Tag Archives: Leadership

Lessons from the Great Train Robbery…

Posted on by

“There’s a difference between criminals and crooks. Crooks steal. Criminals blow some guy’s brains out. I’m a crook”

Ronnie Briggs – Great Train Robber

Sixty years ago, this month on 8th August 1963 the Glasgow–London Royal Mail Train was held up by 15 men, wearing helmets, ski masks, and gloves. The train was carrying mostly used bank notes to be destroyed. This was known as the Great Train Robbery.  The ringleader, Bruce Reynolds was a known burglar and armed robber. Just over £2,600,000 (£50m today) was stolen in an audacious and apparently well-planned heist aided by inside information. It only took 15 minutes. No firearms were used, although the train’s driver was seriously injured when bashed with a metal bar.

Before the Great Train Robbery, Reynolds had organised a gang and conducted a successful £62,000 airport robbery. Flush with this success, Reynolds began searching for ‘the next big one’. Upon identifying the opportunity, Reynolds realised that he needed help from the London underworld as his original gang could not do the job alone.

The train was stopped when the robbers turned off a green track signal with batteries and turned on a red signal. Approximately 120 mail bags were taken from the train to a farm hideaway, where it was divided up. During the robbery, one of the gang told the postal staff on the train not to move for 30 minutes. This information suggested to the police that the hideout was within a 30-mile radius.

On hearing on the radio that the police were narrowing the search, the robbers hurriedly left the farm the day after the robbery. Only five days after the robbery a local farm worker had noted suspicious vehicles at a neighbouring farm and advised the police. When two police came to the farm, they found the Landrovers and truck used in the robbery, plus bedding, food, post office bags, banknote wrappers and a monopoly board. Part of the plan was to burn down the farmhouse. However, the robbers in their haste left fingerprints on a tomato sauce bottle and the monopoly board. Apparently, the robbers had played monopoly with real money from the heist!

The robbery had attracted far more police attention than anticipated by the robbers. It also captured the imagination of the public and the media. A reward of £250,000 was offered. A breakthrough came when an informant gave the police a list of names. Some of the names were matched to the fingerprints from the farm. With this and other evidence, by Christmas 12 robbers had been caught, convicted and sentenced up to 30 years jail.

Only three of the robbers remained at large. Reynolds and two others went abroad to Mexico and lived the highlife. By 1968 Reynolds had spent most of his ill-gotten gains. He planned another large robbery and returned to England where he was arrested. Ronnie Biggs escaped from prison in 1965, fled first to Paris, then after undergoing plastic surgery travelled to Australia, and finally to Brazil in 1970. He remained at large as there was no extradition treaty between Brazil and the UK. In 2001 after suffering several strokes, he returned voluntarily to the England and was rearrested.

Are there any lessons here for managers in this ‘crime of the century’ (apart from the obvious lessons of crime not paying and it’s not a good idea to play Monopoly with real money)?

The robbery was well planned and executed with military precision. But by Christmas in 1963, 12 of the robbers had been arrested. Hardly a sign of success!

Here are three lessons I think we can take away from the Great Train Robbery:

  • 1. Have a vision.  

Reynolds as the leader was the brains behind the daring heist. Following the ‘success’ of the airport robbery, Reynolds wanted a bigger challenge. In the dialogue from a movie of the robbery, Reynolds was quoted as saying:

“You’ve got to dream big.  What are we here for if we don’t make our mark? It was never just about the cash.  It’s the buzz.  Building the team, finding the job, planning the job, carrying it out. It’s the camaraderie. Trusting other men with everything you know. With your life.”

Although this is a fictional quote it is probably is an accurate depiction of what occurred. Reynolds had clear vision – in other words a vision statement! The power of vision is very powerful. An ingredient of a successful business is to have a very clear vision.

  • 2. Plan thoroughly.

With a clear vision, Reynolds meticulously prepared and planned the robbery. He realised that the scope was beyond his immediate circle’s skills and quickly expanded the size and skills of the gang.  He was faced with needing specific skills to ensure success. This included how to fake the train signals to stop the train and how to drive the train once it was held up. Sound planning allowed the initial success of the robbery – in 15 minutes.

  • 3. You cannot plan for all eventualities and you should have a plan B.

Despite the meticulous planning, the robbers did not plan for all eventualities. In reality, in business it is also not possible to plan for all eventualities. However, you should always have a Plan B. A contingency plan if ‘things go wrong’. When calm leadership was required, the gang panicked when they heard that the police were searching within a 30-mile radius of the robbery. They left the farm and didn’t adequately cover their tracks. In other words, despite the planning there was poor execution which resulted in the robbers being caught.

In concluding, there is nothing like a good story to demonstrate a point and the Great Train Robbery certainly does this!

What do you think?

Note: I am not condoning the robbery that left the train driver seriously injured. Just using a well-known story as an example for managers. The robbery was a success, but many things went wrong after that.  The amount stolen was so much more than expected that it sparked a major investigation plus “crime of the century” publicity. The police response was swift and successful. An example of sound management and leadership.

