How Cricket Australia bounced back from defeat

By Anthony O’Brien

 

For many sports fans and members of the media, 24 March 2018 is a day that will forever live in infamy for Australian cricket.

To recap, Australia was playing a crucial test in Cape Town, South Africa, and the locals were on top. To try and stem the flow of runs, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft hatched a plan to use sandpaper on the red ball to help it swing. Simply put, a swinging cricket ball is harder to hit or can increase the chances of getting unwary batsmen out. The bottom line, whether you take sandpaper, dirt, or Brylcreem to a ball, is that it’s a form of cheating. In other words, it’s just not cricket.

After a couple of false starts, the game’s peak body Cricket Australia (CA) accepted the behaviour of Warner, Bancroft, and skipper Steve Smith, who appeared to condone the ball-tampering by his inaction, was unacceptable. The trio were given lengthy suspensions. Cricket Australia Chairman, David Peever said at the time, “The CA Board understands and shares the anger of fans and the broader Australian community about these events.”

CA CEO and former professional cricketer, Kevin Roberts, admits the national game found itself in this parlous predicament because, “cricket’s part of the fabric of our culture”. Roberts took over as the boss of Australian cricket in October 2018.

To provide some perspective about how important the red ball game is for Australians, Roberts compares the national cricket team, which is famous for its Baggy Green cricket cap, to the mighty All Blacks of New Zealand. “From a cultural perspective, cricket is a national sport just as rugby is New Zealand’s national sport.”

Before working in cricket full time, Roberts had about 20 years in sports sponsorship working with the likes of Adidas and Kiwi sportswear giant Canterbury. He continues, “When people see an example of the spirit of cricket not necessarily being demonstrated in the national sport that’s part of our nation’s culture, it becomes a big issue.”

The long and challenging journey that CA has travelled in the past two years offers a fascinating case study in organisational culture for leaders in all industries.

 

CRICKET AUSTRALIA’S RESPONSE TO CAPE TOWN

In April 2018, CA commissioned the Ethics Centre to conduct an independent review into cultural, organisational and governance issues in cricket following the Cape Town ball-tampering scandal. The evaluation aimed to establish a charter setting out standards for improved player behaviour and expectations of the Australian men’s national side.

The review featured a panel of past and present players including national test captains Tim Paine and Rachael Haynes, who was deputising for the legendary Meg Lanning. Others on the panel included former internationals Shane Watson and George Bailey, the world’s best fast bowler Pat Cummins and men’s team coach, Justin Langer. Also an Ethics Centre survey garnered responses from 450 CA executives and employees, current and former players, state and territory association staff, and representatives from sponsor and media organisations.

Running parallel to this process was an examination of team conduct contributing to the events in South Africa. There has been a perception among some sections of the community that the Baggy Greens were arrogant. However, the bubble created by regular test and cup wins tended to paper over the cracks.

Despite the community cynicism, CA has responded decisively to the Cape Town fiasco, which is a credit to the leadership of Roberts, who joined the CA Board in 2012 before switching to executive roles from 2015. Unenviably, Roberts was in the CEO’s chair when the Ethics Centre released its 145-page report outlining 42 recommendations for CA’s consideration. Roberts recalled, “By the time I came into the CEO role, it was time to release the findings, and more importantly to get cracking on its implementation.”

While there was a mixed response to the report’s release, what struck Roberts was, “how isolated incidents had affected people who were on the receiving end of it”. For instance, the report asserts, “We have (also) been told of groundsmen (who) have been required to prepare practice pitches – spending time and effort only to see an elite bowler send down only seven deliveries before reaching the mandated ‘quota’ – and therefore stopping.

“This kind of behaviour speaks of gross disrespect to those who are not natives of the ‘gilded bubble’.”

While that might be an isolated incident, Roberts determined to consider how people were affected, either positively or negatively, through their interactions with cricket. As a result, the new CEO and his team released a cultural change program focused across three categories – people, high performance, and leadership.

 

HARVARD CONTRIBUTES TO CRICKET LEADERSHIP

CA launched a leadership program in 2019, which is a tailored version of a world-leading program from Harvard University, explains Roberts. Around 40 executives, senior managers, Paine and limited-overs skipper Aaron Finch, as well as coaches took the program, and are now collaborating on developing CA’s leadership culture. “We’re on that journey together, which is fantastic,” Roberts said.

Additionally, CA established the Australian Cricket Leadership Team in late 2018. This group includes the CEOs of each of the state and territory cricket associations. “This team acknowledges that cricket operates through a federal structure as opposed to a corporate hierarchy, and it was about spreading the leadership through that broader cricket ecosystem.”

Since Cape Town there has been a significant turnover of CA’s executive team, including the notable resignation of long-term CEO James Sutherland. Former Hyundai executive Scott Grant joined the peak body as COO. Like Roberts, the new operations supremo is no cricket blowin, and moonlights as the president of Bankstown Cricket Club, where the famous Waugh twins played. Roberts, who also scored runs for Bankstown, said, “We’ve got Drew Ginn, the former member of the Oarsome Foursome [Olympic Games winning] rowing team. He’s working with the states and territories to develop the next generation of talent.” Also, Ben Oliver, who was working for the Western Australian Cricket Association, is now responsible for the national teams. “So, there’s been some development among our leaders themselves as well,” Roberts adds.

 

PITCHING THE MEDIA TENT

CA has put 100 managers through a cultural change program. “We’ve also identified the need to improve the nature of communication inside and outside the organisation,” Roberts said. This project includes establishing a new internal communications platform aimed at creating closer links throughout the organisation. CA has also implemented new forums for all staff to ask questions or raise issues directly with management, in a safe environment.

Additionally, Roberts and his team have improved communication with relevant stakeholders, such as the media. To this end, CA has increased media training for its leadership and players. “We are making an extra effort to bring the media into the tent and to be open with them,” said Roberts. “The cricket media are great storytellers in the game, and so we must embrace their role.”

 

HIGH PERFORMANCE: THE PLAYERS ARE DOING THEIR BIT

Under the affable men’s test captain Paine and the approachable limited-overs men’s skipper Finch, Australian cricket teams have made decent strides in reconnecting with the public. Paine for example, has introduced a pre-game handshake between the Australians and their opponents, which seems to have gone down well with the cricketing community. “The men worked together with the Australian women’s team on a players pact. Put simply, they aspired to make Australians proud in everything that they do as players,” explained Roberts. “We worked with the players to define what we stand for and agreed our goal will always be to win because it’s a professional sport.

