Posts Tagged ‘managing change’

Uncommon Business Integration

Thursday, August 20th, 2015

So you are the proud owner and as CEO, guardian of the new combined business, the hard work now begins, turning the reasons why you bought the business (investment thesis) into an organisational reality.

You assemble the executives and managers in both firms with guidance on the strategic vision, financial synergies, operations, talent and culture. In all likelihood, they have interacted briefly to exchange information in the due diligence, negotiation and closing phases but they have rarely got to know each other on a personal basis.

How each party sees that you handle that first integration meeting in most cases creates an indelible impression for the ensuing relationships, the level of commitment to your objectives and your probable success.

Knowing “what to do” and “how to do it”, is largely a mixture of art and science for most leaders. “Art”, in the sense of gut feel and good judgement in creating a welcoming environment for the newly acquired executives and managers. “Science”, in the sense of knowing precisely like choreographing a play “what” business outcomes must be prioritised, “where” to devote time productively, “when” you must accelerate the conversation (agreed action points) or intervene to bring circular conversations to a close and “why” a chosen integration alternative is appropriate.

Here is seven “integration killers” you want to avoid in that first meeting of the “new” colleagues:

1. Ambiguous and Unclear Meeting Invite. The focus needs to be on performance-based priorities (crystal clear business outcomes) not tasks and activities (“getting acquainted with each other”).

2. Inviting Wallflowers. Peers want to meet, talk and reach agreement with peers or possibly employees who are one grade above. They don’t want to converse with subordinates, who cannot contribute meaningfully and do nothing more than to act as a “posse” or mute cheerleaders for an executive or senior manager.

3. Enabling People Who Arrive With An “Agenda”. Nothing kills an integration meeting like an HR person from the acquiring company, who arrives with an arbitrary alternative (“non-negotiable” policies and procedures) to force the newly acquired employees to comply to their process without first listening to and collectively examining whether it makes sense. The real crime is the facilitator who allows them to make a speech and enables their passive-aggressive behaviour.

4. Leaders Whose Behaviour Precisely Undermines The Meeting’s “Rules of Engagement”. If the understanding is that PDA’s and phones are to be switched off until the scheduled break, there is zero excuse for the leader, who blatantly ignores the rule. What the leader’s behaviour says to the other participants is “this discussion is not my priority”.

5. Kick off at the wrong starting point (integration alternative). Any discussion must start with “what is the desired business outcome?” (rapid reduction in business acquisition expenses), “what are the integration alternatives?” (adopt Company A or B’s sales approach or develop a new approach), “what is the risk and reward attached to each alternative?”, and ends with “what action is required to rapidly and effectively implement the preferred alternative” (next steps). Nothing else.

6. Priorities are given an arbitrary score (“7”) or (“High”). Organise and separate priorities into three headings (“GSI”): “Gravity”, what is the gravity of the issue? “Speed”, how fast does this need resolving or improving? “Impact”, what is the actual or potential impact on the firm’s future? Use actual descriptive sentences not scores.

7. Lack of definitive “next steps” with agreed action points (“I’ll discuss this with the COO when I next see him”). Every action point must have a time, date and accountability given to it with an understanding of the supplementary action to follow.

My observation is that most first integration meetings start with the very best of intentions. Where they go awry is that the meeting chair and participants overlook the importance of speed as well as quality. “Speed” in terms of, for example, identifying decision-making shortcuts that enhance the quality of the results (more impressive financial synergies, happier customers). “Quality” in terms of asking the right questions in the integration meeting to enhance the “speed” of accomplishing the desired business outcomes (ease of implementation, reduced risk).

© James Berkeley 2015. All Rights Reserved.

Its The Management, Stupid

Wednesday, July 1st, 2015

McKinsey has cottoned on to what I have been saying for several years. The insurance sector’s obsession with data and analytics is irrelevant if the management of the businesses aren’t willing or able to change their beliefs and attitudes.

www.mckinsey.com/insights/financial_services/what_drives_insurance_operating_costs?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck-oth-1507

In a year when weekly landmark deals have rained down like confetti in all corners of the industry, it raises the following questions:

  1. Why is the industry is so in love with hiring C-level executives from within?
  2. If so many leaders are poorly qualified or unwilling to address business complexity, operating models, IT and performance management as McKinsey suggest, why aren’t Board Chairs and shareholders more assertive in casting a wider net?
  3. What would it take to attract leaders with the skills and volition to challenge widely held beliefs and make meaningful changes that transform insurers’ operating performance?