#thenetworkofconsultingprofessionals

Management lessons from a long-forgotten battle…

Posted on by

“Arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence. Not a pretty cocktail of personality traits in the best of situations”

Graydon Carter – US Journalist

70 years ago this month, the colonies of French Indochina were lost when the Communist Viet Minh guerilla army defeated French forces in Vietnam in the Battle of Điện Biên Phủ.

Background

Following the Japanese surrender in World War II, the Viet Minh, a Vietnamese Communist guerilla army declared independence from France. France did not recognise the new government, and the first Indochina War began when the French navy bombarded the port city of Haiphong in northern Vietnam in November 1946, killing thousands of Vietnamese civilians. The war continued for another seven years and by 1953 it was at a stalemate. It had not been going well for the French. The war was unpopular, costly, and the French political environment was unstable. During the seven years of war, there were 16 changes of government in France and 13 changes of prime minister. Clearly, domestic political instability helped undermine the war effort.  

Setting

A French needed a solution to break the stalemate, so negotiations could be conducted. The French plan was to create a military situation which would bring the Viet Minh to the negotiating table. In late 1953, 2,000 French paratroopers were dropped deep in Viet Minh held territory in north-western Vietnam at a town called Điện Biên Phủ to establish a heavily fortified base.

The aim was to cut the Viet Minh supply lines from Laos and provide a base from which to attack them in the countryside. The French strategy was to draw out the Vietnamese and destroy them with superior firepower. They believed they held all the military advantages – the military equipment, the planes, trained soldiers, and the artillery. This strategy was called the hérisson (‘hedgehog’) concept. It was based on the success of the 1952 Battle of Nà Sản, where a fortified French camp supplied only by air repeatedly beat back the Viet Minh who suffered heavy losses. By repeating this strategy at Điện Biên Phủ on a much larger scale, using superior artillery and air support, the French believed they could defeat the Viet Minh in set piece battle. But the Viet Minh were fighting a guerilla war.

Outcome

In March 1954, the battle of Điện Biên Phủ began with a massive artillery bombardment by the Viet Minh. They were strategically positioned in caves and dugouts in the hills above the base. This lasted until May when 16,000 troops French were soundly defeated.

With over 50,000 Viet Minh troops surrounding the base, roads to supply the French garrison were cut which necessitated being supplied by air. The French believed that the Viet Minh had no anti-aircraft capacity and limited artillery. This proved to be incorrect, and the planes were forced to fly higher and higher, which resulted in supplies often falling into the Viet Minh’s hands.

The Viet Minh leader, General Giáp had learnt from the losses at Nà Sản. He spent months planning the transporting and stockpiling ammunition, and placing heavy artillery and anti-aircraft guns in tunnels in the hills around the French base. Furthermore, thousands of local peasants who supported the Viet Minh, including many women, provided labour, built roads, cleared jungle, transported food by foot and on bicycles and hauled equipment. Over 300,000 people were involved in the Viet Minh logistical effort.

With tenacious fighting on the ground resulting in horrendous causalities, the Viet Minh dug trenches and gradually encroached on the French base, finally cutting the runway. This forced the French to deliver supplies and reinforcements by parachute. As key positions were overrun, the perimeter contracted. While at times, the French repulsed Viet Minh assaults, airpower and superior military equipment did not win the day. The siege ended with a humiliating defeat for the French with 2,293 killed. The Viet Minh suffered horrendous casualties with over 8,000 Viet Minh fighters killed and an estimated 15,000 wounded.

Are there management lessons from the Battle of Điện Biên Phủ for managers today?

Here are three to consider:

1. Do your homework and understand your competitors – know your enemy

The French underestimated their enemy. The French did not know the number of Viet Minh troops or how many artillery pieces they possessed and, furthermore the French believed that the Viet Minh had no anti-aircraft capability. Not only did they misjudge their enemy, but the French also discounted the huge material support received from the Communist Bloc, in the form of left-over stockpiles of Soviet-made and captured American heavy artillery and anti-aircraft artillery from the Korean War. By comparison, Giáp knew the strength and weaknesses of the French from his spies in the camp, and from the hills overlooking the French base. Unlike the battle of Nà Sản, the Viet Minh controlled the high ground, a major strategic oversight by the French. Clearly, the French did not do their homework, were arrogant and had no Plan B.

2. Technological superiority does not guarantee success

The French strategy was to defeat the Viet Minh in a set piece battle using their superior military technologies and resources – artillery, aircraft, trucks and tanks. Artillery and tanks had been dismantled and delivered by air and then reassembled on the ground. This strategy did not suit a guerrilla war, where having the support of the general population is critical. The Viet Minh’s supply chain did not rely on the use of modern technologies such as aircraft, but instead thousands of peasants carried food, ammunition and the dismantled artillery pieces into hidden and protected positions in the hills above the base. It was a triumph of logistical planning.  

