Thoughts on management

Who is creating the rotten barrels in your company?

Posted on August 7, 2013 by lawrence serewicz

English: A rotten apple. Suomi: Mätä omena. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In an earlier post, I discussed the myth of the rogue employee. The post focused on how the term was used when an organisation wanted to scapegoat an employee. When that happened, I argued that the organisation used the term to avoid the work required to deal with systemic organisational failings. After I posted it, I was asked if a senior manager could be a “rogue employee”. At first, I thought it was unlikely because they would be unlikely to be scapegoated because of their relative corporate standing and most importantly they would be responsible so less likely to be a problem. From the perspective of the organisation, senior managers could be best placed to be a “rogue” employee. As they are senior, there would be less likely to be closely supervised in their work. At the same time, they would have more opportunities to present good news upwards and suppress or hide bad news. Where there is a lack of organisational (managerial) oversight, the rogue employee is more likely to emerge. Yet, the problem is more than supervision or oversight. The deeper problem is the corporate culture. As Susan Silbey explained a rotten barrel creates a rotten apple. The question that needs to be asked is: “Who creates the rotten barrel?” In most organisations, the senior managers create the corporate culture, which means that when a senior manager becomes a “rogue” employee, the effect is worse for the organisation.

Rogue managers can drain energy from the company

As employees will know, a rogue senior employee drains the organisation of energy. Like a rotten apple, they begin to infect and shape their colleagues. If they succeed, their influence increases at the expensive of the organisation. A case study in this behaviour is Enron, where the top managers set the tone for the company. Other senior managers are unable or unwilling to challenge the “rogue” employees and the corporate culture became rotten. Managing directors perceive the rogue senior manager as good at delivering results. The managing directors rarely look at how those results are achieved. What often happens is that the rogue manager creates a fear or a blame culture and they work to suppress bad news while they report good news. One result of a rogue manager is that staff fail to exercise initiative, for fear of blame, which makes the senior manager appear effective and decisive. In an extreme case, staff will wait to be told what to do. Initiative is drained out as compliance and obedience are rewarded as innovation and challenge are punished or not rewarded.

A blame avoidance culture can help rogue managers

In many cases, a rogue manager is effective in blame avoidance cultures. They make sure that work is over resourced and duplicated to avoid any blame. As a result, they seem to be delivering results. They leverage their appearance for competency and delivery to enhance their reputation. They protect themselves by focusing on their reputation with corporate directors, which is at the expense of their staff. In any setting, they question and challenge reports that suggest fault or bad news. Direct reports will know that good news is expected so they quickly comply. At the same time, other managers will avoid the struggle with such a manager. They look to cooperate. The senior manager will be sensitive to appearances. When something appears to be a failure or dissent, it is immediately punished or addressed. In turn, this enhances their reputation for being decisive and delivering improved performance.

Is bureaucratic infighting a sign the barrel is starting to rot?

In time, as they manage the appearance of competency and delivery, other managers become unable or unwilling to challenge them. Even though they seem as borderline bullies, they are careful to avoid undue attention. They may develop a reputation but no one sees it who can challenge it. Most importantly, they understand bureaucratic warfare. They undermine other senior managers by bureaucratic means. They challenge on low-level issues or insignificant issues. As a result, a normal manager will wonder why this manager is fighting over paperclips. In time, the normal manager believes that if they give in on the small decisions (paperclips) the other manager will cooperate on the large decisions (budgets or staffing levels). However, what the normal manager does not realize is that in compromising on the small issues, they have made it more difficult to resist the large issues. A variant on this strategy is that the rogue manager will wait until the last minute to suggest changes. If the normal manager does not accept the changes, they appear to be the one who caused the deadline to be missed. In some cases, the rogue manager may simply insist on their way. To back this up, they appeal to the managing directors to undermine the normal managers. The other manager, who wants an easy life, will find it easier to let them have their way than constantly have to explain why they are interfering with a “performer” or someone “who delivers.” In time, the normal manager becomes co-opted in the way that the direct reports have been co-opted. In serious situations, the managing directors will weary of the fight and encourage their direct reports to “work with the manager” or “find a way to accommodate them” because they produce results and are important to the organisation.

If you tolerate rogue behaviour are you helping the barrel to rot?

