Tricky or downright dishonest?

"We will keep the promise that we made. It's not the promise that some people thought we made, or that some people might have liked us to make," Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Sunday December 1, 2013 in relation to funding of education in Australia.

Prior to the September 7 Federal Election in Australia, the issue of funding for education threatened to become a "wedge" item for the Liberal-National Party Coalition. The then Government (Labor) was using the Gonski Committee recommendations to illustrate a clear difference in policy - one (the Gonski Reforms) that would provide equitable funding for every student and the existing system that ensured non-government schools that were able to charge fees on top of funding received had a distinct financial advantage over government schools. When the possible wedge became apparent,  the Coalition promised to meet Labor's Better Schools funding promises and this was promoted as showing that there was no difference between the parties. Voters went to the September7 election clearly believing that the Gonski Reforms would apply no matter who the new government might be.

Tricky Tony! Right up there along with Tricky Dickie (President Richard Nixon) of so many years ago.

There is no doubt in my mind that, despite Tony Abbott's statement today, his statements prior to the September 7 election and the public relations exercises that accompanied these regarding education were deliberately designed to have people think that the Gonski Reforms were now "set in stone". What Abbott is now saying is "We haven't changed a thing. If you believed something other than what we are now saying then you were stupid!"

Prime Minister Abbott, we expect people like you to "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". If we examine your words closely, it is clear that you told us the truth but you didn't tell us the whole truth - you provided us with a statement that could be labelled "suggestio falsi" - a Latin phrase meaning suggestion of something which is untrue. I'm not a lawyer but I understand that suggestio falsi are grounds for rescinding an agreement because suggestio falsi amounts to a fraud whenever the party making it was bound to disclose the truth.

The problem that I have with what we are now seeing from Tony Abbott is that, despite all our hopes for a good government, he is proving the truth of a statement he made many years ago (prior to the 2010 Federal Election) when he said in effect "you can't trust anything I say. The only things that can be relied on are those that are in writing." Like many others, I had hoped that this soundbite was just a throwaway line and that the truth was different.

Clearly I was wrong. Tricky Tony is telling me that he cannot be taken at face value; that I have to examine the fine print on anything that is written and to pin him down to very tight specifics on anything that he says.

Prime Minister I am not stupid and neither are most of the other people who voted for you and your Coalition Parties in the last election. We believed you when you said you would govern for all Australians. We believed you when you said your government would not give us any surprises. We took you at your word and I for one am now bitterly disappointed.

The question I am now asking is "Is Tony Abbott simply tricky or are you downright dishonest?" Either way you are quickly losing my trust. Your actions over the next few years will give us the answer - tricky or dishonest could mean you head a one-term government.

I'd love to know what you think. Please leave your comments below.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Is that all there is?

Last week the Reserve Bank of Australia decided that there would be no change in the official interest rates but on Friday one of Australia's "Big Four", very profitable commercial banks decided that it would raise its interest rates anyway - they would hate to see any reduction in their "bottom line" because that could impact not only their international credit rating but, dare one say it, also possibly the remuneration of its senior executives. I suspect other banks will raise their rates this week!

Also during last week there were reports of a rise in the number of bankruptcies in parts of Sydney as well as reports of an increase in the number of mortgage holders who have negative equity in their homes - and many of these are in the more prestigious areas.

The fact is that, in Australia, the gulf between the rich and the poor is getting wider. We are developing at least two classes in society and, as attested by a wide range of social service organisations, many people are experiencing frustration, anger, and helplessness as they try to even survive in what is often an uncaring and vicious economic environment.

Back in 1969, Peggy Lee asked the question "Is That All There Is?" in a song which questioned what we call "success" and whether there was more to life than just the here and now. Recently we celebrated Easter - a time on the Christian calendar that asks much the same question.

We seem to be inexorably caught up in the myth that success is all about power, what you have and your place on the social status ladder. We perpetuate the myth that we live in an economy rather than a society. And we wonder why illegal activity seems rampant; why gambling, substance abuse (including alcohol and nicotine), relationship breakdown and all the other indicators of problems in society show no sign of reducing. We wonder why helplessness so often drifts to hopelessness, to depression, to despair and worse.

Many years ago, a concentration camp survivor, Victor Frankl, explained the way in which he and others in concentration camps dealt with the question of what life was really all about. Was life just a brief spasm with no ultimate purpose? Was life really worth living? Victor Frankl, having worked through these issues while an inmate of a concentration camp, concluded that the meaning of life is found in every moment of living. He concluded that life never ceases to have meaning, even in suffering and death.

As I work with individuals and organisations to help them unlock their potential I find that one critical thing is simply showing that I care - I care about what happens to each person and I care about what happens to each organisation. I show that I care by the questions I ask and by the way in which I listen. I can't solve their problems - either personal or organisational - but by moving things away from "simply an economy" to a "sense of society" it becomes possible for resolutions to be found and for a new future to emerge.

People and organisations in Australia today are hurting. Some of the hurt is self-inflicted because of past choices, other of the hurt is inflicted by uncaring philosophies, systems and myths. Where there is hurt there is also a need for care. There is meaning in life.

How do you show others that you care? Do you continue caring even when what you offer appears to be rejected?

You can make your comments below. I'd love to read them.

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

More signs of PPM

Bullying is only one sign of PPM (Piss Poor Management)! There are many others.