Therein lies the key future challenge for the sector and the experts who are able to help answer those valuable questions will be able to charge whatever they want.

© James Berkeley 2015. All Rights Reserved.

 

Complexifying Uncovered

Thursday, June 18th, 2015

Hard on the heels of yesterday’s blog post, I run into another client taking a simple idea and voluntarily promoting a more complex alternative without regard to the client’s benefit.

Our capacity to take complex ideas and turn them into simple, pragmatic ideas that are easy to grasp, implement and provide a tangible benefit for our clients is essential to all organisation’s success. Whether it is front or back of house processes, new ways to compete, new ways to distribute products or services, new ways to integrate technology and so on. Yet many organisations and intelligent people are so in love with their new methodologies or technologies that they promote greater complexity without regard to the client’s benefit (results and value). Indeed, adding complexity is often used as a defensive measure to protect historical practices, existing business or market share in the belief that the client or individual isn’t smart enough to decipher the smokescreen. It is called “complexifying” and manifests itself in bureaucratic behaviour. Governments are masters of this dark art.

I developed this process visual while working with several clients in the past few months on new approaches in their sector where converging forces are causing significant disruption. Someone says I have a great new idea and I often ask the other parties to write down and agree on the process visual where are they today “T” and where the new idea or process would position them in future “F”. Grasping the movement from “T” to “F”, provides a highly insightful understanding of the idea’s worth and more importantly, the priority that should be given to it.

Prioritising Improvements pv jpg-page-001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© James Berkeley 2015. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

Cleansing Europe’s Unhealthy Cash Culture

Thursday, July 31st, 2014

I predict economic hardship in Europe will not truly be over in the worst hit countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece)  until governments and banks can change the beliefs governing the behaviours and attitudes of small and medium sized businesses and consumers about paying by credit or debit cards rather than cash. In 2014, my circumstantial evidence on trips to these countries is that local banks, hotels, restaurants, transportation, retail, real estate agencies, professional services and so on are turning these societies into a more cash-driven, less transparent and more secretive places to live, work and visit. More, not less income is being obscured from tax authorities today than in 2004, at precisely the point these countries need to broaden and increase their tax bases. Indeed banks in one recent example in Barcelona (Santander, Caixa)  are gouging customers (particularly foreigners) with 3.5% supplementary fees on additional credit card fees, are doing their level best to dis-incentivise a behavioural change . Hoteliers this Summer in many of the smaller independent hotels are actively encouraging cash payments, refusing to offer invoices and I would guess, increasingly hiring employees on a “cash only” paid basis. What we are seeing is the point at which people’s trust and confidence in politicians and banks has reached a nadir.

What is required? Successive governments have tried enforcement tactics but they are not visibly working. Governments, banks and other key constituents need to appeal to the SME business owners and managers’ self-interest and that of their customers. Make it easier and more attractive to pay by credit or debit card (embrace high tech, simple VAT reimbursement process), remove frictional banking costs (excess charges), incentivise transparent billing (corporate tax system, faster settlement with suppliers), offers of increased state investment in local health, education and welfare linked to increased declared income receipts from SME business owners and so forth.  This is a long way from the “macro” political shenanigans in Brussels but until the unhealthy cash culture is changed, economic re-emergence in these countries is going to be painfully slow. After all it is the SME sector that these countries must heavily rely upon to generate revenue, jobs and taxes if they are to emerge from intensive care and stand on their own two feet.

© James Berkeley 2014. All Rights Reserved.

Coming Up Smelling of Roses or Manure

Monday, April 28th, 2014

In excess of 110,000 people will make a rite of passage this weekend to Churchill Downs for the “Run For The Roses” (Kentucky Derby), approximately 16 million people will watch from their living rooms and re-connect with a sport for one day in the year. Yet the long-term health and prosperity of the sport in North America is mired in acrimony, vested interests and falling fan appeal. To the once-a-year viewer the reasons why are largely unclear.

It is fundamentally a lesson for entrepreneurs, businesses and indeed, governments, when ego, greed and self-interest are allowed to triumph over common sense and good judgement.  Going back to the 1960’s, power and influence has resided in a small number of people, who controlled the racetracks, the legal parimutuel betting, the licencing of the sport (the state racing associations and the Jockey Clubs), the media rights and the most successful horsemen. From that period forward, the fan (the customer) was subservient to each stakeholder’s selfish attempt to further their own interests, at the expense of others.