When a senior manager is rogue, a number of people will be aware of their behaviour. They exhibit a pattern of behaviour. Colleagues will either suspect or know it is wrong. Yet they will likely shrug their shoulders and say, “Thank goodness I am not working for them.” In some cases, they may say “It is not my problem to fix”. The other senior managers begin to feel that they have no responsibility for their colleagues’ behaviour. They may justify this by the belief that the managing directors condone the behaviour. We can see this in the LIBOR fixing scandal where Barclays staff were fixing the rate to “protect” the company.

The barrel is often rotting before the rogue senior manager emerges

The barrel is rotten before the senior manager assumes power and position. The rogue manager will have worked within the company so they have been promoted from within. Along the way, they will work diligently, and ruthlessly to remove those who have initiative or were brave enough to challenge them. They reinforce a culture of compliance that existed as they grew up in the organisation. Karl Albrect described the Despotism syndrome in his list of 17 syndromes of organisational dysfunction. In doing this, they were surrounded by a wider corporate culture that likely valued appearances and good news. The concern with appearances then undermines critical upwards communication. In turn, the junior employees will understand that they need to conform and make sure that the good news is being promoted up. The employee understands that their voice is not to be exercised. In some organisations, the managers will discourage internal communication that allows workers to organise or compare their work. In these companies, social media is resisted. In other cases, they may be monitored so heavily for “dissent”, that staff soon refuse or choose not to use them. Instead of internal communication, personal networks emerge. You will find that the organisation does not have a robust system for sharing information and learning, which allows the rogue manager to flourish. Instead of a social media organisation, where employees are able to share their ability, the system becomes command and control.

What is to be done?

To some, the above may appear a bleak summary of an organisation; to others it may appear exaggerated. In most organisations, the situation never becomes as problematic as described because they have mechanisms in place to prevent them and to contain them should they emerge. For example, they may have a “No assholes rule” or they may pride themselves on good customer culture turned into good customer service. What these firms show is a strong corporate culture that staff and managers understand as they agreed and accepted way of getting things done. If your organisation does not have the following characteristics, it is a good sign that the barrel is becoming rotten.

First, the company’s internal communication system allows bad news to be told to senior managers.

Second, senior managers will check their corporate culture. They want to support their corporate culture and be concerned that the corporate culture is not being followed.

Third, managing directors will reward senior managers for how well they treat their staff as well as by their results.

Finally, the managing directors will be interested in the number and types of grievances, disciplinary cases, dismissals. They will check exit interviews to learn about why people are leaving the company. If you have a strong corporate culture, your organisation will want to understand why staff leave and learn from their departure.

Culture eats your structure for lunch (thoughtmanagement.org)
There Are No Rogue Traders, Only Rogue Banks (ritholtz.com)
“Rogue Trader” – OUCH (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
Corporate Culture in Banking: It’s All About Trust (sagacityatlarge.com)

Posted in change, coruption, culture, leadership, learning organisation, management | Tagged Barclays, Business, Employment, Enron, LIBOR, Organization, Organizational culture, rotten apple, Senior management | Comments Off

Culture eats your structure for lunch

Posted on July 10, 2013 by lawrence serewicz

English: Burkle Building, Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management, Claremont Graduate University (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Peter Drucker allegedly said that culture eats strategy for breakfast. If strategy is for breakfast then your structure is for lunch. Culture will overcome any structural chart or any reorganisation. Companies fail because they believe that a restructure will change the culture of the company. Even if a restructure creates temporary success, culture will reassert itself. Often senior managers ignore organisational culture because it works for them, by ignoring culture; the senior managers indicate that the organisation cannot learn because they engage in single loop learning. If senior managers cannot talk about culture, they are incapable of double loop learning. Culture refers to “the way we do things around here” , which means it requires double loop learning. Culture cannot be fixed by simply fixing mistakes. Culture is what creates the mistakes and it will always remain no matter the organisational chart or the structure chart. One of the main reasons why senior managers pursue restructures is that they believe that structure determines culture.