Here are some examples provided to me in the past two weeks:

• A manager who employs people on the basis of the lowest remuneration possible rather than on ability to do the job required
• A manager who refuses to confront poor performance and low quality work because he feels it is important to be "liked" by his staff
• A company where senior executives seldom visit any of the 9 sites away from Head Office and ignore immoral and possibly illegal activity by the managers in those sites - the result is apprentices not paid for overtime work and the emergence of unsafe work practices
• A company where there is a high turnover of qualified staff because they are unhappy about the high volume, low quality work practices encouraged by managers

My point is that PPM can have many faces.

Good managers ensure that everyone clearly understands performance criteria in both qualitative and quantitative terms. They also ensure that those performance standards are high enough to stretch people yet low enough to be attainable. These performance standards are then broken down into easy-to-understand results areas and performance indicators that are properly monitored. Where criteria are being met, recognition is given and where criteria are not being met, clear action is taken to get things back on track - performance standards are not allowed to slide. Good executives ensure there is appropriate oversight and governance in all areas for which they are responsible.

Its not "rocket science" - supervisory and management programs have been teaching this for at least 50 years and good managers have practiced it since time immemorial.

We need to address and eliminate PPM!

What are your experiences with PPM? I'd love to know. Please write your comments below.

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Bullying - a clear indicator of PPM

The Macquarie Dictionary defines a bully as "someone who hurts, frightens, or orders about smaller or weaker people". It goes on to suggests synonyms that include "bulldoze, coerce, intimidate, threaten, tyrannise".

Leaders and good managers understand that bullying is oxymoronic. A leader and/or a good manager cannot be a bully and a bully cannot be a leader and/or a good manager. We need to remember this because every time we see a so-called leader indulging in coercion, intimidation. making threats etc that person has immediately forfeited his or her right to be called a leader. They may be in command or in charge, they may be #1 in their hierarchy or organisation or on the airwaves (all of which are perfectly legitimate roles) - but they are not a leader and they are not a "good manager".

Over recent blogs I have explored the issue of PPM (Piss Poor Management) and common to every example I have provided - and common to every example provided to me by other people - is the fact of one person using their position, title, money, power, physique, or some other part of their persona to coerce, intimidate, or threaten others. The result is that the other person felt a degree of insecurity, apprehension or fear in relation to their physical, emotional, psychological, or employment security. In other words, the person with the power has created an environment in which increased productivity, creativity, commitment, and motivation are highly unlikely to continue. People have been set up for failure rather than for success.

In my last blog I suggested the media should consider a "bullying index" that they put alongside all reports relating to politicians, captains of industry, talkback radio hosts, union officials, etc - in other words against every person seeking to exercise power and authority in every area of the community. The media often advocates naming and shaming for various other matters - why not for bullying?

If we're serious about eradicating bullying among young people then we've got to stop it in their role models!

Whoever you are; whatever your position in society; no matter what your wealth, status or anything else, you are a role model to someone. What sort of role model do you provide?

You don't have to be a bully! You can choose to be a leader.

What do you think? I'd love to know - please make your comments below.

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Still more about PPM!

The examples of PPM (Piss Poor Management) continue to come in - and some demonstrate either conscious or unconscious illegal and/or immoral behaviour.

• A Sydney prestige car dealership that refuses to pay an apprentice mechanic (automotive technician) for overtime worked - and threatens disciplinary action if the apprentice complains outside the company. Then, after a complaint is made and a warning is given, still persists with the same illegal behaviour!
  
• A private sector social service organisation that is found to have underpaid an employee then, when the employee persists with the claim, corrects this situation but also introduces a new policy designed to prohibit other employees from making similar claims
• A sales and service organisation where top management confuses employee professionalism with employee commitment - management expects staff to work long hours at low pay - then wonders why they have a high staff turnover when "there's just so much work for everyone"
• A restaurant where, on an evening when they are seriously short staffed, the manager refuses to assist staff in end-of-night cleaning - instead relaxing with an after-work drink and giving instructions

Seems like I've opened a hornets' nest with this subject!

In Australia we have legislation that ought to minimise the incidence of PPM - Occupational Health and Safety laws, Fair Work Australia laws, and the like - yet I hear of new examples every day.

There is something seriously wrong with workplaces and with society in general when PPM is so prevalent and so seldom challenged. I know that Maggie Thatcher, one time Prime Minister of the UK, famously said that "we live in an economy, not a society" (or words to that effect) but PPM doesn't even make real economic sense. There is plenty of hard evidence that all organisations achieve higher productivity with highly competent, fully committed employees who are engaged with their work, with each other, and with their organisation. And there is plenty of evidence also to show that higher productivity produces better results.

We shouldn't have to put up with PPM and we don't have to put up with PPM! Some clues about this are at http://www.evancarmichael.com/Leadership/5178/9-Steps-to-Improve-Performance.html and http://www.evancarmichael.com/Leadership/5178/7-Steps-To-Realising-Your-Potential.html

Share your stories about PPM with the rest of us. Make your comments below.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

The PPM issue!