Kevin Roberts - Cricket Australia CEO“But our non-negotiable expectation is to compete with respect. It’s not just about winning – it’s also about how we go about it.” That said, the test team’s magnificent retention of the Ashes for the first time in England since 2001 is a significant fillip for the game in Australia. Particularly given it followed just a few weeks after the Australian women’s team secured an outstanding Ashes series win on English soil too.

The proof is in the pudding for the image of Australian cricket, with the men’s cricket team not earning a single code of conduct charge in the 2018–19 season. This result was a first clean sheet in eight years for the prickly Baggy Greens, who have been notorious for aggressive sledging of their opponents. At the same time, Roberts points to the redemptive journey ‘best-since Bradman’ Steve Smith has undertaken since Cape Town. The former skipper visited many schools around Australia during his enforced absence from the Australian cricket team. “Steve Smith had a profound positive impact on several school children by having the courage to open up and talk about his experience as a leader during and beyond the Cape Town situation,” offered Roberts. “So that’s where the players are fantastic, in opening their hearts, telling their stories and I guess embracing the vulnerabilities. That’s what is connecting with the public.”

However, deep wounds will always take time to fully heal. A recent Roy Morgan poll indicated that the Australian public’s distrust in cricket is higher than any other sport. Although a level of distrust continues, there is some good news. Women’s cricket continues to provide a boost to the overall image of the sport with higher trust than distrust, according to Roy Morgan. Roberts comments, “We want cricket to be a sport for everyone, not a sport for some. That means embracing gender diversity, embracing cultural diversity and all other forms of diversity.” To celebrate diversity, CA is aiming to set a world record at the T-20 Women’s World Cup final on 8 March 2020 for attendance at a women’s sporting event. The final will be held at the mighty MCG, which seats around 100,000 and will take place during International Women’s Day.

 

ROBERTS THE BUSINESS SKIPPER

As a leader, the humble former NSW batsman Roberts says, “It’s more for others to have a view on my leadership style, but… I seek to be people-focused and to develop deep relationships with stakeholders.”

Roberts admits to presenting a straight bat when faced with difficult decisions. “I make the hard decisions required of a leader. While I try to do so in a way that shows respect for people, I must accept that people won’t always feel good about the decisions or the way I managed them. I’d like to think I demonstrate courage in leading from the front when we face issues so that our people can get on with making a difference.”

 

This article originally appeared in the December 2019 print edition of Leadership Matters, IML ANZ’s exclusive Member’s magazine. For editorial suggestions and enquiries, please contact karyl.estrella@managersandleaders.com.au.

Is nudge management the key to overcoming change resistance?

Business and change are inextricable. But just because it’s common doesn’t mean successful business change is easy. As humans, we naturally resist the new and novel. We will fight or flee from anything unfamiliar, especially if it presents a considerable shift from what we know. However, recent studies reveal that small, subtle suggestions are making huge impacts in changing behaviours.

 

Effective, optional suggestions

A technique often attributed to making easier, faster, and simpler choices, nudging isn’t new.  We see examples of it every day. Your alarm is a nudge, so is the default renewal of subscriptions, even the ‘low fat’ labels on food are nudges.

The reason why nudges are effective relates to the fact that you are free to ‘follow’ the push or not. You have a choice. For example, GPS directions are a nudge, but how often do we stick to the exact route provided?

One of the most publicised examples of successful nudge management involves the reduction of fuel consumption by Virgin Atlantic pilots. In the aviation industry, pilots – particularly the captain – enjoy much autonomy when it comes to decisions that involve fuel and the flight. The experiment saw how nudges had an impact on the behaviour of captains. By simply informing the captains that their fuel consumption will be monitored and requesting them to report on their fuel performance, the airline saved $5.4 million in fuel.

Perhaps the experiment was highly effective since it avoided making fuel reduction a ‘mandatory’ requirement for pilots. Instead, it preserved the pilot’s sense of autonomy while making subtle suggestions about improving fuel consumption levels. The change didn’t seem out of their control.

 

Nudging the right way

So what about when it comes to managing change in the workplace? Can nudge management help? If we think about the top reasons for resisting change, nudge management does provide an ideal counter:

  • Fear of losing control: As demonstrated with the Virgin Atlantic experiment, the liberty-preserving aspect of nudges could make them an effective way to start changing behaviour.
  • Concerns about the unknown: The most effective nudges present a benefit upfront. You could suggest an action to simplify a process, help others make healthier choices or ensure their safety (as with speed limits, for example). No one enjoys coercion.
  • Insecurity over reputation: In some change scenarios, people may feel that the shift is occurring because they failed and were ineffective. One type of nudge – the use of social norms – can address this. By confirming that the majority of colleagues feel positive about change (or want to see change occur), that lifts the pressure on the people who may feel personally responsible.

 

While nudge management is a great tactic to use when implementing change, it’s prudent to remember that it is just one of many. Plus, the most successful examples of using nudges to influence change have involved ‘behavioural change’. Structural changes, for instance, may not be as adequately covered by nudge management.

Change is complex. Resistance is only one of the many challenges that accompany any shift from the norm. Every organisation, team and individual will face unique hurdles in their transformation journey. Great leaders will analyse the specific needs of their team or organisation and consider whether nudge management is a tool they can use.

 

 

Building trust in an age of disruption

By Dr Mathew Donald

 

The age of disruption may be characterised as an environment that is fast-paced, uncertain and risky. This new environment emerged from globalisation, aided by technology and trade interconnectivity, whilst facilitated by social media and the internet. A simple presidential tweet, or small change in a trade war is now transmitted instantly around the world, without necessarily any verification, analysis or investigation. This unfiltered and immediate nature of information may contribute to instability and confusion for staff and stakeholders. Leaders may not be able to control the external environment, yet through explanation, influence and engagement, leaders may be able to effectively reduce the stress and worry that results from disruption.

 

The interplay of trust and successful change

Leadership is influence. It can generate a willingness or inspiration to follow. Staff do not automatically listen and follow leaders irrespective of the environment, as they need trust as a precursor. If there is low trust in leaders, their messages may not be heard nor believed. It has long been recognised that trust is an element of leadership. Recent research now indicates that trust is also closely related to organisational change success. In a future disruption environment, change is likely to be constant and the need for trust is heightened, so future leaders will likely require excellent skills in communicating, explaining and involving staff in associated change.

Leaders set strategy, direction and plans to inform and influence their teams. The strategy and planning process is designed to signal a way forward, provide context and alignment across a whole array of staff and stakeholders. When new data and information emerge quickly, leaders could be under pressure to react to new advances, new information or developments. The risks in this scenario is where there is a high prospect of leaders regularly reversing and overriding past decisions. Reacting quickly may be just as risky as delaying decisions in disruption and the competition may react before accurate information or analysis emerges.