If structure determined culture, why would we talk about culture? The question captures the tension between culture and structure. What links them is organisational learning. A hierarchical learning organisation will behave differently than a matrix or decentralized organisation that cannot learn. What we find in organisations that can learn or have a learning culture is that teams and units work well because they can learn and adapt. As a result, they do not need to restructure. What they do need, though, is to be refreshed with new members or new responsibilities. However, the successful managers never confuse a restructure, a structural change, with double loop learning, a way of working. As complex entities, teams explore why they succeed and what needs to be changed to maintain that success. By contrast, most managers and most organisations focus on single loop learning so they turn to restructures in the hope that they will achieve double loop learning and changed ways of working. Successful managers look at ways of improving their teams and their units by building on their existing culture. The manager and the teams are both learning. They understand that maintaining a successful team requires adjustments and some change yet that change or outcome is not determined by the structure. If the structure is wrong, it is changed because the culture is working. The changed structure will not bring a new culture. As they realize the importance of culture within the team, and the wider culture of the organisation, successful managers reject the belief that minor adjustments within a team or teams can be scaled up to the whole organisation to achieve the result seen within the team. When managers and senior managers believe that minor changes in structures or teams can be scaled up to the organisation, they have forgotten culture. In the same way that those managers who are short sighted or simply without vision seek to restructure as an end in itself. In a dysfunctional organisation, senior managers start to restructure as a conscious strategy to avoid dealing with the corporate culture.

Restructuring to avoid dealing with a corporate culture When senior managers use restructures to avoid dealing with culture means that everything is in flux. Teams, units, and divisions are constantly working out their roles, responsibilities, and resources, with each restructure. Instead of creating a new culture to adapt, they only learn to adapt the existing culture to the new structure. As such, they are not doing double loop learning. Instead, they are using the restructure as single loop learning by adapting the existing culture to the new structure. Chief Executives, especially new ones, believe they have to stamp their authority on the organisation. Many do this by changing the structure to fit their vision. Often they choose a structure over culture because structure is concrete and easier to manage. Culture is harder to express than a structure on a single PowerPoint slide. However, successful CEOs will know that they will need to work with the culture to ensure their restructure succeeds. Experienced senior managers know that changing a culture will have a greater impact than any change to the organisational chart or roles and responsibilities, which means the two aspects need to work together.

Does your structure reflect your culture? In a learning organisation, the answer is yes. The reason why it will be a yes is that the managers are asking questions and challenging the organisation on a regular basis. When managers claim to have a decentralized and empowering culture often referred to as tight/loose, but the structure is hierarchical and centralized, you can see a gap. When senior managers claim they empower front-line staff, but give money and resources based on the hierarchy, the language does not match the reality. What we see is that the managers have stopped asking questions about the effectiveness of their culture. The structural problems reflect the cultural problems.

Restructuring is a way to solve many problems except for culture. Restructuring is popular because companies can find it difficult to talk about culture. It can also be difficult for an organisation to know itself. Instead, managers talk about their strategy, their structure, or even their values, such as being customer centred, but will find it difficult to articulate, described or even speak about their culture. Culture is messy. It gets back to identity and engagement neither of which is easy for a manager to do. Yet, culture is what creates an engaged employee willing to do more for the company. A company’s culture is more than a list of values, yet many companies will point to a list of values and say “That is our culture.” If that is how you understand your culture you will not be able to change it because you do not know what it is. Culture is made up of the myths, stories, and accepted practices that infuse an organisation and explain the way we do things around here. For many managers culture is a challenge because they take it for granted. “It is what it is, so why change it”. For others it is resistant to change because of tradition, inertia, and habit of ways of working that require too much effort to change so it is best to work with it. “You are never going to change it, so why try?” In truly dysfunctional organisations, the Chief Executive or senior managers make their peace with the organisation and begin the slow, but certain, process of becoming institutionalised. “It’s not perfect but we are getting improvement so if it aint broke don’t fix it.” When that occurs, especially after a restructure, the organisation has exhaled. It can now breath again after the uncertainty of the restructure. The senior managers reach a new equilibrium and a culture change is avoided. The senior managers settle for what is working and do not seek to push the organisation to improve. They stop asking the questions about the culture, challenging the myths that hold the company back and just look happy to get along with the organisation.

