Skip to content →

Category: POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, WELLBEING & POETRY

Cost-cutting is upside down and inside out

Inverted by mgjefferies via FlickrTwitter culture

Twitter is such a good example of the benefits of distributed, leaderless, co-creation.  Lots of grown-up lol cats like what we are cooking!  Yes, I am serious.

Today, I was working on some tedious table creation in Excel and I dipped in-and-out of Twitter as brain relaxation between chunks of work.  This wasn’t time-wasting, at least not for me, because as any half-decent psychologist knows, we can’t  work much longer than 10 to 15 minutes at  a stretch without taking a mini-break to manage fatigue and to restore a sense of what is woods and what are trees.

Some back and forth between @loudmouthman @freecloud @dt and I soon created the ultimate Twitter experience – the total confusion much decried by Twitter’s critics and the insights to weave together several half-finished conversations that I’ve had while I’ve been buried in Excel.

I resolved to write down why I find the political conversation around the budget cuts so dissatisfying.

Cost control models are no substitute for strategy or leadership

Controlling costs is nonsensical as a leadership strategy.   Accountants out there don’t have a heart attack!  We still want you to count the beans  but the purpose of life is not to control costs.   Remember what Napolean called us : a nation of shopkeepers?  I rather admire shopkeepers and the till must be ‘manned’ ; but a till does not a shop make.

  1. Cost-added models are passe. I am not going to be happy with a teacher or a doctor because they cost more, or they cost less.  I will not buy a Snickers bar either just because it cost you  a shilling or a florin to make.  Let’s wise up.  Cost is not important. Value to the consumer or citizen is important.
  2. Public services aren’t discretionary.  We have public services because we need them.  Public services are not a luxury.  If we cannot afford them  we are done for.  Though the army is the extreme case it makes the point clear.  If we cannot afford to defend ourselves, then we will have to reconstruct our entire nation-model because, in short, someone else will be in charge. The only discussion worth having in the public service is what is essential and why. What do we have to make happen?  When we have agreed on what is essential, we will make it happen.  We aren’t dunces (or at least we aren’t that hopeless).
  3. Cost-focused models assume virtue matters. Since when did the English believe in cause and effect and a grand idea?  (Not sure about the Scots, Welsh and Irish).   The international financiers may like us because we control our cost; and just as easily they might not.  I am betting they won’t because their essential psychology is macho.  Show weakness and you are done for. Show that you are willing to cut your own people off at the knees and your essential bargaining  position is gone.  They know you will agree to anything.  Bad move.  Any cost-cutting should have been done very very quietly.

What is the alternative to government by book-keeping?

So if I take away your cherished dream of a country run of us, by the book-keepers, for the bookkeepers, what is the alternative?

  1. Do the work.  Decide what is essential and do it.
  2. Understand innovation.  Let people get together and thrash out ideas.  1/200 may be worth it.  Budget for 199 being trashed.
  3. Put in good accounting systems so we can pay Ceasar what is due to Ceasar when it is due.  This is not living by cost control.  It is simply having good book-keeping so we can get on with our lives without constant cash flow crises.   A cash flow crisis tells us that we had shoddy book-keeping not that we spent too much money.  Though both may be true, we cannot have a crisis without bad book-keeping. Restore some professionalism in public book-keeping (=make the data public).

The country is just like our house

Conservatives tell us that running a country is no different from running a household or running a shop.  Many of us might challenge that statement but let’s take what we learn from running a household or running a  shop.

  1. Necessities are necessities.  We can’t provide them unless we know what they are and unless they come before everyone’s luxury.  Necessities are necessities.
  2. A day out designed by Mum and Dad will be a day out with whining kids in the back seat bored at the restaurant table. Plan this outing as a family affair using everyone’s ideas.   Good things do not come out of pre-defined criteria. Good things come out of us working together to enjoy our lives.
  3. Budget simply.  The envelope system works fine.  Put money for the rent, electricity and food aside.  People aren’t daft.  They will figure out how to have fun with what’s left in the fun jar.

Twitter is a fine example

And all this for wasting time on Twitter.   No, all this from following some basics.

  • I had set my goals for the day.
  • I am working consistently.
  • I am putting some ease into my day so my mind doesn’t wander and create rubbish that I will have to redo later.
  • I am being creative in breaks from necessity and the “hardness” of rule-bound behavior.
  • I have a list on my pad and I time myself.  My bean counting adds to my life by telling me where I am.  If something very important came up, I could switch my priorities easily.

A week of Excel is a hard week – not unlike a financial crisis.  I’ll get through it better by keeping my goals clear but in their place allowing some ease and respect for the people in my life and what is truly important.