 

How disruption erodes trust

The changing nature of disruption creates new challenges as leaders will continue to attempt to build trust by delivering on past promises despite the change around them. Organisations will find it impossible to move forward if the leader is not able to ensure that they are believable and worth following. Imagine if a leader offers a pay rise, only to later discover that their cost of inputs has been altered significantly by a new tariff. Imagine a leader who announced a new acquisition but soon discovers that a new technology has completely eliminated the business value.  Sudden change that alters decisions are part of a disruptive world. So leaders of the future will need to explain changes, risk and uncertainty with their teams in order to prepare for disruption.

 

Leaders must be ready to respond

In an uncertain environment, leaders will need to explain the fast pace, the uncertainty and risk regularly. Failure to do this adequately will likely lead to staff confusion, or blame toward the leader for not controlling the situation. Staff will appreciate regular and open communication on disruption, even when they do not like the described environment. Communication is such an important part of leadership, a factor that is likely to be more important with constant change, so the new leader will need to be cognisant of various communication forms, language styles, formats and regularity. Leadership communication may even be so regular that staff may be included as partners or advisors, rather than merely as subordinates. Leaders will require efficient, effective and regular communication in order to build trust, those unable or unwilling to operate this way may fail to move an organisation forward with the speed required. The leader of the future will likely be comfortable in explaining the new environment and changes, whilst building teams that are resilient to multiple options and decisions despite any ongoing risk or uncertainty.


Dr Mathew Donald specialises in leadership, management and organisational change and has more than 35 years of business experience. He is the principal of Dr Mat – The organisational Health Doctor ™, available globally for consulting, mentoring and presentations. He is also the author of “Leading and managing change in the age of disruption and artificial intelligence” (Emerald $USD 100.00).

Effective change starts with failure

By Richard Shrapnel FIML

 

Because no one likes to fail, we’ve created many ‘feel-good’ sayings about it. However, most of us take these so-called clichés with a grain of salt. But in business, leaders must pay attention to their attitude toward failure – it could hold the key to success.

So, how does your business consider failure?

 

Non-compliance is not failure

Let’s define failure at the outset. Failure has nothing to do with non-compliance. And by non-compliance, I mean not upholding business values, policies, procedures – the set ways which everyone knows the business requires one to act. That’s not failure. That’s breaking the rules; and appropriate sanctions should be applied and enforced. Non-compliance is an issue of discipline, and all business must uphold discipline.

Failure is trying something new, untested, experimenting, stretching the business’s capability to a new level but not reaching the ‘hoped-for’ outcome.

I draw this distinction as many businesses around the world get caught up in not meeting appropriate standards, whether they be internal to the business or external through regulation and even customer expectations. These outcomes are often described as failures, where they are better-considered non-compliance.

Failure should be encouraged whereas, non-compliance should not be tolerated.

 

Failing forward

Success and profitability rely on a business’s ability to outcompete all others in its chosen marketplace. And that means being able to deliver greater value to customers than your competitors today and importantly tomorrow.

Stepping out, evolving, reinventing and creating are some of the descriptors I would use to flag the type of behaviours that a business must immerse itself in to be competitive. If a business simply continues with what worked in the past, then there will become a time when their customers’ needs and their competitors’ capabilities have all moved on, and they are left behind.

This ability to continually evolve requires the practice of trying, failing, retrying and continuing to learn from each step taken. Then incorporate those learnings into the value that you deliver to your customers.

 

Barriers to failing

There are many barriers that exist within a business that will prevent it from failing and taking those learnings forward, but they can all be traced back to the business’s attitude to failure.

In many businesses, failure is spelt ‘your fault’, and it is often swept under the carpet or passed around when it occurs. Such an attitude is anti-change and counter-growth. Everyone wants to be associated with the successful project, and no one had anything to do with the failure. Failure can be a source of fear – real fear – but should it be feared?

Material losses can be incurred by businesses where a fear of failure is prevalent. This fear seeds a blame culture leading to denial, no ownership, and a lack of oversight and accountability. Failures may well be hidden where fear is prevalent, and losses escalated rather than mitigated.

There can be no learnings where fear exists as no one will want to be associated with or recall the project nor its lessons.

So what attitude should a business seek to develop when it comes to failure. Well, there are, I believe, two aspects:

  • We are an innovative and growing business, so experimentation is part of who we must be.
  • Failures will occur and will be acknowledged with humility, acceptance and learning.

 

Honestly, doesn’t something only become a failure if you abandon all the learnings and hope for the future? The attitude you create and sustain in your business must uphold the right attitude towards failure. And do not allow failure to become a political tool within the business.

 

How leaders should handle failure

The way leaders act with respect to failure will set the role model for everyone else in the business to follow. Failure is a test of and testament to the character of leaders. How leaders handle their failures and those of fellow leaders and colleagues speaks volumes to their character and motive. You should listen carefully to what it says as it will identify the worthy leaders in your business.

Leaders will need to develop humility as a core character trait if they are to build a business that grows and can outcompete everyone else in their market. Humility is the character trait that allows you to listen and learn most effectively, and that is a trait you want in your business’s DNA.

The trait you do not want in your business is self-interest. Self-interest will undermine your individual and your business’s success. If you are always putting yourself first, then no one else will be uplifted, and that uplifting of others is essential for growth.

The right people, in the right places with the right attitude, is essential to the growth and enduring success of your business.

How your business views and approaches failure is a cornerstone to its ability to deliver greater value to your customers every day. Allow the wrong attitude to take hold, and your business will stagnate. Seed, feed and flourish the right attitude, and growth will never be an issue.

Richard Shrapnel is a business strategist, advisor and speaker. He is a Fellow of IML ANZ.

Using plastics to save the environment

By Nicola Field | Photo by Anna Rogers

 

FNQ Plastics is a custom fabrication specialist with an environmental focus and an end goal of reducing waste into landfills. Lesley Van Staveren is quick to point out that the products they sell are either made from recycled plastic or can themselves be recycled.

“We’re educating people that plastic is a good material if it’s used in the right way,” she says, noting that the HDPE tanks sold by the business can be recycled into surprisingly diverse products such as decking or privacy screens.

 

ECO-FRIENDLY OFFICE

As the 2017 Cairns Businesswoman of the Year, Van Staveren brings her eco-friendly approach to the workplace. “We don’t have any single-use products in the office,” she explains. Even employee bonuses are handed out in re-usable keep-cups and, not surprisingly, the entire FNQ Plastics team shares Van Staverens’ passion.

“We have a very strong team, with a pro-active culture where opinions are shared, and everyone gets involved,” she says.