Last week I wrote about my daughter's experience with PPM (Piss Poor Management) and I have now received numerous accounts from others about their experiences. These anecdotes include:

• A manager who refused to employ people who knew more than he did, or to promote people who challenged him
  
• A manager in a children's day care centre who, when asked for some guidance on doing a new task, ridiculed the a staff member involved in front of parent clients
• A manager in a major not-for-profit organisation who delayed investigation into an issue relating to remuneration because "your complaint makes me look bad!"
• A manager who was so concerned about her boss that, every time her boss was seen talking with a staff member, would find an excuse to get involved so as to ensure that she knew everything that was being said

What these illustrate is that PPM is not confined to the retail sector - it is alive and flourishing across the board.

Management education and training (whether from educational institutions or private training organisations) has been teaching good management practices for at least 40 years. Virtually everyone currently practicing PPM has almost certainly been exposed to good management practices in some way or another, yet PPM prevails. Why?

PPM in organisations is characterised by creating a situation in which employees feel their jobs are under threat - reach the performance targets set or be sacked/demoted/moved etc. - and such sanctions, in turn, could threaten my financial security and/or perceived social status. This threat of dismissal or other sanctions may be real or imagined. Its symptoms are people in supervisory/ management roles who refuse to question "the boss" or who will support "the boss" even when this means disillusionment and possible loss of good staff. My self interests and general concern for "me" takes precedence over everything else. These people can be described in the old saying: "they're not 'yes-men': they say 'no' when the boss does!"

I suspect that, deep down, PPM is caused by basic insecurity or fear.

Fear is one of the most basic and powerful factors in all animal life. It is multifaceted and encompasses physical and psychological/emotional aspects of life. It drives us to aggression, to frozen inaction, and to escapism through such avenues as physical removal from a situation, through to such behaviours as abuse of alcohol and drugs. It underlies all bullying and much of the antisocial behaviour we encounter. It underpinned the "cold war" - the West refused to accept that the East may not want world dominance (and vice versa); it underpinned the fiasco around the USA's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; and it underpins the current preoccupation with what Iran may or may not be doing in its (currently) totally legitimate enrichment of uranium. Fear is used by politicians and managers to drive people towards a solution that meets the ego needs of the powerful regardless of what is really good for the company or country or whatever.

I believe that, despite the best efforts and intentions of those propounding good management practices, PPM will continue to be prominent until we learn how to shift our brain's locus of control away from the "fear centre" and into the "courage centre". As I have said in earlier blogs, its the issue of "red zone" versus "blue zone" in terms of the way in which our brains work - but it starts in myself, the individual, rather than in someone else. (There are some pointers in how to make this shift at http://www.evancarmichael.com/Leadership/5178/7-Steps-To-Realising-Your-Potential.html)

The thing to remember is that, ultimately, no-one has to put up with PPM in any organisation. We may not be able to change the situation; we may not be able to change how others behave; but we can change our response. We can walk away - but, ideally, find your next job first!

What do you think? I'd love to hear your comments.

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Ash Wednesday Revisited

On the radio this morning I heard the announcer say that it was today, 29 years ago that the Ash Wednesday Bush Fires erupted in South Eastern Australia.

I was living in Melbourne in 1983 and I remember the day well.

Like today, it was sunny although, unlike recent Sydney weather, February 16, 1983 was the continuation of a hot, dry period of late summer. I was working quietly in my home office and scarcely noticed the wind rising. However, as the day progressed, the wind got stronger and the sky darkened - but not with rain. I turned on the radio and was quickly aware of the fact that fires had started in various parts of Victoria and South Australia. With the strong winds that had developed, these fires were racing across farm land and through the bush. All available fire crews had been mobilised to fight the various conflagrations.

It was late afternoon when I was contacted and asked to report to the State Relief Centre in Melbourne to help out there. On reporting I was asked to coordinate the Centre's operations and ensure that, as far as possible, people and communities affected urgently received the support and assistance they needed. I'm still proud of the work done by the team with whom I was privileged to work.

As I think back over that period, several things come to mind:

First, apart from those who were already part of the various emergency and relief organisations, the absolute commitment to help and the generosity of so many "ordinary" people was amazing. All support agencies in Melbourne were besieged by people offering time, money, and goods to help those in need. The contract drivers for a major trucking company volunteered their vehicles to transport goods wherever they may be needed - and that included all costs involved. Quick food chains arrived with food for the volunteers both wherever they may be. In affected areas, accommodation, food, clothing, and all other forms of support miraculously appeared. There was no need to appeal for help - in so many cases, it simply arrived.

Second, that all too often we give only lip-service to the dedication, courage, and commitment of those in the front line of disasters - how often are we quick to criticise the police, the "fireys", the "ambos", and the others who are actually face-to-face with the issues and doing whatever is necessary for as long as necessary in order to achieve results. We praise them on the day then return to simply treating them as part of the scenery until the next major disaster occurs. We are happy to use them when its to our benefit but largely ignore them the rest of the time.

What my experience with the Ash Wednesday Bush Fires taught me is that, when made fully aware of an issue and given the opportunity to contribute, most people will willingly put in astronomical amounts of time and effort to being about a satisfactory solution. Most people want to contribute to something worthwhile and, given the chance, will become fully engaged with achieving results. When they believe that something is worthwhile and their energies are correctly harnessed, ordinary people achieve extraordinary results. Those with specialist training and roles will draw on all of their knowledge and skills while unskilled generalists will go out of their way to provide whatever additional support is required.