Oh, let me be blunt.  Some people need to stop behaving like pratts.

Leave a Comment

Does crowd-sourcing work: InnoCentive and c,mm,n

Bringing home the bees by tastybit via FlickrCrowd Sourcing is in

Courtesy of the new coalition government, crowd-sourcing is in.  I must say I haven’t used any of the government’s crowd-sourcing facilities.  I’ve just watched the chatter, and in some cases squealing, on Twitter.

But because it is a topic of the moment, I’m going to add links to crowd-sourcing elsewhere in the world.

InnoCentive

Innoventive is an open-source website for scientists.  Normally, firms like Procter & Gamble offer a bounty or prize for the best solution to a problem.

The news of the moment is that Innocentive called on scientists to figure out how to manage the spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

After some initial interest,  BP declined to engage with scientists though Innocentive.  I have no first hand knowledge of this so see the link for more and let me know, please, if this article is wildly out.

c,mm,n

c,mm,n is the world’s first open-source car.  Apparently, the specs are in Dutch.  I haven’t looked because I doubt I would understand the specs.

On the face of it, it seems odd that we can design a car but not fix an oil spill.  Would the car go, do you think?

Leave a Comment

UK economy watch: Plastic Electronics

Industry: Plastic or Organic Electronics

Market Size

2010 . . .USD2bn (GBP1.3)

2020 . . USD120bn (GNP80.2)

Growth = 60x or 6000% in ten years

Government Subsidies

#1 8 projects to build the supply chain and “overcome barriers to UK exploitation of plastics electronics technology”

GBP7.4m including CBP800K from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC

#2 5 projects to develop commercial prototypes

GBP1.0m by Technology Strategy Board

Two of the projects

Announcement from  COI

Products

Circuits are printed cheaply onto rigid or flexible surfaces and rival silicon-based electronics in lighting and solar panels.

People

As at July 2010

David Willetts, Universities and Science Minister

Iain Gray, CE of Technology Strategy Board

Websites

PRW.com

Plusplasticelectronics

Technology Strategy Board

Announcement from January 2007

British Interests

Plastic Logic (with Merck in Dresden and management in Mountain View

Leave a Comment

Dance in any way you know how

Let's Dance by zenera via FlickrI’m reading David Whyte‘s The Heart Aroused.  It’s profound. It’s illuminating. It connects all the many facets of contemporary management theory: poetry, the positive movement, the mytho-poetic school and hard core complexity theory.  It’s difficult to summarize though

Today, Bukik left a comment on this blog.  Most of his work is in Indonesian ~ which I can’t read.  But some is in English.

From Bukik’s site, I learned this:

“While I dance
I cannot judge
I cannot hate
I cannot separate myself from life.
I can only be joyful and whole.
That is why I dance.”

Hans Bos

I tried to discover who Hans Bos is.  Maybe an American living in Illinois?  I would like to know.

Thanks to Bukik, I have a good quotation to illustrate the contemporary quantum idea and older eastern idea that we are our relationship  with the world.  And almost paradoxically, our relationship with the world is good when we dance, and dance.

Dance in any way you know how.

A good thought for a Sunday morning and good respite from reading economic reports.

Leave a Comment

How much does it cost to create a single job in the UK?

Money by Lee J Hayward via FlickrUnderstanding the economy in basic terms

I am just a lowly psychologist and I don’t have any formal economics education. So, I look out for rules-of-thumb that I can remember. And I also try to remember what it ‘felt’ like when the economy was in a particular state. Knowing what a 3% downturn feels like and what a 7% downturn feels like helped me anticipate what a 5-6% downturn in UK would feel like.

I am puzzled though, that in an economy as advanced as UK, the middle classes aren’t more economically literate.

We hear a lot, for example, of how the government will save 3000 pounds or so in Benefits by packing people off to a job. These statements alone make me cock my head in puzzlement. We are in very deep recession. People are on Benefits because they have lost their job.

What is even more puzzling is that people who claim to know, don’t know what it costs to create a job. Where I have lived before, people knew these numbers.  They had them at their fingertips.

Using US investments to estimate the cost of a job

Let’s record some figures  to show you what I mean.

Obama has just announced a USD2bn subsidy to two solar powered firms. One will create 1500 jobs and the other 1600 permanent jobs and 400 temporary jobs.

Let’s keep this simple because we are talking rules-of-thumb.

3000 into 2bn makes 66 000 660 000 . And that is just the Federal subsidy.

Putting that into British money, 660K is more than 500K pounds, but lets keep it simple. Now we have taken a powerful vacuum cleaner to our economy, we will need 500K to make a job (and this is probably an entry level, repetitive job).