Technology can make you vulnerable. The Viet Minh’s artillery closed the airstrip halfway through the siege, necessitating parachute resupply. The efficient anti-aircraft artillery forced the planes higher, and a high proportion of the supplies fell into the Viet Minh’s hands, including ironically the French Commander’s new general’s stars dropped with a bottle of champagne.

My experience in niche logistics business was when our biggest competitor decided to invest millions of dollars in state-of-the-art equipment and take out a long-term lease on an expensive warehouse. Their major customer, a major retailer was slow to use their services, and they eventually ran out of money and were bankrupted.

3. Be prepared to change your plan when conditions or the situation changes

Giáp’s initial strategy was based on the Communist Chinese “Fast Strike, Fast Victory” model. The aim was to attack the French garrison command centre with overwhelming force to a secure victory. However, the Viet Minh found out that the French knew about this plan, and their technological superiority combined with well dug in troops would have made this strategy fail. Instead, Giáp changed to a siege strategy. This helped ensure success. By mid-1953, the First Indochina War was in its seventh year and for either side there was no obvious prospect of victory. The French had tried a variety of tactics to defeat the Viet Minh, which failed. Exhausted and devoid of ideas, they had no long-term vision or overall strategy, which was in stark contrast to the Viet Minh. They simply defended their positions and reacted to attacks when they occurred.

A road transport client of mine, experienced a drop in revenue by 75%. However, he became far more profitable by changing their strategy, ditching difficult and unprofitable customers.

Do you think there are any other lessons for managers?

#thenetworkofconsultingprofessionals

…it only took 74 days!

Posted on by

“Any leader has to have a certain amount of steel in them, so I am not that put out being called the Iron Lady”

Margaret Thatcher – British Prime Minister

The Falklands War in 1982 between Britain and Argentina lasted only 74 days, culminating in a British victory. This short and bloody conflict has some excellent lessons for managers and leaders.

Background:

Just over 41 years ago this month, on 2 April 1982, the Argentinian fascist military dictatorship decided to invade the British Overseas Territory of the Falkland Islands. They hoped to bolster their dwindling legitimacy by mobilising the long-standing patriotic feelings of Argentines towards the islands, as well as diverting public attention from their ongoing human rights violations against their own citizens and the country’s chronic economic problems.

The islands, 12,000 kms away from Britain are a windswept treeless, damp and cold group of islands. The Falklands had a population of around 2,000 people and its major industry was sheep farming.

In the face of cuts to the military budget by the British Government, the Argentinian military junta miscalculated. They thought that Britain would not respond militarily. However, within three days of the invasion, the British Government under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher had assembled a military task force to retake the islands.

The logistics challenges for the British were immense and the risk of failure high. The Argentinians had 10,000 troops dug in on the islands and were protected by mine fields. Their air force, located on bases on the Argentinian mainland, outnumbered the carrier based British planes by eight to one.

Outcome:

On 13 June 1982, the Argentinian forces on the islands surrendered. Despite the logistics challenges, and setbacks such as the loss of almost all their troop-carrying helicopters on the Atlantic Conveyor the British forces triumphed. The loss of the Atlantic Conveyor meant that the British troops with 80 kgs on their backs had to walk 80 kms in freezing and wet conditions to attack the capital of the Falklands, Port Stanley.

Here are three leadership traits displayed in the Falklands War:

  1. Decisive decision making

The British assembled a military task force within three days of the invasion, despite the fact that the Falklands were over 12,000 kms away from London. This was an example of decisive decision making. In our logistics business, we had a toxic manager who was having a detrimental effect on employee morale and customer satisfaction. One of our partners refused to recognise this situation. When the partner was overseas, we terminated the manager. Within a month, the business he had been managing turned around. Following this action, several supervisors came up to me and said how were pleased that action had been taken. They had been waiting for management action to fix ‘the problem’!

2. Clear purpose

Throughout the crisis, Thatcher’s message was clear and simple. In her communications, there was no doubting her intentions and the purpose was very clear. The British were not going to allow the invasion of British territory by a fascist military dictatorship to succeed.

In my experience, employees respond positively to strong and decisive leadership, especially when there is clear purpose. For example, I was engaged by a business owner to review his business, then introduce standard procedures and managerial disciplines. This message was made very clear to the staff. The culture must change. We would create a work environment through a disciplined and inclusive approach, where employees’ experience, expertise and opinions were valued. The incumbent general manager tried to thwart this approach and was “forced” to leave the business. The staff were relieved. Morale improved almost immediately. They became engaged, as they were now valued and could look forward to the future.

3. Communicate a positive message.

Admiral Sir Henry Leach, Chief of the Defence Force who was instrumental in convincing Thatcher that the islands could be recapture, was asked by her why it was important to retake them.

He said:

“Because if we do not, or if we pussyfoot in our actions and do not achieve complete success, in a few months from now, we will be living in a completely different country whose word counts for nothing.”