In businesses that are seeking profitable growth, leadership of this kind and neglect of the consumer or client is tantamount to business suicide. When those that have shown real leadership and vision (John Gaines and others) find that the sport’s best interests are constantly diverted and change is diluted, is it little wonder that the industry is in today’s parlous state? Fighting drugs and integrity issues, largely dependent on the growth and liberalisation of slots and other forms of of gaming to fund purses, midweek attendances at all time lows and mainstream television coverage a rarity outside the sport’s very biggest days.

Transformation is urgently required.  Vibrant strategies are important but above all else, strong leadership is required and a cultural change within the sport needs to rapidly take place. The sport desperately needs a “talisman”. Someone who can say “follow me”, a Lee Iacocca or Lou Gesterner-figure. It needs a focus on the winning line, not the quarter-mile marker. Maintaining a focus on the long-term and not allowing the short-term mishaps to lose sight of where it needs to end up. It needs key stakeholders to set aside differences and run the sport not fight each other. It needs strategies and a belief system that says “we will not invest in anything unless we can demonstrably see that our customer (the fan) is better off”.

As someone, who has had a box seat at some of the most spectacular victories and defeats in business and the sport of horse racing that individual cannot arrive soon enough.

© James Berkeley 2014. All Rights Reserved.

 

Endless Capital Chasing Limited Opportunities

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014

A phone call from a longstanding friend, who has recently returned from China to Dubai, full of great ideas to provide the mass affluent Gulf buyers with a digital portal to purchase  luxury retail goods at hugely discounted prices, reminded me that today’s challenge for most entrepreneurs is not access to capital rather it is access to great ideas. Travel, observation, ingenuity and self-confidence are the keys to profitable growth. Yet so often entrepreneurs and particularly corporate executives self-limit their own potential.

1. Short-sighted artificial travel bans are randomly applied to rescue management failure or excess (Barclays). Restricting travel, restricts learning opportunities, meeting new sources of innovation and creating new powerful relationships that will positively impact the firm’s productivity, image, growth and ultimately, profit.

2. We are so in love with our methodology and the beliefs that have defined our past, we fail to observe the changes that are affecting our futures (shifting demographics, technological advancement, wealth transfer, customer buying preference and so on). Failure to observe is largely a management failure in most organisations, to hold people to account firstly, for generating new ideas and secondly, applying that creativity (innovation) in the workplace.

3. We overly hold our brightest and best people to account for compliance with endless policies and procedures that stifle creativity, in the name of increased “security” (solvency etc) and minimising risk to the consumer (banks, financial services, insurance, farming etc.). Precisely at the point when technology is accelerating our lives and competition has never been more intense, demanding that we find  new ways to compete, new ways to attract new customers and new, relevant value for our best customers. Indeed many firms’ incentive compensation systems disproportionately reward those, who comply rather than those, who demonstrate high levels of ingenuity.

4. “Self-confidence” largely comes from acquiring the skills and behaviours needed to profitably grow a business. “Experience” is the culmination (the victories and defeats) of applying those skills and behaviours to particular growth initiatives. We don’t grow and become more experienced without trying and in many cases, failing, at first. Economies, governments, industry sectors and corporate organisations, who prioritise investment in and incentivise their people to acquire new skills and behaviours without a fear of failure are more often than not the ones today creating the most impressive growth opportunities (US, China, UK, Germany, pharma, healthcare, hospitality, technology and so forth). That isn’t so difficult to work out unless you choose to ignore the facts.

Most businesses with solid business goals can attract capital. What they lack are sufficient great ideas. When the top management of those firms shoot themselves in the foot, it is time for their Board and significant shareholders to speak up and hold them to account.

© James Berkeley 2014. All Rights Reserved.

Ultra High Net Worth Clients, Ultra High Net Debt Advisers

Thursday, January 16th, 2014

Headline sales in 2013 of premium art, private jets, houses, superyachts, bloodstock and the other foibles of  ultra high net worth individuals create impressive column inches for the advisers, brokers, dealers and auction houses. A certain spring arises in the step of those individuals welcoming you into their offices. However behind the perma grin, firm handshake and the Ralph Lauren Black Label double-breasted suit lies an unspoken truth. Whisper it quietly, the cash banked tells a dramatically different story. The wealthy Russian client’s private office has withheld the most recent payment, the Chinese billionaire is not responding to the request for settlement of his account, and the Indonesian client is pre-occupied with the recent changes in government policy on the fortunes of his business. The list goes on…..

