first started reading his works in the mid 1970s and I was impressed by both his extreme intellect and impressive foresight.  Maybe to call me a Drucker's Disciple is a bit presumptuous, but he certainly had a major influence on my management career.  Here is just a handful of his quotes that I like:

"A manager is responsible for the application and performance of knowledge."

"If you want something new, you have to stop doing something old."

"There is nothing quite so useless, as doing with great efficiency, something that should not be done at all."

"Results are obtained by exploiting opportunities, not by solving problems."

They are all simple statements and I could quote many more, which for me are extremely thought-provoking.  As an example, I will explain how thought processes might develop around the last quote on the need to exploit opportunities, rather than solving problems.  I recall the years when I had a rather dashing, but old, bright yellow Triumph Spitfire sports car.  I could barely afford to buy it and I certainly found it difficult to meet the running costs, unless I did my own car maintenance.  I could tackle most car repair work but I loathed doing it.  The universal joints (UJs) on the rear half shafts, seemed to need replacing far too often.  On one occasion whilst lying under the car, covered in oil and grease, replacing a UJ, I recalled Peter Drucker's quote - "Results are obtained by exploiting opportunities, not by solving problems."  There I was solving a problem, one knackered UJ, whilst denying myself an opportunity of showing off my bright yellow bobby-dazzler and exploring pastures new!  Yes, problems need to be solved to return a system to 'normality' but the primary focus of attention should be on new opportunities not old problems.  That's a good lesson for anyone running a business, where, from my experience, managers very often put the emphasis on internal operational problem solving, rather than external exploitation of market opportunities.

There might be many disciples but there was only one Peter Drucker :-)

Strategy vs Culture - No Contest

"Culture eats strategy for breakfast."  Those were fine words from Peter Drucker and are confirmed from my own experiences, which I will touch on later.  What is an organisation's culture?  Well, simply put, 'it's the way we do things around here'.  I like that definition, it's short, succinct and I'm sure we can all relate to it.  Let me give you an analogy, which I also love.  My wife and I are UK nationals living in Turkey - yes, the dreaded 'expats'!  We have a very large garden, which we both look after and my wife is extremely green-fingered and loves gardening.  On the other hand, my forté is lawn-cutting and general maintenance.  So we're a good team!  That said, there is always a danger to try to create an English country garden in a Mediterranean environment and it doesn't work.  The climatic environment is analogous to business culture - 'it's the way nature does things around here'.  Some things will thrive.  Some things will just survive.  Some things will die.  As an example of the latter category, we have our failed attempt to grow a willow tree!  In the business environment, strategy (planting the 'business trees') has to compatible with the business culture (the prevailing 'climate'), otherwise, like our willow tree in Turkey, it will get eaten for breakfast!  I will mention no company names but here are two examples from my own career.

I worked for a large multi-national corporation, which was a hard task master, highly integrated and entrepreneurial and real fun to work for.  It was acquired by an even larger company, which was a cash rich conglomerate, risk averse and extremely dull and boring from a young high flyer's perspective.  There was certainly a good synergistic fit in terms of technology and markets, but a real clash of cultures.  The acquirer's culture not surprisingly dominated in the newly consummated relationship, but much of the top talent from the acquired company soon moved on and gradually the added-value of the 'marriage' was lost.

The other example was when I became the managing director of a well-established, medium-sized engineering company, highly respected by its customers for value, quality, responsiveness and support of its sophisticated products and services.  But it had a high market share of a niche sector within a gradually declining market, so from its rapid growth in its early formative years, it was now suffering from a flat to declining sales profile.  I spearheaded a strategy of moving the company into pastures new, whilst not neglecting its existing markets.  It was a case of establishing current technology into new markets, i.e. the classic market development strategy.  Strategically it made sense but it was hampered, although fortunately not defeated, by culture.  The company's existing customers were a good cultural fit with the organisation - risk averse and highly procedural.  The new customers were very different.  They came from fast-moving new industries where the priority was on getting the job done and worrying about the contractual issues later!  Ultimately the new strategic direction did turn out well for the company but it took much longer than originally anticipated.