 

BECOMING WASTE WISE

Living on the doorstep of Australia’s iconic Great Barrier Reef has played a role in Van Staveren’s commitment to recycling and waste reduction. “When people see the devastating impact of waste on this pristine environment, they want to have a voice,” she notes.

It’s this voice that Van Staveren is bringing to her community.

A little more than two years ago, she set up the Cairns Committee for Waste Reduction, galvanising locals to get involved. “I picked up the phone and contacted different interest groups, businesses, and people to gather a broad cross-section of ideas,” Van Staveren recalls.

A year later, the Committee is having a big impact at a grassroots level. “We provide workshops, help businesses become waste wise, and later this year we’ll host an awards ceremony to recognise waste wise enterprises.”

 

AN EQUAL PARTNERSHIP

With three children aged under five, Van Staveren admits she couldn’t manage her hectic schedule alone, and it’s the strong, equal partnership she shares with her husband that makes it all possible. But Van Staveren isn’t content to rest on her laurels.

The couple are hoping to open a plastics recycling plant. With an estimated cost of A$4 million it’s an ambitious project, however initial funding under the federal Regional Jobs Investment Package has allowed some early research to go ahead, and now it’s a case of watch this space.

A commitment to sustainability has allowed Van Staveren to build a strong team and a healthy business while also giving back to the community she loves. But what of those raised eyebrows when she mentions she owns a plastics business? “It’s certainly a conversation starter,” Van Staveren laughs. “But it also brings the human element back to the issue of recycling – and that’s a good thing.”

Resilient Porters seizes its opportunity

By Lachlan Colquhoun

 

If only he could know it, Charles Porter would be delighted that a sixth generation of his family is now working in the hardware stores which bear his name in Mackay.

Porter’s business was born of necessity and then opportunity. He arrived in the North Queensland town in the early 1880s to build a hotel and found there were virtually no building products available.

So he transported what he needed from Europe, Brisbane and Sydney by boat, and once the hotel was built he stayed behind and founded the Porter’s hardware supply business.

135 years later, Porters Hardware and Building Supplies is a fixture in Mackay but despite its longevity and strong local roots, it hasn’t always been easy for the business to thrive.

 

A BOOMING SECTOR

In fact, as Managing Director Gavan Porter (Senior) Corporate member of IML ANZ puts it, the business is only now coming out of a “perfect storm” of a volatile boom and bust cycle which severely tested its resilience.

“We’ve been through two World Wars, the Great Depression and credit squeezes, but the past four years we had a big contraction with the resource sector downturn. It was brutal,” says Gavan (Senior).

“Most of the contractions have historically been 12 to 18 months. This one went on for four years.”

However, back in the early 2000s Mackay was growing rapidly as a service centre for the resources industry. Multinational companies set up business in the city for the first time and the population increased sharply.

It created a building boom that was good news for the Porter business, where trade comprises 80% of turnover, including the company’s manufacturing divisions, which fabricate aluminium and glass products as well as roof trusses and wall frames.

The boom in Mackay also attracted the attention of bigger national hardware players. Woolworths’ failed Masters chain opened up a store, and market leader Bunnings added a second Mackay store in response.

Porters were also not the only independent operator. They had for decades been in competition with another Mackay family, the Woodmans, who had allied themselves with the Mitre 10 buying and marketing group and had a strong retail and trade presence.

“We went from one ‘big box’ store operated by Bunnings to three in total including Masters, and Woodmans had the advantage of being part of Mitre 10 with their resources,” says Gavan Porter (Junior) CMgr AFIML, who is the company’s CFO.

“There might have been room for everyone during this extraordinary growth period, but then the downturn hit.”

 

SURVIVING THE DOWNTURN

As the economy ground to a halt, the mines made employment cuts and 9,000 jobs were lost across the resources sector supply chain.

With people now leaving Mackay to find work elsewhere, new home building approvals slumped by 90%.

“This was all very new to us, because Mackay had always been a steady growth sugar and coal town,” says Gavan (Senior).

“But after all that growth, the market collapsed, and Mackay collapsed with it. It went off a cliff.”

For the first time, Porters was forced to downsize and initiate staff redundancies; a difficult process for a company where the family ethos often extended to employees.

Out of the downturn, however, an opportunity presented itself.

 

ENDING THE FAMILY FEUD

“With our external advisors we created a strategic plan in 2015 and one of the parts of that was the option of regional consolidation,” says Gavan (Junior).

“In the downturn it was clear that there were too many players in the market and the only way to survive was consolidation.”

A conversation was “struck up” with the Woodman family about a “way forward” for both family businesses, and an amicable deal was made for the Woodmans to exit the hardware supply market in Mackay and sell their retail stores to the Porters.

“It was great for two such staunch independent competitors, who had been competing in the same market against each other for decades, to come to an agreement,” says Gavan (Senior).

“It was clear that the market was very tough and there had to be an exit of one of us and they agreed to exit.”

The deal worked for both companies, and families.

The Woodmans kept other manufacturing businesses in Mackay such as aluminium and glass fabrication, roofing, and roof truss and wall frame manufacturing, where they still compete with the Porters.

That deal gave the Porters a network of stores that spanned not only Mackay and its surrounds but also extended to the Whitsunday region.

The acquisition gave Porters more stores and removed a longstanding competitor, but also introduced them to a new, and powerful, partner in the Mitre 10 group. A new licensing agreement was reached, and the company now trades as Porter’s Mitre 10.

“Mitre 10 was also a good move for us,” says Gavan (Senior). “They are a strong buying group and we needed to buy better to compete against bigger players.”

 

STRIKING UP A GOOD PARTNERSHIP

Just as timing played a role in the severity of the downturn, so it worked in the Porter’s favour in terms of Mitre 10’s own competitive position.

With the demise of Masters, Woolworths also put its wholesale hardware distribution business up for sale, and it was purchased by Mitre 10.

The move transformed the national market and made Mitre 10 Australia’s second biggest player in the hardware sector next to Bunnings.

Such was the timing that Porters went from being an independent player in an overcrowded market to being a strong second placed rival to Bunnings, with the advantage of being able to leverage Mitre 10’s brand name, buying power and marketing.

“They are the strongest partner you can have if you are an independent owner,” says Gavan (Senior). “We have always been strong in trade, but Mitre 10 is a powerhouse brand which has helped us continue to reach a retail target audience.

“And going forward we are able to use some of their benchmarking capabilities to understand where we are compared with our peers, and we’ve already been out to have a look at some of the bigger stores in the group, and this is something they encourage.”

Eight months after the deal, the acquisition is still being bedded down just as the market conditions are showing signs of improvement.