Advisers and intermediaries have largely improved their pre-sale credit checks over the last decade. However, their cashflow methodology has hardly changed. I am referring to how they convert revenue into cash banked. The balance sheets, particularly amongst the top 10 firms in each sector of premium art, private jet, real estate, bloodstock, real estate, jewellery are littered with outstanding debtors.  It is painful but not terminal. Routinely, executive memos are issued in the third and fourth quarter of the financial year advising all non-essential planned expenditure (headcount, travel and entertainment, marketing, longer-term client initiatives etc.) is to be put “on hold”. Get below this tier in each sector and there are firms whose very survival is on the line.

It is like Kate Moss coming to terms with twenty years of hard living in the bathroom mirror. Not such a pretty sight away from the flashlights of the fashion world’s jeunesse doree.

My observation is that many of these advisory and intermediary businesses suffer from a lack of goal congruency and mutual self-interest in the middle management layers of these businesses.   The best intentions of executive management are distorted in the day to day dealings with the clients. Cash collection is not seen as important in the organisation or an executive priority. There is no carrot or stick. Indeed, in many cases the client’s principle contact in the firm is not accountable for banking the cash. It is the responsibility of administrative or finance people. When pressure is applied on the principle contact, fearful of losing the cherished relationship or not knowing how the UHNW individual will react to his “honour” being questioned, the adviser or broker procrastinates. He or she makes up excuses to “Finance” why Client X is unavailable or it is the wrong time to ask (another valuable consignment is on the way or they are in delicate negotiations to buy a replacement yacht or plane).

Here is what these firms need to immediately act upon:

1. What are the desired behaviours and results we seek from our clients ? (our terms and conditions are routinely adhered to with very few exceptions, no debtors beyond 90 days and so on)

2. What are the desired behaviours and results we seek from our advisers/brokers? (high-level of self-worth and self-confidence, act as a peer not a pawn of the client, favourable terms agreed at all times, preventative and contingent action in place for cash collection, accountable for their own behaviour and performance)

3. Where are the mis-alignments?

4. What is the priority? (consider the seriousness, urgency and growth of each issue)

5. What action is required? (clearer business goals and accountabilities, improved individual skills and behaviour, improved tools and communication, improved experience and so on)

6. How do we make that happen? (stronger exemplars and avatars in senior management, training, development, more effective individual performance and reward, other carrots and sticks)

My experience is that sustained improvements can be dramatic if leaders in these businesses and their subordinates have the skills and volition to make cash collection a priority and where necessary, seek external help.

© James Berkeley 2014.

 

 

 

Embracing Digital Customers in Analogue Insurance Businesses

Tuesday, December 10th, 2013

Large swathes of the insurance and reinsurance sectors are still operating predominantly analogue businesses in 2013. Yet the greatest change and fastest growth area is their customers increasing competency with and willingness to make purchases through mobile platforms (smartphone, tablets etc.) Profitable growth demands that those businesses either charge more for assuming risk (difficult to do) or they dramatically improve productivity.

It takes more than a website and basic e-commerce if those firms want to be significant players in their respective markets. Achieving substantial and substantial growth in competitive mature and high growth markets necessitates a digital strategy that intelligently addresses the key customer touch points and their own business model. Many dumb consultants and internal IT experts suggest prioritising the “points of pain”. That is a stupid strategy. Let’s keep it simple,

Focus on six fundamental parts of the business: Corporate Operations and Governance, Underwriting and Products, Actuarial and Risk Management, Claims & Policy Management, Disputes Resolution & Litigation and Sales & Distribution.

Aside from the obvious return on investment decisions, demand each department head with profit and loss responsibility answers four questions:

– Distinguish Priorities: Where is the “seriousness” (high/moderate/low impact on the customer experience), “urgency” and “growth” (escalating/stable/insignificant) for digital investment in each function?

– Measure Progress and Success: What would tell us that we are making progress or have arrived at our goal?

– Demand Accountability: Who must be accountable (internal and external) for the progress and success?

– Remove obstacles and procrastination: What, if anything, stops us starting tomorrow to rapidly transform our business into a strong, dynamic digital competitor?

My observation with countless recent discussions with insurance and reinsurance executives is the cancerous fear of ending up in huge digital transformation projects that never reach their destination and result in an abundance of abandoned or mothballed projects. That fear is fundamentally about a loss of power and control. Control in the form of delegating responsibility to technical experts, who lose sight of the commercial imperatives. Power in the sense of being associated with a failed project and anger from shareholders, customers and other key constituents. Ask the right questions, demand transparent answers and that “journey” to the digital world can be hugely profitable. After all, what is the point of leadership if you are not comfortable using that power and applying the appropriate level of control.