Following that advice, Thatcher’s message was positive, and she took the high moral ground.      

  1. We are a democracy
  2. We are not going to have a nasty military junta taking over British territory
  3. We can retake the islands

When I was managing a national vehicle transport company in regional NSW, I was confronted with an unsolvable problem. A private vehicle arrived in our transport depot from Melbourne, several days late. The vehicle owner was arriving in Cairns in far north Queensland the same day. This was three days drive away from Cairns by truck, so he was not going to have his car for the first couple of days of his holidays. Confronted with this problem, I phoned him just as he was boarding the plane in Melbourne offering a solution. A hire car would be provided when he arrived in Cairns until his car arrived. It was a positive message given with authority to solve his problem. The customer continued to use our services for many years.

The British armed forces faced with what were seemingly impossible odds were ultimately successful.

 Do you think that the leadership traits of being decisive, having a clear purpose communicated positively, had a significant bearing on the successful outcome?

‘Real’ leadership is important in any organisation, whether it’s a crisis like the Falklands or not. In my experience, I have found that employees respond positively to good leadership.

#thenetworkofconsultingprofessionals

A New Australia…where?

Posted on by

“The world will be changed if we succeed, and we will succeed! We cannot help succeeding!”

– William Lane: radical journalist and founder of New Australia

Nearly 120 years ago an idealistic bunch of Australians set sail for South America to build their utopia.

In the early 1890s, the Australian colonies were in the grip of recession. It was a period of bitter industrial conflict particularly in the shearing sheds. The strikes resulted in victory for the pastoralists. With the defeat of the shearers and poor economic conditions, a group of 220 idealistic Australians left by ship in 1893 for a new life in Paraguay.

Why Paraguay?

Paraguay had lost a bitter war between 1867-1870 against Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay resulting in the loss of a quarter of the country and 90% of its male population. With only 14,000 men and 150,000 women there were not enough men to farm the land or partner with the women.

Faced with this dilemma, the Paraguayan government sought to encourage migration by providing land grants and tax breaks. In the 1880s a utopian socialist colony called Nueva Germania was established by Germans disillusioned with Germany’s recent unification. The scene had been set.  

Background

Back in Australia, a firebrand journalist by the name of William Lane had championed the shearers’ cause. Lane was a utopian socialist and was a prominent figure in the Australian labour movement and had founded Australia’s first labour newspaper, the Queensland Worker in 1890.The shearers’ defeat left him bitter and deeply disillusioned

Refusing an offer of land to establish a utopian settlement by the Queensland Government, Lane began an Australia-wide campaign for the creation of a new society elsewhere in the world, peopled by rugged and sober Australian bushmen and their proud wives. He recruited shearers, stockmen and unionists for a new socialist utopian colony. It became known as New Australia.

Lane proposed a new society free from social and economic oppression and isolated from worldly corruption. This new society would be based upon shared wealth and work, women’s equality, and the prohibition of alcohol. However, it was also racist. Known as The Colour Line, the strict rules written by Lane were:

“It is right living to share equally because selfishness is wrong: To teetotal because liquor drinking is wrong; to uphold life marriage and keep white because looseness of living is wrong.”

With such rules and with shearer’s having a reputation for being hard drinkers and with more than 10 women for every man how could this ‘grand plan’ possibly work?

So, what happened?

Unsurprisingly it failed.

On its way to Paraguay, the ship called into Montevideo, the capital of Uruguay. After a long voyage the passengers were eager to step ashore. However, Lane forbade this but went ashore himself. This action was hardly the action of a leader and founder of a socialist colony. Several passengers defied Lane and went ashore and broke the ‘no alcohol’ rules. Once back on deck, a fight broke out between Lane’s supporters and the malcontents. This was a harbinger of things to come.

After a 1,000 km journey up the Paraguay River, the new settlers were finally settled on land granted to them by the government. Within six months, the settlers had cleared land, planted crops and built stockyards. A village began to take shape with a blacksmith’s shop, school and over 20 thatched cottages. However, it wasn’t long before the atmosphere started to deteriorate. Lane’s autocratic nature and inflexible attitude as demonstrated in the ‘Montevideo incident’ alienated many. Some settlers began to barter communal property for drink and began ‘associating’ with local ‘non-white’ women. Several were evicted from the colony with the help of the Paraguayan police after being caught drinking. The hypocrisy of this action by Lane who had rallied against the use of the police in the shearers’ strike split the colony.

In 1894, the arrival of a second batch of settlers didn’t have the effect Lane had hoped for. One was discovered in the possession of rum-laced milk, as payment from a local farmer and was expelled. Following the continued dissension in the community, Lane and a group of around 60 of his supporters left New Australia and established a breakaway settlement to the south called Cosme. Instead of recruiting new settlers from Australia for Cosme, Lane went to England. Although things started promisingly, they soon began to unravel, and the new English settlers were less able to adapt to frontier life. The strict and harsh way of life was taking its toll. 