To prepare for the expansion, the Porters created an implementation plan across eight different areas of the business, from facilities management to IT and HR. Focus groups of employees, the number of which has increased by 25% to 250 across the group, were held to review and reset the firm’s culture.

The result has been the definition of five key criteria which will be ingredients of the culture moving forward: focusing on performance delivery, being driven by customer outcomes, valuing relationships, keeping everyone safe, and having fun at work. “We’ve got a way to go but we believe we are on the right track,” says Gavan (Senior).

“We’ve broadened our base, increased our trade and retail presence, and expanded our geographic footprint.

“As the economy improves we believe this will give us a solid platform.”

 

BUSINESS WITH A FAMILY FLAVOUR

The resilience of the Porter’s business, says Gavan Porter (Senior), has come from the company’s financial and management discipline which has helped it adapt to change.

A key to this has been to adopt many public company structures and processes into the way things are done, including the longstanding addition of independent directors onto the company board.

“It was my father who initiated this when he was running the company,” says Gavan (Senior).

“He understood that it had to be about the business, and not the family, and for that we needed that outside and independent perspective.”

Gavan (Senior) has been a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors for many years, and many AICD practices are implemented at board level to create a structure and a discipline.

The company has a relationship with a firm of advisors, with extensive experience in larger family businesses, who played a significant role in creating the strategic plan which identified the consolidation opportunity and led to the Woodman’s acquisition.

“We have all the structures of a listed public company, but with a family flavour,” says Gavan (Senior).

The Porters joined the Institute of Managers and Leaders Australia and New Zealand in 1956, as they sought to keep up with changes and trends to incorporate into their business.

Gavan (Junior) has been on the local IML ANZ committee for the past five years and has pursued a qualification as a Chartered Manager. “Leadership and management is very important to me, and we have such a large staff now that I find it invaluable to share current ideas and thinking,” he says.

Digital innovation primer: Part five – Cybersecurity

By Craig Baty FIML

 

For our final article in this series on digital transformation for non-technical leaders, we’ll look at Cybersecurity. In last week’s article we saw how AI and robots will increasingly work alongside us to augment our capabilities, now it’s time to think about the elements we need to protect in this constantly connected world.

 

The evolution of security

 

What used to be called computer security is now most commonly called cybersecurity. The change in terminology reflects the evolution from discrete to interconnected computer systems. It is only since computers have been connected to each other that issues around protecting them from unwanted intrusion become prominent.

 

Cybersecurity has many parts, from the protection of individual devices to the protection of the enterprise and even the nation state. One important aspect is identity and access management, a range of technologies intended to ensure that only validated individuals have access to the appropriate levels of information. Identity management systems are now being implemented at the national level with the increasing popularity of e-government systems. Many identity management systems include a biometric component, using voice or facial recognition, fingerprints, and other distinctive physical attributes to verify and identify individuals.

 

Keeping enterprise information safe

 

The term Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) is increasingly being used to describe the range of techniques and technologies employed to ensure that enterprise information systems are secured from outside interference. Such interference can come from individuals, organised crime groups, other enterprises, or even nation states. They can be motivated by political, economic and national security policies, revenge, mischief and thrill-seeking in the case of individuals, or by financial advantage in the case of access to proprietary information.

 

SIEM systems are the fastest-growing and most important product area in Cybersecurity. They have three major components:

  • Data collection: Gathering data about system activity from syslogs, firewalls, application monitors, and operating system and network traffic logs.
  • Data analysis: Log management and retention, event correlation, user activity monitoring, and predictive and forensic analysis.
  • Reporting: Real-time dashboard alerts, email and SMS with alerts, analytical reporting, auditing and governance, and compliance.

 

Cyber-safety beyond borders

 

Cybersecurity is increasingly important to governments, where it is now an area of active international conflict. Cyber warfare is a reality, with nation states (and sponsored terrorists/black-hats) as perpetrators as well as victims. Most countries now have national cybersecurity centres, drawing on the capabilities of private industry, government and academic specialists in the area.

 

Cybersecurity is a constant battle of changing technology. There are many excellent point solutions, a range of comprehensive suites and a large services and systems integration industry that provide clients with cybersecurity solutions based on a range of products. However malicious players are constantly employing new techniques and technologies. It is a new arms race, a new cold war and there is no one size fits all solution.

 

Leaders at all levels need to arm themselves with enough knowledge to understand these threats and work with appropriate organisations to develop and implement individual, corporate and community plans for mitigating negative impacts.

 

Digital transformation – why you should care

 

Join us in Sydney where Craig will present an informative and insightful TEL Talk: Digital Transformation – Why should I care? This brief primer on Digital Transformation will address:

 

  • What is Digital Transformation and why is it important for today’s leader?
  • What are the key technologies and processes to be aware of?
  • How have these technologies been used to create truly transformative business outcomes?
  • As a leader, how can you prepare yourself for an increasingly digitalised future?

Craig Baty is Principal and Founder of Technology & Management Services (TMS), which specialises in research-based data-driven thought leadership and consulting for ICT strategy, outsourcing, vendor management, go-to-market execution, and market and competitive intelligence. TMS also consults on cross-cultural communications and managing virtual teams across multiple geographies. He previously held C-level leadership roles with global telecommunications provider BT (British Telecom), Japanese ICT & technology giant Fujitsu and ICT research and advisory firm Gartner. Craig currently serves as NSW Vice Chair of the Australian Computer Society (ACS) and on the NSW Council of the Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA).

Creating a climate for change: the privacy conundrum

By Annelies Moens CMgr FIML and Chris O’Connor

 

We recently read an illuminating article by Jeff Kluger, editor at large for Time. At its core, it asserts that from a behavioural standpoint, we humans are going to find it very difficult to take action on climate change – until it’s too late. As he put it, “when it comes to the loss of the entire planet, well, we ought to take action. And yet we don’t; we never do.”

Why the widespread inaction?

Kluger rationalises that climate change falls into an ‘ignore-the-problem’ box as it doesn’t fulfil the criteria we need to be motivated to act. The same can be seen in how privacy issues are often treated ­– organisations are sometimes good at predicting future outcomes and identifying risk but fail to understand the relative potential of the risk and ultimately, do nothing about it.

When it comes to taking steps to manage fundamental human and economic rights, such as privacy, many organisations fail to appreciate its significance. Privacy is a building block that leads to the protection of other rights taken for granted in many parts of the world such as autonomy and freedom of expression (no chilling effect). The protection of people’s privacy is fundamental to democracy. Yet it is easily whittled away to the point that individuals no longer have control over their own personal information.