Culture is messy; Structures are tangible We can see why senior managers want to avoid the culture discussion, or avoid trying to understand the way we do things around here, by focusing on structure and strategy. Senior managers can busy themselves with meeting after meeting discussing the strategy, or the structure, without examining or understanding how things are done. When an organisation cannot talk about its culture but is sure of strategy and its structure, it sees restructure as the solution. The management team will solve the problem it knows. However, each subsequent restructure fails to achieve the required results so more restructures are needed. The restructure cycle begins, but never embeds because it does not address the culture. The cycle unfolds in the following stages. The first stage, we see the management team arrive bringing the solutions searching for a problem. They scan the organisation and take stock of teams and talents. They then decide that a restructure is needed. The next stage emerges, which is the post-restructure period. As the teams and units are pushed into uncertainty, some respond and others continue to lag. Overall performance improves as individuals and teams seek to benefit from the changes. They believe the new ways of working will lead to a change in culture. After a few years, the culture has not been addressed, except in a superficial way, the third stage emerges. In this stage, culture reasserts itself. There has been some change and some improvement, but the underlying organisational culture remains. In a sense, the organisation cannot learn which creates its blindness to the need to change culture. The next restructure is done, and the cycle continues. Once restructuring becomes an end in itself, has management stopped?

Speeding up the restructure cycle will not change the culture. We may continue to restructure and find an initial benefit as people seek new ways of working to adjust to the change in structure. Yet, that too will slowly, or quickly, unravels because the organisation, like its culture, is just waiting to exhale. The changes will be absorbed and the organisation will return to the way it has always worked. More and more restructuring will not change the culture because the restructure does not address the issue.

What needs to be done? An organisation and its managers need to be able to talk about how things are done. For example, if an organisation claims to be customer focused, putting the customer at the heart of everything it does, why does it have such high numbers of complaints? The managers have to look at the culture and the systems they have created. They need to look why their intended outcomes are not being achieved. What is also needed is a willingness to hear bad news and find a way to discuss it. If the organisation cannot find a way to discuss bad news, it cannot address its culture. An organisation may survive a long time with single loop learning and restructuring, but it will face a reckoning point where it has to change its culture or collapse. When you face your next restructure, ask yourself; is it to avoid dealing with the culture or because it reflects a learning culture?

Organizational change (culckhouman.wordpress.com)
Learning to Change and Changing to Learn or BBQing the scared cows (organisationallearninganddevelopment.wordpress.com)
How to effect culture change in financial services (openbusinessperspectives.com)
The power of the Learning Organisation (thebrsblog.com)
“Speak Up and Say No!” (leadbeyond.org)

Posted in change managment, culture, leadership, learning organisation | Tagged Business, culture change, Double loop learning, Learning organization, management, Microsoft PowerPoint, Organizational culture, Peter Drucker, PowerPoint | 25 Comments

Snowden’s public resignation as a whistle blower: lessons for changing an organisation?

Posted on June 14, 2013 by lawrence serewicz

Great Seal Bug from NSA archives (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Recently, Edward Snowden publicly leaked National Security Agency (NSA) documents in a bid to alert the public to the surveillance state. He wanted to change America by igniting a debate over security and privacy. By disclosing documents publicly and speaking out publicly, he acted as a whistleblower. In doing so, he effectively offered a public resignation from his job because he knew he would be fired.

In that act, he appeared to fit the profile of many workers who want to resign publicly or blow the whistle on what they perceive as incompetence or even criminality. They chafe under an organisational hierarchy seemingly focused on the wrong goals, behaving badly, or even engaging in potential or real criminal activity. They dream that they can change it through a bold personal act. For some, it will be a report to the management team showing where it has gone wrong and what needs to be done to make it right. For others, where that option has been tried and failed, a different approach may be needed. Paul Moore formerly of HBOS, who after trying to warn the bank about its risk taking, became a whistle-blower during parliamentary hearings on the financial crisis. They may even be like Greg Smith, formerly of Goldman Sachs, and make a public resignation to highlight what they perceive to be a corporate culture in crisis. In each case, the person decides that a public statement is needed to change the company or in the case of Mr. Snowden, the country.

On the surface, it seems plausible that their bold and public action will have the intended effect. The organisation may be legally required to change or at a minimum be shamed into changing. With their public statement, they describe what needs to be changed and why. They can make their case directly to the public and the organisation then has to respond. At the same time, the public can track whether the changes have occurred. The publicity acts as the greatest exclamation point. Yet, the reality is that the public resignation is unlikely to change the organisation or the country for several reasons.