500K is 16 to 17 years of benefits. Governments use benefits to bail out an economy precisely because it is cheaper than making jobs.  Jobs cost money and we should know how much.  These numbers should be at our finger-tips.

Where can we make jobs?

And of course, we can’t make jobs if we don’t even know which industries are viable. I suspect this is the greater problem. Our leaders don’t know enough about what will be the future of our economy so they don’t know where to invest.

But let’s not get off the point. For the moment, until I get better numbers, I’ll use a rule-of-thumb as GBP500K  of investment to create one job.

7 Comments

Talking cuts? Don’t. Talk service.

planning poker warm up by fsse8info via flickrWhat will happen if we cut by 25%

Yesterday on Twitter, there was a lot of chatter about impending cuts. If we cut this, then this bad thing will happen. Today, we heard that if we reduce a budget by 25%, we will get more terrorism. All of this may be true, but it illustrates a fundamental error in managing public services (and public servants).

Lead by substance not by budget

Don’t conflate the service and the budget! Simply don’t allow the conversation.

Ask only this – what do you want to do?

Never allow a public servant to talk about the budget. Their job is to deliver a service.  Talk about the service.  The budget is your responsibility.

Overcoming objections

If you try this, st first you will get a lot of reverting to type. These will be the typical excuses/worries/concerns.

  • It is important to do X, but that person over there won’t do Y, so I can’t do X (and I can throw a wobbly). Persist in keeping the conversation about X.   What do you want to do?  And why?  Understand fully what the person believes is important.  Pay attention and let people see you pay attention.
  • It is important to do X but I cannot do it without an assistant Y.   Keep the conversation about X.  Y is budget.  Understand X fully.  If X is important and well thought out,  you’ll find budget.  But X will fail anyway if it is poorly thought out and more to do with assistants than goals.  Don’t say the last two sentences aloud.   Just keep the conversation about X and about what the person believes to be important.  Pay attention! They know what they are talking about and after all they are going to do the work!
  • I won’t talk about this at all.  Unspoken here are two thoughts.  If I suggest something, you will make me do double work with half the budget.  Or, I might suggest a lesser project than my colleagues and lose out in the status stakes.  Simply state that you want to know what is important to the person and to make sure their projects are on the table because everyone else is making their bids.  Sadly, if you have a reputation for stabbing your staff in the back, you might take some time to develop trust.  Leave you knives at home from now on!  You have to be sure that you will too.  Stab anyone now and no one will trust you ever again.

Being patient

  • This exercise will take time and a lot of one-on-one’s. But if you have the patience, your patience alone will communicate that you are dependable.  You will find out what is important and everyone will understand they are responsible for conceiving a quality service that is needed, doable and credit to the service providers and the organization at a whole.  They have it all in their head.  Everyone does.  We all know what we want to do and we all have our pride.

Being prepared

Now for the hard work.  You must have done your homework.  You must have gathered together and fully analysed three sets of data.

  • The general regulations, law and physical constraints of your work unit.  You need to model the work of your unit on a spreadsheet.  It’s likely that you will have outputs in rows and inputs in columns and have sets of calculations at the top, bottom and side of your table.   You must know what is generally required of your unit and be able to slot in numbers quickly so that you can assess the impact of any one plan on all other plans at the touch of refresh button.  You will be assessing a lot of scenarios before you are done.
  • You must know the past performance of your unit and what is likely to happen if you carried on without changing anything.  Do the analyzes yourself.  The accountants in your organization might have strange ideas about how your unit works.
  • You must know your costs.  Forget managing your budget if you don’t know your costs down to the last penny.

Now to work!

When you have all this information on hand, you can honor your promise.  You tell your staff to work out what should be done and you will look after the budget.

If their ideas are not economically (financially) viable, then you will tell them and they will have to think again.

But they don’t have to worry about money.  That’s your job.

And whatever you do, don’t allow the agenda to be driven by the budget.

First define the service.  Then ask if it is economically possible.

Don’t conflate service and budget.  Don’t allow the conversation.

You will be surprised how much can be done with less money.  And if you have to tell your political masters that less  will be done, at least you will have all the numbers to hand.

But if you can’t deliver a good service on less money in a way that is far more enjoyable for your staff, I will eat my hat.

One Comment

What are management consultants for?

Zoom Ahead by Vikram Vetrivel via FlickrShould we hire management consultants?

I’ve worked as a management consultant all my life. Maybe that qualifies me to write this post. Maybe my experience disqualifies me.  This is what I think.  Much as I welcome the business and interesting assignments, hiring consultants can be a bad sign.