The common folly

The over-collection and misuse of personal information, as well as the ubiquitous number of data breaches, bear a heavy cost on society and business. Think of Facebook’s market capitalisation that dropped US$119 billion after announcing that growth had slowed since the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Equifax and Target’s well-publicised data breaches cost the companies approximately US$300 million each, not including all the indirect costs such as customer churn, loss of trust, identity theft and the illegal sale of personal information.

Despite this, many organisations fail to adopt basic precautions, such as two-factor authentication or minimising collection of unnecessary data points, such as date of birth or deleting data they no longer need for their organisation’s purposes.

Each quarter, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) reports on the causes of data breaches by regulated entities. The majority of data breaches are due to human factors such as falling for phishing attacks, which can be thwarted if secure forms of two-factor or multi-factor authentication are in place. Indeed, half of cyber incidents as the OAIC reported in its most recent quarterly reports were due to phishing attacks.

Despite climate change, data and cyber issues being in the top five likely to occur risks, privacy, like climate change, can be seen as a far-off issue, one that takes a back seat to more immediate and pressing issues. This is a mistake.

To motivate action our knowledge and beliefs must align

What do privacy and climate change lack in fulfilling the required criteria to motivate people to act? Here are some reasons:

  1. They lack the “me” component. As David Ropeik, an international consultant on risk perception and communication, said in the Time article, “Nobody wakes up in the morning and looks at the long-term climate forecast. They ask what the weather is today, where I live, and how it’s going to affect me.”In terms of privacy, the lacklustre response of senior leaders and directors to privacy issues show the failure of leaders to put themselves into the shoes of their customers. They prioritise shareholder primacy and profits over customer privacy (consider Facebook’s response to the privacy scandals) or give primacy to politics (consider the privacy problems surrounding the rollout of the e-health record in Australia).

    It is growing increasingly clear that customer and community values need to be accounted for. It’s not good enough to focus solely on maximising shareholder value, if long-term sustainability is a goal for shareholders (see “Innovate before it’s too late” by Mariana Mazzucato in Company Director pp.12-13, Dec 2018/Jan 2019).

  2. The consequences seem far in the future, so we discount the risk. Paul Slovic (University of Oregon psychologist and the President of Decision Research) said in the Time article, “When it comes to acting on problems, the lure of our current comforts and conveniences will often cause us to act contrary to our values.” When it comes to valuing privacy, numerous studies show that whilst people highly value their privacy, they often don’t take steps to trade it off for other considerations such as convenience. This is known as the Privacy Paradox.
  3. It can be hard to envisage how climate change or a breach of privacy will affect us – personally. What will our lives be like if there are two or three degrees of warming or if our identity is stolen? Ropeik says “if you ask even the most devout climate change believers how they think it’s going to affect them, they often can’t quite describe it”. If you can’t put yourself in the picture, it’ll be easy to ignore.

    Similarly, the nexus between a privacy breach, such as a misuse of your identity and the harm could be years apart. For example, you may only realise the impact of the misuse of your personal information when you can’t get a loan for the house you want to buy. At some point in the past, someone has misused your identity and has defaulted on a loan in your name, often seen in privacy complaints to the OAIC. The damage, in contrast to a plane falling out of the sky, is not instantaneous. Sometimes, we can’t even connect the misuse with the harm that happens down the track.

  4. There is a sense of futility or hopelessness. The inefficacy factor, whereby people think that individual action has no impact particularly on large problems. Slovic says that “we reason that we can curtail things we want to do – like driving or flying, but if other people aren’t going to do it, it’s not going to make any difference.”

    Consider all the information about us held by third parties or in the public domain or what our friends post about us on social media platforms over which we have no control. So, what does it matter if we hand out our personal information again? For example, what does it matter if I keep on handing over my personal data in insecure environments (such as HTTP rather than HTTPS on websites); or when the data is actually not required by the requestor (like a vendor asking for a date of birth when you are purchasing wine online, when all the vendor really needs to know is that you are over 18). In the latter situation, many customers would simply provide a fake date of birth to complete the transaction anyway.

So, what needs to happen to effect change in such scenarios? Let’s restate the conundrum outlined above in the positive:

Seven knowledge and belief statements that must align to get people moving to make changes

  1. I know this will affect me
  2. I can clearly envisage how it will affect me
  3. I am clear about the future consequences of doing nothing
  4. I am willing to make the effort today to make tomorrow better
  5. I feel confident that our actions today will achieve the desired outcomes
  6. I have the support, knowledge and tools to act

The last and most important factor that the Time article does not address is:

  1. Leaders must not just say they are all behind the initiative, they must reflect that commitment in their actions – every day.

Many people are very good at spotting inauthenticity and if they don’t believe their leaders are committed, they won’t be either. Accountability for privacy needs to be at senior leadership levels, with an ability to influence culture and practices organisation-wide.

We are entering an era of social climate change when it comes to privacy, as more and more people are becoming aware of the value of their data and what the impacts are of not managing privacy well. We still, however, have a long way to go to building in privacy by design into organisational processes and systems and making privacy core business.

In terms of climate change, the lack of leadership in some countries is concerning. The stakes are high and in today’s global political (rather than scientific) climate, we’re not even close to getting on the right track to managing our natural resources sustainably.

Is your organisation displaying symptoms of this collective inertia?

The lessons we’re learning on a macro scale about motivation, commitment and action are equally applicable within government, business or not-for-profit. You may recognise the behaviour described above when you consider the last failed initiative within your own organisation. It may have been that people just couldn’t or wouldn’t support it. That there wasn’t the “corporate will” as some call it, to make it happen.

So, for leaders that are starting to realise the significance of making privacy core business and developing privacy management frameworks, we would encourage you to consider the following questions to start assessing your level of privacy maturity:

  • Do we have a clear understanding of the data needed as opposed to the data we would like from our customers and prospects? Can we clearly describe how that will benefit both the organisation and individuals for whom we are their data custodians?
  • Do we know what the result of doing nothing is? Can we quantify the risks of a privacy breach? Can we clearly articulate this? What would be the risks or impacts for the individual and other stakeholders? How would we respond?
  • Is our plan of action credible and can we show that our leadership is united and willing to do the hard yards and realise that data is an asset or a liability depending on how well it is governed or managed?
  • Do we have a clear understanding of what resources staff will need to make change happen? Will they know what to do and how to do it? Can they measure success?

If you can say YES to each of these questions, you’re off to a good start. But it’s not a silver bullet – there are numerous practical issues that will stand in the way (a discussion for another time), however, without commitment and collective action, you have no chance to overcome the inertia.

For more information on introducing privacy management frameworks and privacy maturity models into your organisation, contact Annelies Moens at operations@privcore.com and Chris O’Connor at chris@ock.com.au

Annelies Moens is the managing director of Privcore and Chris O’Connor is the director, practice lead innovation & agility at O’Connor Kingsford.

