Category: management

More Than Just Fashion

This strikes me as being beyond the normal selection of freaky and nuts News stories.

Shoes are a part of life that we can’t do without. At least given the climatic conditions in our temperate region of the world. They are primarily put on to protect the feet from the cold and wet and any sharp objects that littler the ground. I found the BBC radio interview with the foot specialist Professor Anthony Redmond fascinating. Doctors Chris and Xand van Tulleken[1] make a point of finding interesting people to address the myths and realities of medical subjects.

Me being me, it’s impossible to mention the subject without reference to the HHGTTG[2]. Douglas Adams was attuned to people’s obsession with footwear. The Footwarriors, were robots specifically designed with poor fitting shoes so that they would limp. This meant that they couldn’t lay chase, much to the advantage of anyone who encountered them. The story of their makers the Dolmansaxlil Galactic Shoe Corporation is a classic.

[I guess Adams chose the name Dolman because it sounded right. it’s an ancient Anglo-Saxon name. Close to where I live, the Dolman’s were a wealthy English family who owned Shaw House[3] in the 17th Century. I’d recommend a visit.]

Improperly fitting footwear is a good a way of slowing down opponents. One sure way to hobble or cause discomfort to the wearer. The fictional purpose in the HHGTTG was as a marketing rouse. Bad shoes forced people to buy more shoes in the hope for better shoes, but they were always bad, by design.

Now, I don’t know if you can imagine it. Let’s say that Lucius Junius Brutus had poor fitting shoes, or sandals or whatever Romans wore. Would his approach to Julius Caesar have been thwarted and history have been written-up different? Would he have stumbled and failed to dispatch the dictator of the Roman empire? It’s a question.

Back to 21st century everyday tales. No fiction or intriguing historic figures. No wacky robots or corporate shenanigans. It’s reported that US President Trump likes shoes. Specific shiny shoes. So much so that he’s been giving them to colleagues[4]. Demanding that they wear them too.

I don’t think this is Fake News. Plenty of people in the world are obsessed with shoes. With her massive collection of pairs of shoes, this is the one thing people remember about Imelda Marcos[5]. Shoes can become the stuff of legend.

Corporate uniforms are not new either. The love of a conformal identity and the sense of unity that this superficially portrays. Having everyone in a team dress like robots is a way of stamping a leader’s authorly on a wayward group.

I started by writing that this development was freaky and nuts. I could be missing a vital part of a deep and detailed strategy here. It’s theorised by some management thinkers that the grit in the oyster is a key part of making change happen. So, why bother with grit. The same effect can be created by wearing shoes of the wrong size. An ill-fitting irritation. Could I be wrong?

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0ncgb9j

[2] “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” a comedic science fiction series by Douglas Adams.

[3] https://www.westberkshireheritage.org/shaw-house

[4] https://www.wsj.com/style/fashion/trump-florsheim-shoes-tucker-carlson-jd-vance-bessent-448567ab

[5] First Lady of the Philippines for 21 years.

Email Overload

So called snail-mail is in an inevitable decline. One day it will be necessary to explain the concept of an envelope, and what it’s for, to younger people. To write, with a handheld pen, place a piece of paper inside an adequately formed folded paper enclosure and sealing it. This may involve moistening a surface or removing a strip of paper. To take account of the costs associated with this procedure a small, preprinted paper stamp is attached to one corner of the enclosure. The enclosure must meet regulations to then be accepted by a carrier who will take it from a bright red box. This artifact, called a “letter” is then piled up with lots of others to eventually be sorted and directed towards a specified destination. If the process is successful, a recipient may then destroy the envelope and read the letter.

When spelt out like so, it’s no wonder that e-mail has taken over the world. After centuries of operation the popular paper-based means of communication is now a novelty. Classical mail hangs on mostly as a means of getting birthday cards, and other celebratory cards, from A to B.

Even ardent official users, like the taxman, a trying to entice us all to become paperless. Major banks are also exhibiting this aversion to paper. Often more for their convenience rather than ours as their administrative systems become exclusively digital.

There’s a universal aspect that’s shared by the old world and the new world. It’s one that’s almost impossible to shake off. Filter it as we may, the piling up of junk mail is as bad on the doorstep as it is in the in-box. Junk splits into a whole series of categories. Putting aside the malicious and criminal variety, there’s a mass of mail that’s devoted to sales and marketing. I’ve ranted about this bombardment before, even if it makes no difference. The likes of:

“We are always looking to improve your experience with us, and we invite you to give your feedback in this short survey.”