Think of it like this. When I go to see my GP (family physician), I expect them to refer me to ‘consultants’ or specialists for rare conditions. It makes sense to see someone who works all day and everyday in one field.

But think of the reverse. Imagine going to a specialist hospital and having the leading specialist refer you to a GP. Now that is back to front.

Sadly, often management consultants are not specialists. They are often young, inexperienced and unqualified. Why then are they used to advise experienced managers?

Why do we hire management consultants?

There can be many reasons. But one of the obvious, of course, is that managers don’t know what to do. Not knowing what to do is not a crime. We all read. We all go on courses. We are learning all the time.

But when consultants aren’t specialists being hired to do specialist tasks, there is often a very specific malaise in the organization. And the malaise may be this.  The managers are doing work one level below their appointment.

The senior managers, for example, are planning budgets and developing working procedures and checking efficiencies. They are supposed to be looking ahead and anticipating the obstacles of 5 years time that we need to start solving now.  The middle managers will plan the actual work and review its efficiency.  The junior managers will make sure the work is done and tweak procedures to fit the specifics of the moment.

In military terms, senior managers don’t go to war; they don’t necessarily plan this war. They plan the next war.

In turn, the top managers  might be solving the problems of tomorrow when they should be deciding what business to be in and what kind of organizational structure and business model is required to succeed in that business.

In military terms, they assess which of our allies of today will be our enemies of tomorrow.  They anticipate innovation in weaponry and have the right research and development going on at military universities.  They look into the future that we cannot see.

Of course, senior managers should understand how middle managers draw up budgets just as generals must know what is happening to colonels and troops on the ground.  They should know how well things are going. When they walk into a work site, they should understand what is happening as a general should be able to comfortably go out on patrol.   They need to understand the organization from bottom to top, but they must do their own jobs not someone elses.  If no one is steering the ship of the organization, we will go to sea without maps, food, fuel and skills.

The sad reality of consulting

When we hire consultants, the excuse that we often give is that our subordinates are not up to their jobs. Let’s do some thought experiments.

  • In a well-run organization, when the boss is away, (when we are away) can somebody sit in our chair and makes the decisions we would ordinarily make.  If not, its not surprising we think our subordinates are incompetent.  We don’t let them see the world from where we see it.
  • When we are away, are our subordinates able to do more work and make better decisions than when we are around?
  • When our  incompetent subordinate is away, do things run better or worse?
  • When our incompetent subordinate is away, is one of his or her subordinates automatically taking over his or her responsibilities?  And if not, why not?

Specialist work that occurs rarely is legitimate work for a consultant.  Doing a senior managers job is not.  And the test is whether the senior manager can state whether they have assessed the obstacles the organization will face over the next five years and what they are doing to ameliorate the difficulties.

They may be more comfortable doing month-to-month management, or even day-to-day management, but while they are doing their juniors work for them, the work of leadership is not happening.  A simple solution is to move the senior managers to another building where they cannot interfere quite so readily.  Limit the email and telephone contact upwards with daily meetings at a set time.

Very soon they won’t need  a consultant at all.

Leave a Comment

What happens when we make savage cuts to an organization?

A window on the Cliffs by tostao_meravigliao via FlickrWhat happens when a boss walks into a room and says, we have to make cuts?

Our obvious response is emotional. We are angry. We are scared. We are threatened. We are determined not to get hurt.

But what happens to the organization?

Yesterday, Patrick Butler blogged on the Guardian’s Joe Public blog about the chances that the budget cuts would lead to innovation and creativity. I responded there and have edited my comments below.

My comments about the impact on the organization itself are based on experience and interpreted through lens of the principles of organizational design.  My conclusions are counter-intuitive.  That is, they are not the most obvious things we might think of.  There are good reasons for us expecting organizations to behave differently to what they do but I  won’t go into those reasons here. For the curious, they are to do with hegemony, reification and other similar concepts.  Let me say here that I am not making a prediction about what will happen in the public service in the UK.  I am simply describing what I have seen elsewhere and what might be worth thinking about.

My observations are three fold which may seem contradictory but are not.

  • There are unlimited depths to our creativity
  • The organization will be turned inside out but the leadership won’t acknowledge what they have done and will spend considerable resources covering up what they have done
  • Employees will put their efforts into developing autonomous careers and ‘business units’.

These outcome can be avoided but simply choosing the route of cuts suggests we may see these or similarly dysfunctional effects.  The superiors in an organization are responsible for resourcing an organization.  When they duck this responsibility, the game has begun

We have unlimited depths to our creativity

It is true that the individuals in any job know a multitude of better ways of doing a job.  I could find solid research evidence but let’s just say for now that tt is more than our ‘jobsworth’ to tell anyone.  Bosses don’t take kindly to being out shone. A wise employee does the boss’ way; even if that way is expensive, silly and possibly stupid.