The tragedy is that our politicians and business leaders (totally supported by the media) seem to forget this. We are surrounded by walls of spin that seem to assume people either cannot handle the truth or that we cannot be trusted to do anything satisfactorily unless we are rigidly controlled. Our politicians seem to believe that only they and their bureaucrats know what is best - the strongly and rightly criticised legislation from both the Howard Government and the present government affecting Aboriginal communities in Australia is but one case in point. Our business leaders seem to believe that only they know how what are the issues needing to be addressed in their organisations and how to address them. Vested interests from those "in charge" dominate what is done and how it is done.

As I said, my Ash Wednesday Bush Fires experience taught me that, when made fully aware of an issue and given the opportunity to contribute, most people will willingly put in astronomical amounts of time and effort to being about a satisfactory solution. When people are fully informed with the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" and then are empowered to help bring about desired results, amazing things happen.

Isn't it about time we really learned this?

What do you think? I'd love to know. Please make your comments below.

More information about Doug Long at http:www.dglong.com

No there's not!

I use public transport whenever possible - it saves the hassle of traffic and parking even if, at least in Sydney, it can sometimes be unreliable.

One of the benefits of using public transport is that it gives me the opportunity to observe people. Yesterday, for example, there was a young man who got on the train a few stations after me. I'd guess he was early 20's, big build, and, from his clothes, was clearly involved in some form of manual work. He was heavily tattooed and sat in the seat in front of me where he openly indulged in drinking a large bottle of beer. The impression I got was "don't mess with me!" We reached his station and, as he stood up to alight, a woman, probably in her 80's and using a cane for support, also stood up from a few seats away. The train lurched and she stumbled. Like lightening the young man reached out, saved her from falling, then gently assisted her down the stairs, out the door, and onto the platform. As the train moved off he was walking and chatting with her and ensuring she was ok.

I couldn't help but compare this experience with one a few days previously when a group of school children got on the train. From their uniforms this very neat and tidy group (males and females) were all from prestigious private schools on Sydney's North Shore. They were aged around 16 and, as is often the case with young people, were talking loudly about their day's experience. At first glance this group appeared to be self-assured and confident. But, as with my experience yesterday, appearances were deceptive. Everyone in the carriage was quickly aware that the boys had sat some form of test and one boy in particular had not done as well as expected. He commented that his father would be furious about the results. One of the girls suggested he discuss his father's expectations with his father and the boy was obviously terrified at the thought. After some further discussion, and as the doors closed after the group alighted, I heard another of the boys then suggest: "Well, if its that bad, there's always suicide!"

Its a very long time since I was a school boy. As the train moved off I thought about my experiences with school tests and exams in the late 1950's. Neither I nor anyone I knew always got the results that our parents expected and there were times when we took results home very apprehensively! Like this group, we too talked about our results vis a vis parental expectations - but I have no recollection of anyone ever suggesting suicide as an option - even in jest.

I find it a sad commentary on our society when a child shows fear in relation to talking with parents and even more sad when, even if in jest, another child can suggest suicide as the solution.

Many years ago (1946) Victor Frankl, a Concentration Camp survivor, wrote a book called "Man's Search for Meaning" in which he recalled the desperation of concentration camp existence. He concluded that it is in knowing that we matter to someone somewhere that gives life meaning. Our society seems to have degenerated into an economic rationalist abyss where all that matters is "the bottom line". In this world, for far too many people, suicide is always an option. And tragedy can strike again.

Every person matters. Every person is important. Every person is deserving of respect and consideration. Every person can make a positive contribution to society. That is the message we need to get out alongside the emphasis on bottom line results. When it is again realised that, despite the rhetoric, we actually do live in a society not an economy then, when someone says "there's always suicide" the response can be "no there's not!"

What do you think?

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Customer Service - Why can't retailers get the message?

Last Friday was my wife's birthday. In the previous weeks we had been out shopping together and I had taken careful note of those items in which she expressed an interest. Of particular interest to her was something offered by the Australian retailer David Jones. A couple of days before her birthday I went to David Jones in order to buy said item. I walked into their Hornsby store and, sure enough, the item was there locked behind a glass screen. Fair enough. I can understand why it was located in a place where it could not easily be stolen. But now my problems started. I looked around: no staff. Certainly there was a pay station, but it was unattended. I looked further into the adjoining departments. Not a staff member anywhere. I was not the least surprised to see that there were very few prospective customers either! For 10 minutes I waited and looked. In that time no David Jones employee entered either the department in which I was waiting or the adjoining departments. I walked out. David Jones had lost another sale. Since then, in talking with other people, it has become very clear that my experience is a common one and not only at the Hornsby store.

If I was a shareholder in David Jones (and I'm not), I would be furious. At a time when retailers say they are experiencing a downturn, why can't prospective customers get service. Why don't David Jones want my money? Perhaps the shareholders should be thinking in terms of changing the Board and senior management. It seems like they've forgotten customer service.

As readers of my blogs know, this lack of customer service is a major concern of mine. For that reason it was good to read Carolyn Cummins piece in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/business/customer-service-makes-the-difference-20110913-1k7j1.html). Why can't major retailers get the message?

What do you think?

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Is "customer service" an oxymoron?

I have just come off the phone from talking with Optus. Here in Australia they are purported to be a communications company. Can you guess what's coming next?

You got it!

Optus suck at communicating - at least with me.