Leading people through a restructure

A reorganisation within a business can be undertaken for a range of reasons — but understanding how to manage the human element is critical,
no matter why the project has been undertaken.

By Derek Parker  //  Illustrations by Dane Mark

once upon a time, a good manager was seen as one who kept things flowing smoothly and kept everything in its right place. But that era is past. Now the key role of managers – and of leaders – is to initiate, deal with, and consolidate change, in response to rapid movements in the market, disruptive technologies, and intense global competition. Every manager is likely, in the course of his or her career, to go through at least one major corporate reorganisation; most will go through several of them.
The irony is that despite the importance of reorganisations, they are often undertaken without the forethought, care, and deep thinking that they require.

As a result, many reorganisations fail to fully achieve their objectives, according to a recent book, ReOrg: How To Get It Right. The authors, Stephen Heidari-Robinson and Suzanne Heywood, former senior analysts with the respected consulting firm McKinsey, amassed a huge amount of survey data and empirical information as part of their examination, and the picture it presented was not pretty.

“According to our global data, only 16 per cent of corporate reorganisations provided the results they were supposed to, in the time they were supposed to,” Heidari-Robinson told Leadership Matters. “70 per cent delivered some value. In nine per cent of cases, the reorganisation actually damaged the company in the long run.

“Stop for a moment to consider this: Imagine that you learned that less than one-fifth of your product launches, projects, or initiatives had delivered their full objectives, that a significant number had hurt your business, and that the mass in the middle had limited or uncertain value. You would probably conclude that there is a significant scope for improvement – very significant scope.”

Rationale explained

In fact, Heidari-Robinson believes that many company-wide reorganisations are not needed; the problems that need to be addressed could be solved with changes at division or business-unit level. Interestingly, reorganisations implemented by a freshly-appointed leader who brings in organisational change as part of the ‘new order’ of their leadership are very likely to fail. To have a decent chance of success the reorganisation needs to have a clear rationale, measurable benefits, and purposeful strategy.

The most common motive for reorganising is to enable revenue growth (27 per cent), followed by cutting costs (12 per cent), moving to a best-practice model (12 per cent), and bringing change into an organisation that has become too static (10 per cent).

“Across almost all business sectors, the most serious issue is employees’ active resistance to the changes,” says Heidari-Robinson. “Until staff know what the reorg means for them they have no ears for the exciting future of the reorg. They still assume the reorg is about job losses. The leader’s enthusiasm for this change feels discordant and uncaring to them. Leaders should realise that most employees hate these kinds of changes. But they hate secrecy and uncertainty more.”

Most Australian reorgs fail to lift performance

In Australia, according to the annual Salary Guide produced by recruitment firm Hays, about half of companies are currently undergoing or considering some level of restructuring.

“There are countless economic, political and regulatory factors impacting industries, organisations and workforces, as well as the new technologies of the fourth industrial revolution,” says Nick Deligiannis, Managing Director of Hays in Australia & New Zealand. He points to a study by management consulting firm Bain & Company that suggests that fewer than one-third of restructures lead to improved performance.

“We expect the current level of restructuring activity to continue but we also expect that many reorganisations will fail,” he says. “There are many reasons, including an organisation’s leaders not being clear on what they are trying to achieve, failing to plan appropriately, not achieving the buy-in of their staff and not ensuring that change is reflected in the firm’s culture.”

Deligiannis believes that Australian companies perform fairly well when it comes to identifying the people and skillsets that will be needed in the rebuilt organisation, and recruitment of new talent usually starts at an early stage. In fact, a reorganisation can even be an advantage in the war for talent, as it means there are new opportunities and possibilities.

But company leaders are often less adept at working with their existing workforces to provide a rationale and roadmap for change.

“It is very important to align a workforce in response to organisational change, while also ensuring that staff understand why change is occurring, are engaged with the new way of operating, and receive upskilling if required,” Deligiannis notes. “Otherwise, they will fall back into the same old work patterns.”

Thought needs to be given to cultural change as well. This is particularly the case when a reorganisation comes about due to a merger or acquisition, so there is not one common culture but two that need to be integrated. Ignoring issues of culture in a reorganisation is a recipe for failure.

“In all this, the executive team has to lead from the front, embodying the changes they expect to see in others and creating an environment where all employees feel they can share ideas and talk openly about the changes occurring around them,” says Deligiannis.

“Whether the result of a merger and acquisition, the growth of a department or even the establishment of a new team, any new job profiles need to be designed to align with the organisation’s goals so that they help achieve success from the beginning of the process. Without accuracy on this point, the right candidates with the right skills and background will not be identified and an organisation will not be able to improve business results.”

Looking for solutions

There is good evidence that the high level of reorganisation currently taking place in Australia is underpinned by a capacity to identify problems early and address them before they grow into crises. According to KPMG’s 2017 Evolving Deals Landscape survey, nearly half of Australia’s large companies are looking to improve operations, especially in their use of working capital, including management of receivables, payables and inventory.

Matthew Woods, KPMG’s Head of Restructuring Services, is not surprised. “For many CFOs and treasurers in today’s environment, cash management is high on their radar,” he says. “It is what you would expect to find in an economy which has been strong but is coming under stress. Businesses need to reset their cost base and restructure to ensure they are resilient going forward. They need to extract every dollar from their operations in response to increasing economic and financial pressures.

“There is a flow-on effect. If you are not actively improving working capital performance right now, then standing still is very much moving backwards. Whether you notice or not, there is a high chance that your suppliers and customers are optimising their working capital at your expense.”

Public sector lessons

“When it comes to reorganisations, the public sector and the private sector handle the processes very differently,” says Jacqueline Hiddlestone FIML, who has been involved in a range of restructures. She currently heads Jackal Oz, a consulting firm that offers advice on strategic development and operational delivery.

“[Public sector reorgs are different] mainly due to the level of union involvement, policies in place and greater willingness to discuss what is happening. Private sector companies usually pay minimal redundancy payments whereas public sector agencies usually have procedures such as moving people into a pool of available staff for a period of time, additional assistance in seeking alternate employment, and larger redundancy payments.”

There is often a difference in the support mechanisms too, such as dedicated HR or other staff. This leads to a more structured approach. If the reorganisation involves redundancies then transition options are available, and where redundancies are not involved there are re-training options.

Hiddlestone believes that reorganisations are more common in the public sector than the private sector, often due to changes in the statement of corporate intent provided to the government. In fact, this sense of continual reorganisation can become very disruptive. Change fatigue may drive talented staff to move on. Other employees can switch to ‘cruise’ because they believe that the work environment will change again shortly. This allows some to stay under the radar in terms of delivering agreed outcomes.