The organization will be turned inside out

In my experience, when cut kick in, people do generate alternative ways of working, because they can.  They know what they are doing.

The difficult that arises is that the boss has now done him (or her) self out of a job.  In a hierarchical organization, it is the boss’ job, to find resources and to supply greater know-how.

When the know-how and resources come from below, the difference between ranks becomes redundant and the chain of command has to acknowledge that leadership is also bottom-up.

This challenge is not often acknowledged and this will be sad consequence. ‘Bosses’ will spend more and more resources having conferences to ‘problem solve’, meeting stakeholders to try to re-assert legitimacy,  and staging confrontations with employees over perceived ‘insubordination’ (by which they mean their sense of inadequacy because the leadership is coming from below), etc.  They will swell their ranks with more managers, experts and consultants (that has already happened in some parts of the public service.)

Ultimately the leadership begins to live in the Pink Floyd or was it U2 world where they watch themselves on closed circuit TV and they are genuinely surprised by reality on the odd occasion they encounter it.

Employees will put their efforts into autonomous careers

At the bottom levels, innovation is now at the discretion of the members of the organization and the key is in the word discretion.

Ordinary employees may be carrying the organization and its mission even to the point of paying their own salaries and part of the organization’s overheads. This may be seem extreme but I’ve seen it more than once and I’ve seen it in the UK.

Employees may also decide to match the effort they put in with their pay. A consultant coined a saying about salaries in Africa. The annual salary may vary a lot. The hourly salary does not.

Many people develop second careers (it seems that has already begun among British police). Businesses are run from work. Businesses are run outside work.  Second houses are another career. Living abroad and arbitraging costs is another version.

In the UK, I’ve seen some online sites and plenty of workplace business models where work is sub-contracted indicating huge rents in the price charged to the customer. Employees don’t take long to work that out the system of rents for themselves and to find ways of owning the outfit which supplies the contractors.

Is the breakdown of organizational legitimacy inevitable?

Depressing? Possibly corrupt?

The key (and the game) is the legitimacy of the organization. In hierarchical organizations, the raison d’etre of rank is to manage and dispense resources and know-how.

When the ‘bosses’ make the statement that they do not have resources to run the organization, both the organization and the managers lose legitimacy.

The organization could, of course, reorganize both its purpose and the way it organizes to execute its purpose.   This is rare though.  After all, if this re-direction was on the cards, it would have taken place to prempt the cuts and the challenge to the managers’ legitimacy.  A much more likely out come is the expenditure of vast sums shoring up the appearance of  managerial legitimacy while the operational business develops a like and mind (many minds) of its own.

It will be good to see leadership that rejuvenates organizations and in the end, what happens is what happens.  This is not science. This is life. What happens is what we decide to do together. And we make our decisions iteratively.  You decide.  I decide.  You revise.  and so on.

Right now, everyone is waiting for the bosses to make the first move. I hope this move is not “tell us what to do”.  I hope even more it is not “do the same work with less resources”.  Either of these moves  is game-over – at least for the hierarchy.

Then a new game begins of what will replace what we once had.  That is another story.

Leave a Comment

What other people have learned about the cuts business

Join the QuEuE by Maldita la hora via FlickrBosses set the agenda

George Osborne has achieved something important.  He has got us talking about the cuts.  What cuts are we going to make?

What is the point of consultation?

We all have an opinion and inevitably, so do I.  But mine is somewhat different and borne out of living through dramatic economic change, not once, but several times elsewhere in the world.  To boot, I was working as a both as a management consultant and a line manager, so I learned a far bit about the “cuts business”.

What is the point of writing blog posts?

I pondered today the point of writing out what I learned.  No one is going to listen. Believe me, that is the first lesson.  We are going to talk a lot and listen little.  I am already doing that as I tune out of the “101 complaints” that are drowning the air waves and Twitter streams.

Then I decided to write after all.  Not because anyone will listen or even that I have anything very important to say.

But simply because I write.  That’s what I do.  I write to organize ideas that swirl around my head as I respond to what I hear in conversation and simultaneously work on other big projects that won’t see the light of day for a while.

What other people have learned about the “cuts business”

So these are the three issues that I will probably write about today:

  • Our general response to being asked to “cut”: bosses who don’t have cheque books big enough to run the organizations they run
  • Using consultants in organizations: managing up-skilling
  • Negotiating with public servants: talk service not money

Leave a Comment