Let me bore you with the details. Recently a mobile phone was stolen and the appropriate steps were taken to notify the Police, cancel the sim card, and make an insurance claim. Today I received notification that the claim was approved and I was given a number to call in order to arrange settlement of the claim. This should be easy, I thought, and phoned them! I spent the next 30 minutes in a never ending loop that took me back to the same place 4 times. Yes, my patience wore thin and I eventually hung up.

A cup of tea later and I tried again. This time what a difference. I was fortunate to strike an agent who was different - he wanted to help. With his help I was through the system in just over 5 minutes and everything was finalised. What a pity he's possibly the only person like that at Optus! I hope they pay him more than the CEO - he deserves it.

Having just come off some pretty spectacular examples of really good customer service (see my recent blogs) I found today particularly frustrating. Big companies like Optus just don't seem to get it. They confuse "service" with telephone prompts that have rigid specifications and are often confusing in themselves.

So let me spell it out for Optus and others who are confused.

Customer service means individual attention to the needs and concerns of another individual. It involves the investment of some time by a knowledgeable person who is willing and able to listen to the needs and concerns of another person then help resolve whatever it is that needs attention. Computers can't do this. Harried, poorly trained call centre people who are under pressure to minimise the time they spend with each customer can't do this. Forcing customers into interactions with these will simply add to blood pressure levels and an increase of complaints to the appropriate authorities.

Its not rocket science.

People like me want customer service when we have a problem and we expect to receive it given the charges that are made for telephone services, banking services, government services and the like. Failure to provide the service we want and need results in blogs like this, then customer churn, then reduced profits, and so on. Its a leadership issue and, Optus, you're failing the leadership test.

Organisations like Fantastic Furniture, JaxQuickfit Tyres, and the NSW Fire Brigades get it. Why can't Optus?

What do you think?

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com.

Customer Service - yet again!

The media has recently been discussing research that indicates at least part of the reason for the downturn in retail sales is a lack of customer service - retail staff are too few or too disinterested or too busy to really work with the customer in order to make a sale. Its a good point.

But the retailers themselves are a key part of the problem - not just their staff.

Yesterday is a case in point.

One of my daughters works part time in a retail store in order to help fund her university course. On Monday afternoon she was asked to do a particular task when the store opened on Tuesday. She started work just before 9-00 am and was about to do as she had been asked when a customer walked in. The next 40 minutes were spent working with the customer and a large sale was the result. During this selling process her manager arrived and watched what was happening. Immediately my daughter had concluded the sale her manager approached and berated her for not doing what she had been asked to do as a priority. My daughter was told that the other task - a matter of merchandising relating to placement of stock - should have taken precedence over the customer. When my daughter pointed out the importance of the customer and the volume of the sale, she was told that questioning her manager's instructions and priorities was a career limiting activity!

Now it so happens that the store at which my daughter works is part of a national chain that has recently been complaining that sales are down and it has issued a profit downgrade to the market. From my observations over some months, with managerial attitudes like that shown yesterday, I'm not surprised!

As I have said before, customer service is not "rocket science".

But it starts with an organisation being genuinely committed to the provision of service - not just some slogan on a wall or written into an Annual Report or business plan. And executives and managers need to model the service required. Its a truism to point out that without customers there is no-one to buy whatever is being sold and, without sales, cash flow and profit are adversely affected. Therefore there are sound financial reasons for providing adequate staff who are well trained and engaged with their product and organisation - who want to sell because they enjoy the customer interaction.

A key part of leadership is creating an environment in which people can achieve desired results. This means, in part, ensuring that the right people are there in the right numbers with the right products and the right resources at the right time and with the right sort of role modelling from their bosses.

At least one national retail chain seems to have forgotten this. What a pity. Especially because they have great product - but it won't sell itself.

What do you think?

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Customer Service - still going!

If the press are to be believed, the current downturn in Australian retail sales is either because of the confusion being created about the new carbon tax or because of come other reason beyond the control of the retailers.

Huh?

The main reasons why people don't buy are pretty simple:

1. They don't know that the goods or services are available
2. The goods or services that are available are not those for which they are looking and/or need
3. The goods or services are not considered good value for money
4. The service (or lack thereof) provided by the seller is such that the customer considers it "just too hard" to buy

Yes, economic confidence affects the way people think and it certainly affects their buying patterns, but what this generally means is that people become more discriminating as to what they buy and from whom they buy it. And, yes, the current debate on the carbon tax (accompanied by much misinformation and deliberate attempts to mislead by appealing to fear) certainly has lowered consumer confidence because of the way in which the Australian economy is being talked down. But the reason why retailers are suffering lies primarily with the retailers themselves.

Ken Varga (http://kenvarga.com/) has some interesting things to say about this issue - perhaps even to some of the affected retailers.

I believe that a key problem is that so many of our major retailers have moved away from their core business. Where once stores like Myers and David Jones employed their own staff, trained those staff, and ensured that their staff knew about far more than just the small area in which they worked, today this is not the case. Our retailers seem to have moved to a situation in which various brands lease parts of the store and each is interested only in promoting their brands. In addition, because employment costs are seen as an expense rather than an investment, the stores have moved to a minimalist position on staffing levels and pay those they do employ the lowest possible wages they can get away with. The stores show little or no loyalty to staff (apart from the middle to senior managers and executives) so why should the staff show loyalty to them?