By 1899 Lane’s dreams were in tatters. He resigned as chairman of Cosme and he and his family left, relocating to New Zealand, where he became the editor of the New Zealand Herald.

What are the leadership lessons in the failure of the ‘New Australia’ venture?

Whilst the story of New Australia is a curious footnote in history are there any lessons in the story for leaders?

Here are some to consider:

  1. Charismatic leadership has significant weaknesses, and many charismatic leaders are autocratic, lack organisational skills, and are too self-assured and narcistic. Certainly, William Lane was autocratic and inflexible, and he lacked true leadership skills, not dissimilar to the leader of the ill-fated Burke and Wills expedition.
  2. Top-down management is generally less successful than decentralised leadership more inclusive which was a one of the key factors in the defeat of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain.
  3. Perfect is the enemy of good. I have found in business that the best results are achieved by determining where the greatest improvements can be made for less efforts than continually chasing perfection. The theory behind the 1905 Schlieffen Plan is a case in point, where German military planners devised the “perfect” plan to invade and take Paris. It failed spectacularly in Word War I.. Lane’s idealistic vision was of a perfect society based on socialist and communal values. Ironically the vision was imposed by inflexible and autocratic leadership which certainly assisted in the New Australia venture failing.

Do you think there are other lessons from the failure of New Australia?

If you would like to know more about the ill-fated socialist experiment New Australia, the following books are recommended:

A Peculiar People: the Australians in Paraguay by Gavin Souter

Paradise Mislaid by Anne Whitehead

Ticket to Paradise by Ben Stubbs

Youtube link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb3DQ4uCJSc

#thenetworkofconsultingprofessionals

It’s that time of the year again..

Posted on by

“Christmas is a season not only of rejoicing but of reflection”
Winston Churchill

In December 1843, Charles Dickens published his book A Christmas Carol. The book was set against significant changes in British society. As Britain industrialised there was a mass movement of people from the countryside to the cities. Dickens witnessed this change and the resulting appalling conditions of child labour.

The book’s messages are timeless. Radical for the time, one significant theme from the book is that employers were responsible for the wellbeing of their workers,

Firstly, lets briefly recount the story.

The book is about a mean-spirited and selfish old man called Ebenezer Scrooge who hates Christmas.

“Bah Humbug” he says.

Scrooge is unkind to the people who work for him. He does not accept an invitation from his nephew to spend Christmas with his nephew’s family. He also refuses to give to any charity. On Christmas Eve he is visited by the ghost of his former business partner Jacob Marley, who warns him that three ghosts will visit him that night.

The first ghost is the Ghost of Christmas Past. He takes Scrooge to his past as an unhappy child and to a man who forsakes his fiancée for the love of money. The second ghost is the Ghost of Christmas Present who takes him to the family of his clerk, Bob Cratchit. At the house Scrooge sees Cratchit’s ill son Tiny Tim. Then the ghost takes Scrooge to see his nephew’s Christmas celebrations he had refused to attend. The final ghost, the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come shows Scrooge his own death and how he will be remembered. This terrifies him as there is no-one to mourn him.

The ghosts’ journey through time makes Scrooge see the error of his ways. On Christmas morning, Scrooge wakes up and is transformed into a kinder, gentler man. He buys the biggest turkey for the Cratchit family and then spends Christmas Day the day with his nephew and family.

What are the messages for employers and managers in A Christmas Carol?

With Christmas being at the end of the calendar year, it is an excellent time for managers to reflect, consider the past, in particular the past year, the present, and the future, just like the three ghosts.

As a manager and business owner what are you going to do about Christmas for your staff and customers?

It’s the season of goodwill – don’t waste the opportunity!

#thenetworkofconsultingprofessionals

The Great Emu War

Posted on by
“The incompetent leading the unwilling to do the unnecessary.”
Evan Wright – American author

Military failure is everywhere. As managers and leaders, we can learn from classic instances of so-called military incompetence. There are many examples from the disastrous Allied landing at Gallipoli in World War I, to operation Barbarossa, the failed Nazi invasion of Soviet Union in World War II and to the 1954 Battle of Dien Bien Phu in French Indochina which resulted in catastrophic defeat for the French.

However, few examples could be more humorous, without loss of human life and just as instructive for managers on ‘what not to do’ as the Great Emu War of 1932.

What are the characteristics of an emu?

They are an enormous bird second in size to the African ostrich. They cannot fly and have an average height of over 2 metres, very strong legs, can run up to 50 kph, and naturally flock in large numbers.