Breaking this e-mail request down, it proports to be to my advantage to spend time answering the sender’s questions. Obviously, it’s to the questioner’s advantage and not mine. To sweeten the pill there’s a chance to win a small prize. Probably with odds set at a billion to one.

If this experience was occasional and advantageous to me, complaining might not be the right way to go. Sadly, the reality is the stream of e-mails, from multiple services, gets so annoying that I wish these tedious e-mails were paper. Then at least my recycling bin would benefit.

My approach is to instantly delete these e-mails. I’m sure that I’m not alone in this one. Customer feedback can go and take a hike. Naturally, I want the coffee shop I regularly use and my main bank to improve their services. But if these organisations think this is the way to do it, I think they have a big hole in their thinking.

Yes, if quick enough, it’s possible to opt in or out of marketing communications but endless feedback surveys seem to be exempt. They are the confetti of the marketing world.

“How did we do?” Is ticking a box really going to provide an answer to that question? “Thanks for your time” Nice, but as insincere as an algorithm can be.

Some forward-thinking organisations may eventually eliminate junk mail. In time there must be a better way of interacting. It’s about time they hurried up.

Myth or Productivity Booster?

A four-day week. It’s true that there’s nothing magical about the conventional five-day week. It’s an invention of modern times. There are plenty of self-employed people who’d say there were working a seven-day week. So, is the claim made by Artificial Intelligence (AI) advocates merely a sales pitch or does it have any substance?

Much depends on how seriously we take this mythical word called “productivity”. I’ve put it like this because there’s a million and one ways of determining what needs to be done as opposed to what people want to do and, when things go wrong, are forced to do.

A beaver is extremely productive. There’s an ingrained motivation to use what nature has provided to build a dam and a home. It’s non-stop. Come setbacks or successes this innovative creature keeps on going. It doesn’t watch the clock. Rarely discouraged.

I’m going to bring up a small paperback that cost 3 shillings and 6 pence when it was published. It’s one of those books that is both comedy and seriousness wrapped up in one. Parkinson’s law or the pursuit of progress is older than I am. It was first published in 1957.

The plot is simple but there are several messages. One for example, relates to the provision of resources. It goes something like this – if only we had a couple more staff and a state or the art information system we could double our efficiency. That’s contrasted by a view of past statistics that often shows a growth in staffing (or computing power) and roughly the same or even less being achieved. Why it’s suggested that AI will circumvent this nicety, I’m not sure. Speed and multiplication don’t always add up to building better projects or being more “productive”.

What a wonderful world it was going to be. The future now. I remember that clunky personal computer on my desk, in about 1996. The sounds of the dial-up modem connecting to the information superhighway of the day. The world wide web was so new we had to keep reminding ourselves of what the www stood for. Boxes of floppy disks replaced filing cabinets.

Here we are 30-years later and what do I find, or not find as the case may be? Tens of thousands of files generated by Apps on my smart phone, tablet and desktop. Whereas once I’d mastered constructing folders with logical names and placing documents exactly where I could find them in their latest version, now I’ve got an unfathomable messy clutter.

Have I become more “productive”? That entirely depends upon what is meant by that word. Decluttering digital information isn’t that much different from decluttering piles of paper on an over weighted office desk. Work expands to fill the time available for its completion. Where does a four-day week sit in that equation? Parkinson would likely say that whatever the length of the working week we’d fill it with activity. It’s almost transparent to the tools used whether they be paper based or applying the latest powerful computing capabilities.

Remember decades ago, we said; public services were going to be dramatically improved because we could be contacted by e-mail. Scrapping the paper in-tray was a day many people longed for. Files wouldn’t be delayed as they passed from office to office. Desk to desk. Or so it seemed. I don’t think we’ve stopped complaining about public services – have we?

There is one possible new element. If AI use means that humans abdicate from decision-making, then a new situation comes about. This needs to be a choice. Forcing humans out of the loop to chase the God of productivity is a dangerous pathway.

Disruption and the Gods

Always the most impressive artifacts to come out of archaeological digs are those made of gold. It’s an element that comes down through the millennium unhindered by the turbulence of the daily News. It’s been a repository of wealth for as long as we have walked the Earth. That might be a brave statement. Let’s say people have admired and desired gold for that long.