Good customer service requires engaged staff. To get staff committed to what they are doing, to their co-workers, and to their organisation, requires a vastly different type of leadership from that which is currently being provided. Unless an organisation is consciously set up to create an environment in which employees at all levels have a high probability of being successful, then customer service (and profitability) become a random end variable - which is, I guess, exactly where many organisations are today.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Customer Service - there's more!

It was interesting to note that one of the TV Channels in Sydney ran a piece on customer service last evening. They looked at the difference between what the various major grocery retail chains promised in their advertising about service and what they actually delivered. The results were not what any of the organisations involved really wanted. The TV program seemed to imply that this was a training issue.

I have 2 daughters who supplement their university studies by working as casuals in the retail industry. They see the issue as being a little more complex - and I think they're right. They think the problem involves 3 things - application of policy, training of employees, and customer behaviour.

First, customer behaviour.

One of the things that frustrates my daughters is customers who refuse service - customers who seem to be in such a hurry that any attempt to provide information is treated with rudeness and, sometimes, offensive behaviour. Generally these seem to be the customers who want to push ahead of anyone else who may be waiting or is even being served and for whom the entire matter of a sales transaction seems to be the worst thing in the world. "Get enough of these in a shift," I was told, "and its easy to forget that you have a primary role to help the customer."

Second, training of employees.

This really is a critical matter. As a customer I am often frustrated when sales assistants seem to show no interest in what they are selling and even less interest in me. Its as though they are simply going through the motions of "customer service" without really believing in what they are doing.

The easy response to this is to say that he or she has an "attitude problem". But that simply isn't true. The person involved has a behaviour problem - they are not doing what they have been trained to do - and that is all about behaviour. The fact is that, like most other people, I'm not really concerned about what a salesperson thinks of me or of the goods or services they are selling. That's their business. What I am concerned about is how they relate to me - and that is behavioural. Organisations need to ensure that their employees are properly trained to deliver good customer service no matter what they may think or what they may be feeling.

Application of Policy.

This is where the role of management becomes critical. Leaders and managers have a responsibility to create an environment in which their staff can be successful. And this is the key area in which most fall down. Unless those in leadership positions model the appropriate behaviour, they cannot complain when their staff fall short of desired standards. This is where the examples I used in my earlier blog on customer service stand out. Both Trevor at Fantastic Furniture and Mark at Jaxquickfit Tyres were leaders who demonstrated the behaviour their organisations wanted in relation to customer service. Its no wonder that the people who replaced my son's bed and the technicians who worked on my car continued the practice of good customer service - they saw it in their leaders.

Another part of this application of policy is recognition of "you get what you reward". Some years ago Ken Blanchard in "The One Minute Manager" wrote "surprise someone: catch them doing something right!" Attention from a leader is a very powerful means of recognition and reward. In your organisation where do you place the most emphasis? Do you pay more attention to what person does right ..... or to what they do wrong?


You cannot affect the way a customer relates to you. But you can affect how you relate to any and every customer - and that's the key to good customer service.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Customer Service

Quite a long time ago I listed an article on EvanCarmichael.com entitled “Cracked Eggs Don’t Hatch” in which I talked about my customer service experience with Dell computers. Over the last 3 days I have had more interesting customer service experiences about which to talk.

First:

Last Saturday my son bought a new bed from an organisation in Penrith, Sydney, named “Fantastic Furniture”. When he got it home he undid the packaging and was dismayed to find that there was evidence that the unit may have been used as a showroom display and that there had been some damage which had been badly repaired. Now had he bought this as an ex-showroom item this would not have been an issue – he would have accepted that things can get damaged in a showroom and that the reduction in price would have taken account of this. But this wasn’t bought as ex-floor stock!

My son phoned the store and spoke with Trevor, the manager. The response was immediate. There was no argument or request for additional justification. The manager accepted my son was not happy and that the item was damaged. He said the item will be replaced. Today they are delivering a new bed and taking the other one away even though they have to come over 40 km to reach our house. Now that’s customer service – “Fantastic Service from Fantastic Furniture” is how my son described it.

Second:

A few weeks ago I got new front tyres for my car from an organisation called JAXQuickfit Tyres in Thornleigh, Sydney. This morning I heard some noise from the brakes and, because I enjoy servicing my car, I decided to check the discs. On each of the front wheels, all the wheel nuts came off easily except 1 on each side – one stud snapped on each front wheel. Now I have been working on my cars for over 50 years and in that time I have undone and done up countless wheel nuts – I’ve never before had a stud snap. Today I get two – one on each wheel that had recently had a tyre replaced by JAX. I phoned them and explained the coincidence to Mark, the manager. There was no hesitation. “We’ll fix it for you,” he said. “We’ll need the car for about an hour.”

Thank you Mr JAXQuickfit Tyres in Thornleigh.

The thing that saddens me is that service such as this is, all too often, the exception rather than the rule. It shouldn't have to be that way - and it doesn't have to be.



More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Third Generation Leadership engages people

It doesn't really matter what I might think of Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard or any other politician. What does matter is what may be learned from the absolutely unbelievable last few days in Australian politics.