“I have found that a combination of communications channels works best,” she says. “Face-to-face sessions allow everyone to hear the same message about the direction, the target and the journey. This might be followed by a Q&A and written communication. An anonymous email avenue also allows concerns and questions to be raised without staff feeling they will be penalised for raising them. An open-door policy that allows staff to have private discussions provides an additional assurance that they are being heard and the organisation values them.

“Where redundancies may arise, the manager should do whatever is possible to explore options with individuals. Where do they see themselves in a year, or in five years? This can also help decide on who is impacted where there are equal capabilities against
fewer positions.”

Planning needed

The issue of planning – or, rather, failing to plan appropriately – looms large in any discussion as to why so many reorganisations do not achieve their goals. In many cases, the problem starts at the top. Some boards do not fully grasp the difficulties of a reorganisation, seeing it as either a matter of redrawing lines and boxes or seeing it only in financial terms. Many reorganisation projects are under-funded, considering
the problems they are
trying to solve.

Any presentation by senior management to the board must be able to explain and demonstrate the issues. For this reason, there should be a series of board meetings dedicated to the reorganisation, as well as regular updates while the process is in train. Sign-off of the plan must be clear and explicit, and there needs to be adequate resourcing for the project.

From this point the company leaders need to have a well-developed strategy for communicating the plan, including a means for making it available to all staff, whether or not they are directly affected. Any communications vacuum will be filled by gossip and speculation, which might then take a long time to correct.

Managerial accountability can only take place with transparency. Any attempt to keep the project secret is essentially counter-productive; more likely to alienate employees than win them over.

In the operational plan it is easy for the planners to place too much focus on the company’s weaknesses. But existing strengths must also be acknowledged and, if possible, developed. This goes back to the reason for a reorganisation: it must not be about change for the sake of change, but change for a specific, clearly articulated purpose.

“It is very important that staff hear their leaders, from the CEO to team leaders, talking regularly about the reorg, through internet sessions and ‘town halls’,” Heidari-Robinson says. “You should continually communicate the one big thought of the reorg – for example, moving from print to digital, or making local managers accountable for P&L outcomes – and the three to five biggest organisational changes that will make this happen.”

Managing employees who have received redundancy notices is an extremely difficult challenge, even with a good communications strategy, maximum sympathy from managers, and a generous payout. Their motivation can drop to zero and they might even look for ways to inflict symbolic – or real – damage on the company. External recruitment consultants and transition support providers can be very valuable at this point, helping the people affected look to future opportunities and possibilities.

Heidari-Robinson believes that the best way to handle this stage is to move as quickly as possible, offering thanks to departing employees and moving to re-focus continuing employees on their new roles.

“A slower process just drags out the water torture,” he says. “Good planning and speed are of the essence when it comes to reorgs.”

While having a clear plan is crucial it is also important to check progress along the way, through mechanisms such as employee surveys or metrics analysis. There might be a need to make changes in implementation if significant problems emerge.

Even when the reorganisation is complete there is still a great deal more work to be done.

“Plan for your reorg project team to return to conduct a review, one or two reporting cycles after implementation,” suggests Heidari-Robinson. “Do not declare victory for your reorg until it delivers the business results you wanted, which is sure to be some time after the actual implementation.”

Above all, accept that any large-scale reorganisation is going to be difficult. It affects the lives of employees – people who deserve to be treated with respect and consideration. Done poorly, a reorganisation can create a reservoir of dissatisfaction within the workplace. Done well, with effective communication and solid leadership, it can create new opportunities, transform operational efficiencies, and improve the organisation’s ability to deal with market changes and competitive pressures.

“Our advice is that you should only do a reorganisation if you have the rationale clear and you completely understand the likely cost of the change,” Heidari-Robinson emphasises. “If this has not happened, stop and think again.”

Career Doctor: How can I work with my team to find a unique solution to our problem?

By Peter Cullen MIML

 

We often talk about problems in a meeting. We often talk about the same problem in our next meeting as well. And on it goes. If this scenario sounds familar, read on…

Firstly, you are not alone. This is a common experience in corporate Australia. How do I know? Because the topic is often brought up in my facilitation work. People will bow their head and sigh in recognition of their own work environment. The truth is they’d prefer not to find themselves in this situation anymore. Unfortunately, it is often so ingrained within the culture of the business or department that they can see no way clear.

To halt this issue in its tracks, we need to stop talking about the problem and instead start looking for solutions. That starts with putting your hand up and admitting we know what the problem is, then focusing on how ‘we’ fix it. Many heads are better than one because you benefit from a broader spectrum of thinking and contribution. So, determine whether we need the whole team, members from other teams or a select group who are specialists in their field. Then get together and work together to find and implement a solution.

Working to the following process will keep everyone focused on finding and implementing the best solution:

  1. Define the problem: The most critical point in being solution focused is to ensure the problem is 100 per cent defined correctly. Adequate resources must be allocated to ensure time, money and effort will not be sacrificed by heading in the wrong direction with an inappropriate solution. Once it is defined, consider all the stakeholders involved. What might their contribution have been to the existence of the problem and how might their input be used in finding a resolution?
  2. Be curious: Now that we have defined the problem we need, as a group, to set about asking as many questions as possible. The questions we need to ask need to be expansive, open and probing. They need to focus on the what, why, when, where, who and how. A helpful addition to this process is mind mapping. Creating a mind map can reveal end-to-end systems and processes, internal and external influences, policies and procedures, and much more.
  3. Discovering solutions: One of the great ways to discover solutions is the tried and tested structure of brainstorming. Two great methods are the use of Post-it notes and open forum idea generation. When using Post-it notes it is necessary to provide each team member with five or six Post-its and ask each person to write only one idea on each note then post it on the whiteboard. These can then be grouped for commonality and may be placed on relevant points in the mind map or elsewhere. Brainstorming is simply having a topic and accepting every person’s idea without question and writing them up on a whiteboard.
    Then rank the top five ideas.
  4. Solution selection: It is possible more than one solution will appear viable and a choice will need to be made. Even then it is important to rank all the potential solutions in a table to determine which is the most suitable. I would suggest making four columns, titled respectively Solution, Must-Have Factors, Score and Desirable Factors.
  5. Solution Implementation: Once you have the most desirable solution then comes the implementation ensuring it is measurable so you can the determine modifications and the level of success.

Working together unifies team members on a common cause and contributes to a more sustainable outcome.

Peter Cullen is an education and training facilitator who teaches AIM Education and training courses.

Each three-day program engages participants in developing and implementing their capabilities as managers and leaders.