First, the whistle-blower legislation is focused on illegal activity and not poor decision-making, nor flawed corporate leadership, nor destructive corporate culture. As a result, the courts, regulators, investors or voters are unlikely to take the same organisational interest in your resignation statement. They are going to be focused on the legal or regulatory remedies and issues and not your personal views. Second, the whistle blower and the publicity becomes an external threat to reputation. In response, the reputational management mechanisms will be engaged to deal with your challenge to the organisation’s reputation. When this relates to the political process, the politics of the issue soon overcome the initial statement. Third, the whistleblower is now outside the organisation. The organisation can now dismiss or downplay all your statements for the same reasons that you left (you were disgruntled, you did not get your own way, you were wrong).

With these issues in mind, it is important to understand why you are doing it and what you hope to achieve. In looking at these questions, we begin to see that Mr. Snowden may not have thought through the consequences of his act in terms of the impact or its effectiveness.

First, are you trying to change the company or yourself?

In this question, we get to the heart of Mr. Snowdens’ complaint. The issue is his concern that Americans are like him and living comfortably even as their freedom is eroded. Unlike other Americans, he knows how the freedom is being eroded and he chafes as that loss of liberty. He wants to awaken other Americans to feel the same way he does about security and privacy. Yet, his statement seems more about himself rather than the American public.

By speaking publicly, Snowden appears to be making a cathartic statement that is more about himself than about America or a legitimate plan to change the NSA. His statements appear as self-justificatory statements to disassociate himself from the NSA and by implication the United States Government, which authorised the NSA and its actions. However, that does not mean Mr. Snowden is right and the NSA and its political masters are wrong. Instead, it may show that there is not a fit between Mr. Snowden and the company.

Second, could you have changed the company by staying?

The best way to change a company is from inside. In that regard, we have heard nothing of Mr Snowden’s attempt to raise the issue aside from one reference to others not having a problem with what he described. If Mr. Snowden did not follow internal protocols or attempt to raise the issues or concerns internally, it undermines his claims about the organisation being out of touch or unsympathetic. In particular, as the NSA has a regular ethics programme, is audited, and the orders were duly authorised from the President and there are Senate and House oversight committees, it seems that Mr. Snowden is out of touch with the legal and democratic framework within which the NSA acts. Whistleblowers like Sherron Watkins could show that they attempt to fix the problem before blowing the whistle.

Mr. Snowden’s public statement only shows that he did not attempt or would not try to change the organisation from within its formal process. Here we see how and why Greg Smith’s statement had less of an effect than many people believed. What he was alleging is that the corporate culture was toxic. However, that does not mean the organisation is acting improperly or acting in a way that will harm its profitability. All it shows is that Mr. Smith did not fit with Goldman Sachs.

Third, is the company capable of changing?

The question is more than a rhetorical one. Enron and WorldCom could not change even though there had been resignations and whistle-blowers. They were literally sinking before the whistle-blowers emerged and could not be changed. They were incapable of change because their fundamental culture was flawed and the business itself was business model was flawed. At some point, usually when whistle-blowers emerge, the damage is so extensive that change is almost impossible without a fundamental reform beyond the efforts of any one person.

In the case of the NSA, it is unlikely to change because its change depends on the political system as much as its own efforts. This does not mean that the NSA is impervious to change or resists change. Instead, it shows that the NSA is a creature of statute and a government bureaucracy. As such, the revelations are not about the inner workings of the NSA. After all, Mr. Snowden has not alleged that he was doing unauthorised surveillance or that targets were being chosen for personal interest. Instead, he disagrees wit the political direction of the NSA, which is something the NSA cannot change because it receives its direction from its political masters.

What does Mr. Snowden’s statement do except contribute to, rather than initiate, a public debate or draw attention to something unknown. If the company is unable to change, what will a public resignation do? In Greg Smith’s case, he believed that change was possible. He wanted to save the company from its corporate culture. The problem for his approach may be that the corporate culture is still successful and although showing symptoms of toxicity is still working. In the case of the NSA, the organisation is successful and appears to be well run in its internal processes. Even though there are intelligence failures and still too much silo working that does not mean the NSA is ineffective in itself.

Can we change corporate culture from the outside?