The dominant leadership model today in politics as in most other areas of life is either First Generation Leadership in which obedience is demanded or Second Generation Leadership in which conformance is rewarded and non conformance is punished. Both of these are leadership approaches in which the emphasis is on hierarchy and control. These are the approaches which lead to "strong" leadership which sets goals and then brooks no denial or excuse in the attainment of these goals.

Unfortunately for the advocates of these approaches, increasing numbers of people today are refusing to accept that these are the best, or even the only, way to lead.

Last evening I built a list of the Prime Ministers in Australia since 1976 (when arrived here). Without exception they have been people who maintained very tight control over their parties and over the public servants who answered to them. Like them or loathe them, each of them have achieved much and each of them has fallen short in one or another area. In every case, eventually people rebelled against their controls and an increasing number of "leaks" made their way to the public arena with consequent embarrassment to the leader and/or his party.

Third Generation Leadership takes a totally different approach. Third Generation Leadership doesn't demand compliance or conformance. Third Generation Leadership is based on the concept of engaging with people so that they want to follow. The first step in bringing this about lies in the leader earning the respect of those he or she wants to lead.

From where sit, it seems that this is 180 degrees from the approach generally seen. My observations indicate that our "leaders" seem to expect respect to be automatic given their role.

My observations also indicate that this approach is failing.

Its about time we got leaders in every area of life who concentrated on engaging with people in such a way that people want to follow. And that will require a huge change in the attitudes and behaviour of virtually all those who claim to lead.

I'd love to know what you think of this. Please post a comment below.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Return on Investment

On February 12, 2010 a writer in The Sydney Morning Herald, Michael Pascoe made the following statement about the past CEO of Telstra in Australia. In an article entitled "Sol Trujillo was worse than he looked" Pascoe wrote: "When Trujillo and Co departed, it wasn't immediately possible to rank his performance. Parts were obviously bad, parts had promise. By the look of yesterday's interim results, the bits with promise were nowhere near enough to make up for the bad. More hat than cattle, as the saying goes, looking at where Telstra stands 5 years later."

The Sydney Morning Herald's "Good Weekend" of February 13 (p.14) had a similar theme. In an article entitled "Outrageous Fortune", Jane Cadzow points out that in 2003 Sydney University researcher John Shields concluded that the 20 best performing Australian companies paid their CEO's substantially less than did the 20 worst-performing companies. Shields is quoted as saying that "Against three criteria - return on equity, share price change, and change in earnings per share - statistical analysis shows that high executive pay levels actually coincide with a lower bottom line." Shields is quoted as saying that the 2003 research is still broadly true in 2010.

When I talk with Directors and senior executives I hear a lot about for need for measuring return on investment. It is one of the justifications I hear when companies are considering laying off staff or reducing their workforce by using part time workers. We do a lot to measure the return received for work done by lower level echelons on most organisations and the drive for increasing the use of technology is based on the premise that the company will obtain better returns.

Why don't we apply this to the top echelons? If it can be done for the lower levels (and it both can and is) then surely it can and should be applied at the top - including Director remuneration.

For almost 20 years I have been arguing that remuneration at the top should be genuinely performance based. Although the the myth is that this currently happens, the fact of huge bonuses and termination pays being made when the company is going backwards illustrates the discrepancy between myth and fact.

I suggest that the time is right for leaders - Company Directors, Legislators, Regulators, and Owners (shareholders) - to make a stand and insist on measuring return on investment at all levels and paying accordingly. By all means pay huge amounts (well into the $millions) if you believe that is what it takes to get the people you want at the top or anywhere else. I've no argument with that. But pay the bonus components on what happens to the organisation in the subsequent 5 years - especially in the event of a termination pay.

I'm not convinced that there is enough intestinal fortitude around for this to happen. Those executives who actually do provide long-term positive benefit to their companies - ie those who actually do provide a value-added component - have nothing to fear. I suspect its the others who will prevail.

I think that's the point Pascoe is making, too.

More information about Doug Long and how I may be able to help you at http://www.dglong.com

Change: How not to do it!!

They were all working as normal when the General Manager walked in. There was very little time for the usual banter before he said" "I'd like to discuss something with you." He went on to tell them of some significant reporting and operational changes that the company would like to make. He told them that he would welcome their suggestions prior to making any final decisions. Then, when he was asked when they could get back together to share their thoughts, he told them that the changes would be introduced within 2 weeks and that any suggestions would need to be made in this meeting and that the meeting would only be for the next 30 minutes. The meeting concluded with him thanking them for their suggestions and telling them that the change as originally shared with them would be operational as scheduled.

Hypothetical?

No. To my certain knowledge, it happened in a major company in this month of February 2010.

The team has been working on a major upgrade of the IT facilities. There are months of work left before the project is scheduled for completion. They are close knit and put in long hours without additional financial recognition because they are proud of their work and of their company.

Or, at least, they were.

The changes will mean that they lose their direct link to the relevant decision maker and that the new person to whom they will report has no background in IT or understanding of the programming issues involved. She will be unable to help them with technical expertise when they need suggestions or assistance and, with the company's rigid reporting lines, they will be discouraged from going directly to those who are able to provide help.

The entire team is now job hunting - and there is reason to believe that they will all leave the company within the next month or so. The cost to the company is going to be significant in money terms quite apart from the continued customer and supplier disquiet because of the current inadequate IT systems.