Background to ‘the conflict’

Following the end of World War I, the Australian government ‘rewarded’ returning soldiers with farm land. In Western Australia the veterans or ‘soldier settlers’ were allocated farmland which was very marginal for the growing wheat. Very few were experienced in agriculture. To add to the farmers’ challenges a severe drought hit, and 20,000 starving emus came in from the desert and commenced in destroying the existing wheat crop. Furthermore, this occurred in the Great Depression with a background of rising unemployment and falling wheat prices

The veterans lobbied their local parliamentary representatives to provide assist to rid the country of the emu ‘menace’. A Western Australian Senator, Sir George Pearce, recommended that the veterans and troops should tackle the problem head-on and hunt the birds. The government needed to show support for the famers. As the saying goes, “never waste a good crisis”.

What better opportunity for politicians than to provide a well-publicised effort to protect the former veterans who were ‘doing it tough’ and call in the army?

So certain that the operation would be a success, a cinematographer was hired from Fox Movietone to cover the hunt.

On the first day of ‘war’ less than 50 birds were killed out of the thousands shot at. The biggest misconception about the Emu War is that it was a massive assault staged by the Australian military. It was just three soldiers, a small truck, two Lewis machine guns, and 10,000 rounds of ammunition. A machine gun was mounted on the truck, but the truck could only travel a 30 kph over rough land, no match for an emu who could run at 50 kph and the truck could only chase one emu at a time. Furthermore, the soldiers couldn’t stabilise a machine gun on the vehicle or shoot with any accuracy.

The Great Emu war lasted less than six weeks – 986 emus were killed, and 9,860 rounds of ammunition was expended. Ten rounds per dead emu – not a great kill ratio although the only loss for the soldiers was their pride!

A more effective plan was later introduced. Rather than use brute-force the government set aside money for bounties. The farmers did the hard work of tracking and shooting the emu menace. Two years later in 1934, nearly 58,000 bounties were claimed.

What lessons are there for us as managers in the ‘great emu war’?

Here are three worth considering.

  1. Be aware that politicians do not have the answers for problems of business. Many, in particular politicians today have no business or managerial experience. Governments overpromise and under deliver. The management of the COVID pandemic is a good example.  
  2. Technology is not the answer. Technology is an enabler and not the magic bullet to solve the problem. Having a motor vehicle and machine guns did not solve the problem as it was not clearly defined.
  3. The most successful solutions involve the parties directly involved in the problem. By offering bounties, the farmers had a direct incentive to make it work – and they made money out of the bounties and reduced the number of emus attacking their crops.

#thenetworkofconsultingprofessionals

Another lesson from the farm…

Posted on by

“Our relationships will eventually grow stale unless we are diligent about directing and cultivating them”

Todd Henry – International speaker

Having grown up on a rural property in north-western New South Wales, Australia, I have written several blogs about lessons we can learn as managers based on growing up on a farm. There were many things I observed and experienced that can be related to business and life. From resilience, the importance of ongoing maintenance like chipping a weed called the Bathurst Burrs and the lessons of ‘the cow pat’.

Another lesson comes to mind.

The growing of crops. One crop my father grew was wheat. Wheat needs constant cultivation combined with adding fertiliser and weed control to get the best outcome. The ground needs to be ploughed to remove weeds and make the soil friable and ready to accept the planting of seeds. When seeding, fertiliser needs to be added at the same time to improve yield. And you need rain!

The growing of wheat is a great analogy that can be applied to being a successful manager. Spend time cultivating your connections, fertilise your contacts, provide help when needed, keep the weeds under control by not losing contact and maintain your contacts by watering them.

This has worked for me over the long term with amazingly positive outcomes. Thirty years ago, a recruitment consultant placed me in a job. Over the years I kept contact with him and 5 years ago another opportunity came up. He found a logistics consulting project for me, and I’m still involved with the business as a board member.

Another example relates back to when I was a casual university lecturer. I kept in touch with several of my former students. This resulted in one former student giving an important contract to our logistics business. Another was employed by me for one of my clients and this was after over 15 years since graduating.

The example with the most impact was a former work colleague and student. He convinced me to do my master’s degree. Later he told me about a job vacancy with his former employer. Much later he provided the conduit to sell our logistics business to an Asian based freight forwarder.

What are the considerations with networking?

Most importantly when cultivating your network, it needs to be mutually beneficial but with more give than take. No long-term relationship whether personal or business will endure if it is only one way. Managing is not about platitudes, big schemes and projects. It is about constant attention to relationships, continually seeking ways to interact with your network regularly and adding value.

Do you think that the cultivation analogy is a good one for you as a manager or business owner, both personally or professionally?

#thenetworkofconsultingprofessionals

What is the difference between strategy and tactics?

Posted on by

What is the difference between strategy and tactics?

‘Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.’

Sun Tzu

In business we often confuse tactics with strategy. The media refer to some business’ actions as strategies when in fact they are in reality; tactics. For example, with the recent COVID outbreak in Australia, the media referred to hotel quarantine and border closures as strategies when in fact they were tactics in the strategy to stop the spread of the virus.

A tactic is an action or event to achieve a desired outcome.

A strategy is an integrated plan which helps an organisation achieve its objectives.

Tactics are usually designed by middle-level management, whereas top-level management create and implement strategy.