A strange hold over people. In the last couple of years, the chart of the gold price has resembled that of rocket taking off. If you thought house prices have shot up a lot in the last decade have a quick look at the gold price. From 1978 to 2008 the curve looks relatively flat. Once past that date renowned for the financial crisis then the value of gold goes mostly one way.

Is this good or bad? One might even say – who cares. Well, geopolitics, inflation and monetary policy all play their part. I’m not talking about a precise indicator of these factors, but the linkage is clear. Many people see gold as a hedge against the declining value of other assets.

Geopolitics is a nebulous term. It can mean a million and one things. I guess on the one side of the coin is stability and on the other is instability. To relate the rapid rise of the value of gold to anything it may as well be the growth in the influence of disruptive forces.

Disruption has become incredibly fashionable in the last few years.

It’s like a newfound management trend. Although it’s not. Once upon a time, everyone was supposed to be rational, to create a harmonious world in which we could prosper. Management gurus who said as much thrived. Classical theories flourished[1].

However, they did warn us that institutions and organisations would change dramatically, in time. And that’s the component that disruptors have latched on to. Impatient to change in a softly-softly manner, the current mode is more along the lines of – to hell with it, do it now, come hell or high water. Don’t bother me with any of that risk assessment stuff.

I think, the downside of this pursuit of disruption is instability, insecurity and a latent fragility. Yes, it’s hidden. When a powerful disrupter succeeds the surface reaction is a round of applause. Under the surface the lack of long-term thinking invites an avalanche of negative repercussions. If the current gold price is a crude indicator, then there are potentially a lot of nasties just over the horizon.

An example to consider is the radical move to privatise the water industry in the UK. You bet that was disruptive. A politically fashionable move at the time. Surely a commercial mindset would serve the consumer, improve efficiency and increase investment. Ho Ho.

In the management of change, disruption has its place. If it’s the only card that a leader holds, and couple that with impatience, and outcomes are not going to be good. If they are good then it’s sheer luck.

[1] https://www.waterstones.com/book/gods-of-management/charles-b-handy/9781788165624

Legacy of Dilbert’s Humour

Cartoonists capture reality. Or at least, a snapshot of an ephemeral or enduring moment. It’s not photography. A cartoon’s realism isn’t about fidelity in the capture of a scene. It’s more focused on our perception of reality. No need for representative images full of depth and detail.

Absurdities and peculiarities captured by ink and pen can be sharp and masteries of observation. The flash of “who said what to whom” is a moment that displays the strange assortment and madness of everyday life.

To me the creator of Dilbert nailed a decade. That’s the 1990s. A time when management styles favoured open plan offices littered with cubicles. A time when of the evolution of computer networks connected office workers in a new and unfamiliar way. “You’ve got mail” was a positive thing.

Scott Adams[1] has passed at a relatively young age. His reputation not entirely intact. Now, I must decide what to do with the books I have of his. Charity shop or not? Element of his humour don’t fit the world of the 2020s. In some ways an even more absurd world than past decades.

Where he hit the mark, in my mind, centres around 1995, or so, a time when I was travelling to America. Visting giant aerospace manufacturing companies. I can close my eyes and see a hangar like building of enormous proportions where every square inch was covered by naturally coloured cubicles. Neutral coloured partitions coming up to shoulder hight. Water coolers. Glass windowed offices. Notice boards with the latest dictate.

Of course, Dilbert was an engineer. An engineer shoehorned into a modern management world that challenged his sensibilities. A hierarchical place where systematic pseudo-science clashes with logic and rationality. Where human frailties and social pressures are turned into office management speak to justify unjustifiable actions. Pushing a rock uphill to meet unrealistic project plans.

It’s a tiny thing. Dilbert’s upturned tie smacks my experience of standing at a drawing board in the late 1970s. He’s a cartoon character that is inevitably dragging his heals as he’s being forced to come to terms with a maddening corporate culture. That’s an encounter that a lot of people can relate too. It compelled office workers to play games that seemed to work in the opposite direction to any that was intended. Later, TV comedy picked up on this with series like: The Office[2].

This work day phenomenon hasn’t passed. Modern managements’ more barmy methods and theories are so ingrained that it seems wrong to highlight. Somehow our reaction to this has changed.

For a while Dilbert’s humour put up a mirror to those of us in senior management roles. Here’s a model that, if you start behaving like the “classic” boss, it’s time to do a double take. When encountering that slippery slope, look far and wide for a cynical talking dog.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y320k72vyo

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jd68z