Over recent years I have observed two significant change programs that were badly designed and implemented. In both cases the changes were initiated after there were changes at Board level and, in both cases, the company is (or at least was) a well known and very successful one with very good EBIT and dividends. This new example appears to be doomed to the same result as the earlier one - good staff will leave; revenues will drop; EBIT will crash; dividends will become close to non existent; and everyone will be blamed except the change initiators.

These days virtually everyone accepts the reality of and the need for change. Most people do not oppose change "on principle". All that people ask is that there is authenticity and integrity from the change initiators. Don't be seen as manipulative by pretending to discuss change and seek input. Either share information and seek input at an early stage or else let people know that the decisions have been made and stop treating them like recalcitrant children.

There are plenty of resources available to help anyone and any organisation through the change process. No matter what the budget or organisational issue, someone can be found to assist you.

A little professional help at an early stage can save a fortune in later costs.

More information about Doug Long and how I can help you at http://www.dglong.com

"Blue Zone" cares!

Last week my son purchased a 4WD vehicle and, over the weekend, went out bush with his mates. The group took several 4WD's and they are experienced 4WDers. This was serious "bush bashing" in an authorised area and they put themselves and their vehicles through some pretty testing stuff. The end result, fortunately just as they were about to come home, was that the clutch failed on my son's Nissan. It was interesting to be told of how the whole group worked together to get his car back to Sydney and to his workshop (as it happens most of them are mechanics): it has been equally interesting to hear how everyone is now helping him get the car fully repaired and back on the road in the shortest possible time.

They call it "helping your mates".

Also over the weekend we all heard of the disaster in Haiti. Again it is heartening to see the worldwide response of people seeking to provide help of all sorts to those who are in desperate need.

Some call this emergency international aid.

It doesn't really matter what you call it. Nor does it matter whether we are talking about a small group of friends working together or an international response to a disaster. The fact is that, for the most part, people are prepared to help others - even when there are significant costs to themselves. Its one of the really great things about humanity and it is totally independent of any religious, racial, cultural, or other perspective. We do it because we are human.

In another arena (http://www.evancarmichael.com/Leadership/5178/summary.php) I have talked about the areas of our brains that control how we see the world and how we respond to the various issues that confront us on a daily basis. I have also referred to this in a previous blog (Leaders and the Brain). In both of these, as well as in The Success Zone (2009, Mowat, Corrigan, Long, Global Publishing Group, Melbourne: http://www.thesuccesszone.com) I have talked about "red zone" areas of brain control as opposed to "blue zone" areas of brain control. Being "human" - caring about people and trying to find appropriate solutions when disasters strike is a blue zone activity.

Wouldn't it be great if we all had much more "blue zone" control in our lives?

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Christmas Greetings

Christmas eve! Where has the year gone?

Leadership has been an interesting study in 2009. I've observed lots of management, lots of manipulation, lots of the seeking and using of power and authority, lots of posturing, lots of politics: very little leadership. I see in this morning's papers that the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney says we are too hard on our political "leaders". I don't think we're hard enough on any of them whether they are political, religious, business, or societal. The result is that we get the leadership we deserve - largely operating in the 'red zone' (see http://www.thesuccesszone.com) rather than the 'blue zone'.

The Copenhagen Climate Conference is a case in point. Most people there were more concerned about the medium term impacts on their economies by any firm targets rather than on the good of our planet and what we will bequeath to our grandchildren's grandchildren. Talk about "the sins of the fathers.."

But Christmas is the time for peace and goodwill so I'll stop critiquing.

Thank you for reading my blogs. A special thanks to those of you who have taken the trouble to contact me directly to talk about things I have said.

I wish you a very merry Christmas and a wonderful 2010.

More information about Doug Long and how I may be able to help you at http://www.dglong.com

What is your intelligence?

Today I note that, in New South Wales, Australia students who have completed their secondary schooling receive their academic ranking - that which will determine what universities and courses they will be able to access in 2010. There'll be a lot of very happy young people: I suspect there will be more who will be unhappy, and some who will be devastated.

Yesterday on ABC FM I heard a repeat of an interview with Sir Ken Robinson of England - an educator of some renown. In the interview he made the point that one of the problems today is that we place undue stress on IQ. He said that there were many different types of intelligence and that, very often, people have to recover from the hurt done to them in school (the emphasis on IQ with the corollary that unless you are academically good you are a failure) before they can fulfil their potential. Some people, of course, never get over this hurt. Robinson suggested that the question we should ask is not : "What is your intelligence?" but "What intelligence are you?" Vastly different questions.

In my mentoring I encounter many people who have been hurt by life events yet have managed to recover from that hurt and go on to make a difference both in their own life and in the lives of those with whom they interact. Very often it is because the people who have been key influences in their past have assessed success or failure by some unitary measure - money, academic results, fame etc.

Recently I have been involved in an on-line discussion on the subject: "Why, in a multi-dimensional world do we continue to rely on single-dimensional measures?" The general consensus seems to be that we use single-dimension measures because they tend to be quick and easy and it enables us to pigeonhole people and organisations very rapidly. The consensus also seem to be that effective leaders use multi-dimensional measures.

What measures do you use to assess success in your life and that of those with whom you interact? What measures do you use to assess the success of your organisation?

The issue may be more one of what you measure rather than the results of your measurement.

More information about Doug Long and how I may be able to help you at http://www.dglong.com