For example, if the strategy of a business is to increase profitable market share (a top-level management action), a tactic could be to increase prices or reduce discounts combined with a marketing campaign (middle level management actions). Tactics often change with the changes in market or economic conditions (the present), whilst strategy remains same for a long period (the future).

If the strategy is wrong, the best tactics in the world will not ensure the strategy is successful. Military conflicts are often good examples where despite sound tactics, a strategy that is wrong will never be achieved. In the Vietnam War, first the French and then the Americans failed due to poor strategy.

A better example is the nasty civil war called ‘the Bush War’ in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) from the early 1970s to 1979. In June 1977, Time Magazine reported that “man for man, the Rhodesian army ranks among the world’s finest fighting units“. The Rhodesian military developed a tactic called ‘Fireforce’.

It was a counter-insurgency military tactic using helicopter-borne and parachute infantry to envelop guerillas in the bush before they could flee. The operational assault usually comprised of a first wave of 32 soldiers carried to the scene by three helicopters and a Dakota aircraft, with a command helicopter and a light attack Lynx aircraft in support.  One of the advantages was its flexibility. When contact was made, typically with 6 to 12 insurgents, the 32 soldiers of the Rhodesian Army had immediate superiority on the ground. The tactic quickly yielded an 80–1 kill rate by trapping the guerillas and eliminating them by air and ground fire. However, despite its success measured by the kill ratio, it was not enough to keep the Rhodesians from losing the war, or realising that the war could not be won. KPIs need to measure progress towards an organization, or in this case a government’s strategic goals. Clearly kill ratios, which were also used by the Americans in the Vietnam War were not the right KPIs to meet the strategic goals.

What the Rhodesian Government failed to understand that the ‘bush war’ was political in nature. It was a war for the support of the Rhodesian Africans, not the minority white population. The right-wing government was ill equipped politically to win over the Rhodesian Africans to their side. The government’s budget and efforts were directed to the military side of the war and not the political one. The strategy of stopping majority rule was flawed, politically, morally and geopolitically. Having the best counter insurgency military in the world could not prevent black majority rule.

Also, a minority led white government, not recognised by many countries surrounded by hostile African nation states was never going to prevent guerilla insurgents from entering the country. Furthermore, in the later stages of the war the apartheid government in South Africa withdrew support further isolating the Rhodesian government. There was no plan B until the last year of the war and by then it was too late.

In conclusion, strategy is about choosing the best plan for accomplishing long-term goals of an organisation. Clearly kill ratios, which were also used by the Americans in the Vietnam War were not the right KPIs to meet the strategic goals. Tactics are normally the instant reaction of the organisation, in response to the changing environment whether political or business.

Can you think of examples of where tactics would successful, but the overall strategy failed?

The accompanying table below is a good reference for identifying what is a tactic and what is a strategy.

Basis for ComparisonTacticsStrategy
MeaningA carefully planned action made to achieve a specific objective is Tactics.A long-range blueprint of an organization’s expected image and destination is known as Strategy.
ConceptDetermining how the strategy be executed.An organized set of activities that can lead the company to differentiation.
What is it?ActionAction plan
NaturePreventativeCompetitive
Focus onTaskPurpose
Formulated atMiddle levelTop level
Risk involvedLowHigh
ApproachReactiveProactive
FlexibilityHighNormally less flexible
OrientationPresent circumstancesThe future

#thenetworkofconsultingprofessionals

Do you have a “Beppo” Schmid in your organisation?

Posted on by

Do you have “Beppo” Schmid in your organisation?

“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”

Napoleon Bonaparte

So, who was Joseph “Beppo” Schmid?

In World War II, Schmid was German Luftwaffe Field Marshall Herman Goering’s Intelligence chief and personal friend.  The provision of useful intelligence, particularly during the Battle of Britain in 1940 was of less importance to Schmid than his career. He was shrewd, calculating and ambitious. He removed any staff that could be considered a threat to his ambitions and replaced them with those who would not challenge him. Schmid was intent on ingratiating himself with Goering by only telling him what he wanted to hear.

One of the consequences was poor intelligence. This was a major contributing factor to the defeat of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, leading to the deaths of thousands of German airmen and the virtual destruction of the Luftwaffe.  In early 1940 Schmid’s team produced the ‘Study Blue’ report. It was based on a book about British industry ordered directly from a London bookshop, as well as British newspaper cuttings, and was supplemented by reconnaissance photographs. The study was used for planning the Luftwaffe’s campaign against Britain. It summary, the report underestimated the capabilities of the RAF in aircraft, pilots, aircraft production and technology, and overestimated the technical capabilities of the German aircraft, probably tempered by arrogance following the success of Blitzkrieg in the invasion of France.  