So what are the lessons learnt from my experiences and numerous other case studies?  Well, there is an interesting piece in 'Strategy Bites Back', in a chapter by Karl Weick, under the heading 'Strategy is Culture is Strategy'.  He suggests that there is a common set of issues in organisations that some choose to call culture and others choose to call strategy.  Having considered my experiences as well as the case studies, I am now firmly of the opinion that culture is an emergent property of a highly complex organisational system and is usually deeply-rooted, i.e. difficult to change.  Strategy, or more specifically a strategic plan, contains goals that haven't been achieved but exist as aspirations.  So we have a deeply-rooted culture that firmly exists, coming together with strategic aspirations that have yet to be realised.  Well, that says it all doesn't it?  They just better be compatible with each other, otherwise as sure as eggs are eggs........

"Culture eats strategy for breakfast."

!!!!

  

Armchair Activist

In many countries, such as the UK, there appears to be a growing disillusionment with politicians and the political process.  Much of the problem is as a result of a lack of trust in politicians and a perception that they are more interested in their own agendas rather than the issues affecting the people who they represent.  There are also two key factors that impact on the effectiveness of national democracies, namely the limits of geographic jurisdiction and the timescales of the tenure of elected government posts.

Here are two examples of issues affecting all inhabitants of this planet where, in my opinion, national governments are almost powerless.  Distribution of wealth is a major issue.  The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.  If, for example, a national government decides to introduce a wealth tax to try to address this problem, those affected could simply transfer their wealth to more 'wealth friendly' countries - hence the existence of tax havens.  So the geographic jurisdiction of national governments affects their ability to tackle a major inequality in society.  The second example is climate change.  Clearly individual countries can reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide.  But as we all know, effective remedial action for climate change will take many years and a lot longer than the duration of any democratically elected government.  So what incentive is there for any government to spend money trying to tackle climate change when there are no immediate benefits?  From a politician's point of view, time, effort and money would be better spent on activities that would help his or her re-election.

So the disillusionment in politics coupled with the growth in social media, has led to more and more people communicating their concerns on the Internet - Armchair Activists.  As well as obvious platforms like Twitter and Facebook there are sites dedicated to fighting popular causes, like Avaaz, 38 degrees and Change.org.  So starting a petition or signing an existing petition with millions of others has never been easier.  Does this mean that direct action, like street rallies, is going to become a thing of the past?  I don't think so and indeed, I see exciting new ways of democratically and peacefully bringing about change.

People might be becoming more disillusioned with politics but that doesn't mean there is apathy towards important issues affecting society at international, national and local levels.  Yesterday, I joined a rally at our local beach, which has recently and controversially had its management transferred from the local council to a private company.  You might wonder what's wrong with that particularly when outsourcing of many services is employed by national governments to improve efficiency.  I accept outsourcing can be beneficial in some cases, particularly where there are 'economies of scale'.  However, in this particular case, the idyllic beach in South West Turkey, is renowned for being one of the most important breeding areas for loggerhead turtles.  It is unspoilt and the fear is that privatisation could eventually lead to environmental damage to one of the few remaining untouched coastal areas in the region.  Private companies are, after all, concerned with maximising the returns on their shareholders' investments, which means looking for ways to increase revenues whilst reducing operating costs.  I don't think I need to describe any nightmare scenarios that might come about.  Just take a look at what's happened to many idyllic spots in Turkey and the Mediterranean countries where uncontrolled development for tourism has been allowed.  The rally that I attended was held at the end of a 24/7 occupation of the beach by activists, which has been called off following a court order suspending the private company's take over of the site.

Clearly this issue has not yet been finally resolved to the satisfaction of the activists but it is a good example of how Armchair Activism has worked hand-in-hand with the front-line protesters.  Apart from the use of Twitter and Facebook for communication, a petition has been launched on Avaaz, which has drawn in local, national and international support.  I would suggest that none of the progress made thus far would have been possible if it had been left to the local political machine.  So maybe we are seeing the evolution of a new form of democracy.