At the heart of the public resignation statement is the belief that corporate culture can be changed by external factors. In many ways, there is a belief that public attention on the company will change it. As Gaby Hinsliff has written, shame cannot be under estimated for its effect on people such bankers, MPs, and tabloid owners. Yet, organisations are not people. They do not respond to external stimuli in the same way that a person might. The organisation is structured as a protective shell that nurtures and protects the internal culture so that the organisation can survive and thrive. If something like a public resignation letter, or bad press, challenges that culture, the response is more likely to be defensive than welcoming. The reason is that the organisation already “knows” about the issue and may not see the issue in the same way. Thus, a disagreement over risk may just be that, a disagreement where both sides may have valid points.

In the case of the NSA, the public revelations only add to an ongoing debate. The statement while noteworthy and noticeable is relatively insignificant in its potential effect. The statement only asks Americans to have a debate and to reconsider some core decisions that are made in the political arena by elected representatives. The change Mr. Snowden wants has to occur through a different process, the political process, that does not value such statements beyond the status of the speaker. In other words, it is a shout in windstorm of political rhetoric.

For Goldman Sachs, Mr. Smith’s letter has raised some questions. However, the letter did not lead to any substantive change. In the case of Mr Snowden, it would appear his worst fear is to be realized. He has made this statement and it has failed to awaken the public. What he has failed to realize is that the effect he wanted could not be achieved by the method he chose. Despite the headlines and media attention, which will benefit the reporters who broke the story, the underlying debate within America will not change. The reason it will not be changed by Mr. Snowden’s statement is that the question was answered by 11 September 2001. We may disagree with how the Government and the NSA are executing their strategy, but the American public has not changed or gotten past the attack. Perhaps closure will come when the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War finish for American forces. However, closure will not come from Mr. Snowden’s statement.

Conclusion

In the end, we see a classic case of a whistleblower that has confused a cathartic personal statement with a public call for action. He would have been wiser to consider the state of the American mind before he risked his future. One hopes that other whistleblowers will consider what they can achieve with the methods they choose before they act. Once you have acted, there is no turning back.

Booz Allen Fires NSA Whistle-Blower Following Leaks (washington.cbslocal.com)
Former NSA Whistle-Blower: Don’t Go to the Cops (truthdig.com)
So You Want to Be a Whistle-Blower … (businessweek.com)
Edward Snowden Is No Hero (newyorker.com)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged current-events, edward snowden, Goldman Sachs, HBOS, National Security Agency, NSA, Sherron Watkins, Snowden, United States, Whistleblower | 2 Comments

As the raw material of the digital economy, are you worried about your privacy or your cut of the profits?

Posted on June 6, 2013 by lawrence serewicz

English: Kazakhstani ID-card. The personal data are deleted Русский: Удостоверение личности гражданина Казахстана. Персональные данные удалены. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Guardian recently published a story about BUPA buying patient identifiable information from the NHS. The story explained that the government approved selling access to the NHS patent data in its attempt to maintain economic competitiveness in the global economy. The government want to reap the benefits of this data just as private commercial companies, such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google, profit from the personal data they collect. Access to the anonymized data would be sold for research purposes and for commercial use. The government wants to extract the economic potential from the data it holds. The most valuable, patient data, is held by the NHS. Even though the government is keen to accelerate this programme, the public seem sceptical of its benefits and worried about its effect on their privacy. The response by readers to the Guardian story on Twitter was anger that the programme was done without their consent. Their response appears to be a natural reaction to the apparent invasion of privacy. In large part, this is because the public are simply unaware of how their personal data is used. In particular, most of the public are oblivious to what the government and companies are doing and what they want to do with personal data they collect. In time, I wonder if the public will be less outraged about their privacy being affected and more outraged for being denied a share of the profits. If this concern emerges, then businesses will have to consider how they can compensate their customers for using their personal data for additional profits beyond the sale of the product that led to personal data being collected.

User generated value and monetizing privacy: time to be paid.

The public appear outraged that their medical details were being sold. The story is making readers aware of the extent to which their personal data has been on the market. Two related issues have emerged from learning how personal or consumer data are exploited. The first issue is that you, the user, are generating the information and ultimately the value. The second issue is that people want to find a way to monetize personal data. What this means is the search for a way to put a price on your privacy. This EU report suggests such an approach. Let us consider these two issues in turn.