Throughout the Battle of Britain, Schmid’s intelligence was suspect. In August 1940 another report predicted that Britain would run out of fighter aircraft and that Germany was shooting them down at three times the actual attrition rate. Furthermore, they underestimated the number of RAF fighters by a factor of three. With unsustainable aircraft losses, the German objective to either compel Britain to negotiate a peace settlement or be invaded, failed. By early September 1940 Hitler’s Operation Sealion, the invasion of Britain, was postponed.

As managers, what lessons as managers can we learn from “Beppo” Schmid?

 Here are 3 management lessons…

1. Beware of egos and unbridled ambition

Sadly, throughout my career I witnessed too many examples of egos and blinding ambition endangering a business and, in the process, adversely affected employees’ lives. One of my former business partners refused to acknowledge that a customer he had secured was costing our business thousands of dollars a week because he didn’t want to admit that he had under quoted and didn’t want to face the customer. His ego would not allow him to admit the mistake.    

2. There is no substitute from doing your homework

The results of bombing were consistently exaggerated, probably through inaccurate claims and over-enthusiastic reports. Following the unexpectedly quick fall of France there developed an atmosphere of perceived victory. The Luftwaffe leadership and in particular Goering, became increasingly disconnected from reality. Doing his homework properly, rather than telling Goering what he needed to hear, Schmid could have prevented the massive loss of lives and material which weakened the Luftwaffe. They never fully recovered before Germany’s defeat in 1945.

3. Incompetent leadership severely impacts an organisation

A fish rots from the head first. Goering was an incompetent leader who surrounded himself with people who were afraid to say “no” – afraid to give him bad news and probably feared for their lives. Leadership whether poor or good has a massive impact on an organisation’s success and the lives of its employees. Leadership comes with responsibility and more importantly, accountability. Compare this with the leadership displayed by the RAF.    

What do you think are the lessons are?

#thenetworkofconsultingprofessionals

Are you an intelligent boss?

Posted on by

Are you an intelligent boss?

‘In a high-IQ job pool, soft skills like discipline, drive, and empathy mark those who emerge as outstanding.

Daniel Goleman – author of Emotional Intelligence

It is often assumed that good managers are intelligent, and this is what makes them successful. Is this what really occurs in the world of work? This depends on how intelligence is defined.

Do you consider yourself an intelligent manager?

What is IQ?

IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient, a common measurement of human intelligence. The IQ test was originally developed in France by two psychologists, Binet and Simon, in the early 1900s – and their work still provides the basis of the tests used today. IQ tests were further developed throughout the 20th century and have been used in many psychological studies as well as in business, education, the military and government.

What is EQ?

EQ stands for Emotional Intelligence and the concept emerged in 1995 with the publishing of a book called Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. It sold over five million copies. Goleman claimed that EQ discounted IQ in determining success.

Why is EQ now considered more important than IQ for success in business today?

Have you met or worked with people who are highly intelligent but have a low EQ? They frequently display a lack of empathy and initiative, are arrogant, refuse to listen to other points of view, are insensitive and argumentative, blame others, never hold themselves accountable and are unable to control their emotions.

I certainly have, and there is nothing more demoralising and frustrating than working for such people. Low EQ people often suffer from ‘I’ strain – ‘I did this’, ‘I did that’ and ‘I am very important just listen to me’. One of the main impediments to achieving better outcomes is allowing egos to override common sense. An important aspect of high EQ is being able to manage your ego.

People are considered intelligent if they can reel off facts, retain information or have high technical skills. However, this does not necessarily make them, or the organisation they work for, successful.

While we may, as managers, pride ourselves on our technical skills, industry expertise, and innovation, this does not make us successful managers or leaders. Being the smartest person in the room does not necessarily equate to success.In successfully managing organisations today, we are increasingly dependent on ‘soft skills’ that build relationships inside and outside the organisation. It is essential to be able to negotiate, collaborate and compromise by listening, communicating, being flexible, and being able to work with others. Management by walking around is a good example of using EQ skills. Poor levels of EQ can make or break customer relationships, create and perpetuate poor work environments and reduce constructive communication with managers, colleagues, peers and subordinates. Michael Gerber, in The e-Myth Revisited, .

According to Harvard Business Review, EQ is ‘the key attribute that distinguishes outstanding performers’ and is the leading differentiator between employees whose IQ and technical skills are approximately the same. People with high EQs tend to be happier and have more fulfilling personal lives – as they are more self and socially aware, manage their emotions and tend to be more engaged with other people and events.

The good news is that EQ can be taught. However, it depends on your mental outlook and willingness to change. It can be improved through coaching, training and good mentoring.

Here are three questions that you can ask yourself to gauge your level of EQ:

  1. How would your employees describe your leadership style?

Ask this to gauge self-awareness. Does it sound realistic when you answer this question? Do you mention any shortcomings you are trying to address?

  1. Could you do a SWOT analysis on yourself?

Would your colleagues or subordinates agree with your self-assessment profile?

  1. Do you know the interests and family circumstances of your work colleagues?

This is asked to gauge your level of empathy with others.

#thenetworkofconsultingprofessionals