Power to the People!

Changing Your Mental Models

The best description of mental models that I've come across, comes from The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge:

"Mental models are deeply ingrained assumptions, generalisations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action.  Very often we are not consciously aware of our mental models or the effects they have on our behaviour."

So mental models are the 'spectacles' that shape our view of the situations that we encounter in our day-to-day experiences of life.  Mental models provide an explanation as to why different people can view the same situation in completely different ways and why the well-worn expression "perception is reality" is pertinent.  For example, a family wakes up on a winter's morning to see a thick blanket of snow everywhere from an unexpected overnight snowstorm.  Dad might suffer from panic thinking about how he has to clear the snow from the driveway to get his car out of the garage, the anticipated slow journey to the railway station and the possible disruption on the railways affecting his journey to work.  The kids, on the other hand, will treat the conditions with happiness, hoping that their school will be closed, but whatever, they will spend as much time as possible tobogganing and generally messing about in the wintry paradise.  There are two completely different views of the same situation based on individualistic mental models.

Is it possible to change mental models?  Well in the previous example, it is quite possible that when the kids reach adulthood they might have the same pressures as their father and so a wintry, snowy morning could turn from excitement to a hindrance, but very often models don't change easily.  Here's a real example from my own life.  I have always pictured the months of the year positioned around a clock face.  After all, there are twelve hours on a clock face and twelve months in a year, so it's a good fit, isn't it?  You would expect 1 o'clock to be January, 2 o'clock to be February........11 o'clock to be November, 12 o'clock to be December.  However, my mental model of the months of the year is different from the expected.  12 o'clock is January, 6 o'clock is August.  February through to July are evenly spaced between 2 o'clock to 5 o'clock.  September through to December are evenly spaced between 7 o'clock and 11 o'clock.  I believe my adoption of this model dates back to my early years at primary school and because I know it is an illogical model, I have tried to change it.  I even produced a sketch of a clock face with the months of the year in their correct positions - January 1, February 2, etc - and placed it on my desk so I would look at it everyday, but it hasn't worked!  The old model keeps coming back in my mind.  I think there might be a 'rationale' for the origins of my model.  There are three school terms - September to December, January to March, April to July.  The hottest month in the UK where I went to school, is August.  The coldest month is January.  So the hottest month is 'due South' on the clock face and the coldest month is 'due North'.  It is a shorter journey on the clock from summer to winter, than from winter to summer, which probably reflects how the passage of time felt to me in my youth.  So there we have it, a mental model that certainly doesn't make sense to me now, even if it did when I was a child, but I can't seem to change it easily.

What worries me about my personal experiment is that whereas that particular mental model is harmless, because it doesn't affect my relationship with others, there are many mental models that we all have, which when in conflict with others, can be harmful.  Religious and political views are two obvious examples.  The resolutions of conflicts affecting society depend on changing mental models. Let's take the example of climate change.  There are those who believe mankind's emission of carbon dioxide is producing global warming and therefore climate change.  There are others who do not believe that is the case.  I happen to be in the former category and I have a mental model against which I judge any arguments that are given for and against my view of what we're doing wrong.  It's no surprise that I have not been swayed by any climate change deniers.

So how do we make progress when we all have different 'pictures' of reality?  Maybe a first step is to recognise that we all have different realities and therefore we have a mental database of opinions, but not facts.  If our opinion is at odds with someone else's opinion then we should explore ways to gain consensus, but realise that to achieve a 'hearts and minds' consensus, mental models have to change.  There is no point reluctantly agreeing.

Finally and returning to my clock of the months of the year, I have accepted the premise that my current model doesn't make sense even though I am experiencing difficulty changing it, but I will keep trying.  That said, I am in good company because in the words of Albert Einstein:

"To break a mental model is harder than splitting an atom."

No wonder it's difficult!