From passive personal data collection to user generated content: you are the raw material of the digital economy

We are now in the age of “big data”. Businesses and governments collect large amounts of consumer data, they analysed it to extract valuable insights regarding patterns, trends, and opportunities.[1] Large and small companies, as well as governments, are looking at ways to mine the data they hold for value and competitive advantage.[2] Data mining, though, has been around for a long time, before Big Data. In the paper-based era, health insurance companies used actuarial tables to set insurance premiums for prospective clients. The difference now is the scale, size, and speed of the mining. Today, super computers and better technology makes the data mining work easier and accessible to all companies. Moreover, the amount of personal data being connected is, literally, exploding with the increased use of mobile computing devices and online services.

More data means more possible profits

Businesses and governments use ubiquitous computing and sensors to collect more data about customers and citizens. They analyse the accumulated data to extract commercial or political value. The goal can be as banal such as targeted advertising to the more serious as identifying targets. The sensors that that collect data are relatively passive and task specific, which means they collect data that is rarely dynamic and valuable as non-repeatable data. What this means is that user generated data is more valuable. The way in which you interact with the web, your searches or preferences, provide a valuable insight into you as a citizen and a consumer.

Facebook, Google, and Amazon do, why not you?

Facebook and Google are well known for trafficking in, and profiting by, your personal data through the way you interact or generate user content on their sites. To put it crudely, your interactions generate their revenue. You, the user, provide the data that they sell to advertisers so they can better target you the consumer. You may not realize it, but you are the raw material of the digital economy. Amazon benefits as much from collecting and using your personal data as it does from providing products. Google’s business model relies in large part on analysing and modelling users data recorded when they search. Governments, like the UK, are trying to do the same with the data they control. In the UK, this includes selling access to the NHS data. For example, Francis Maude won an award for opening up government data to companies. Governments and business will mine their data for their respective purposes. The problem with making the government transparent is that it has the potential collateral damage of making its citizens transparent.

Monetizing privacy: are you going to get your cut? (Why Ted Nelson may be right and Tim Berners Lee wrong about the Web.)

The second issue is the race to monetize privacy. The idea is that your personal data can be given a value, which can then be used to manage it. If privacy, your personal data, can be given a price, then that may help it to be protected or exploited. Such a technique will revolutionize the digital economy. If people understand their privacy’s value in monetary terms, they may work to protect it. At the same time, a monetary value would help with determining legal compensation. More broadly a monetary value would allow a privacy market and a privacy exchange to exist rather than relying on the privacy paradox. For example, if your telephone number is disclosed that may require small damages to be paid. By contrast, your recent medical diagnosis for may require greater damages to be paid. Alternatively, you may wish to be paid for your medical diagnosis to be accessed and used for research because you are an outlier. If companies could pay you for the use, then it may allow its use to be managed.

Where is the privacy market and how does it clear?

If privacy is monetized, then companies and the governments can better exploit and market privacy related data. The point where people are willing to sell their privacy and the company are willing to buy it may be the point at which the market can that may be the point at which the market can “clear”. The exchange would benefit the customer and the company. Both sides “profit” from privacy. Although this approach to pricing privacy may upset privacy advocates, it has a commercial or economic sense. Moreover, it was also an alternative presented by Project Xanadu ®.

What project Xanadu ahead of its times for privacy profits?

What project Xanadu envisioned was a web in which links were uninterrupted and could be followed in both directions. What that meant was that personal information used in one setting would be identifiable to the source. The transclusion of personal data in one location to another location would allow a small royalty to accrue when it was used.[3] If the value of the use of personal data can be captured by transclusion, then it would change the internet’s use of personal data. Even if that past is not the Web’s future, managers and users need to be aware of the increased demand for profits from privacy.

Can a company take advantage of paying its customers for personal data?

Forward thinking companies will want to move beyond considering making personal data available to users towards considering how it would compensate users for the personal data they gather. By considering this change, beyond the privacy paradox, the businesses that develop this approach may then be in a position to exploit the next big thing on the Web. In some cases, we already see this process at work with loyalty programmes. What remains to be seen is whether the tentative steps in this direction can blossom into a truly digital economy.

[1] In a well-known example, Target, a large US retail chain, was able to determine that teenage girl was pregnant before her family by analysing her buying patterns.

[2] See for example, this article from 2006 about how data mining can help banking and retail businesses to obtain competitive advantages. http://icai.org/resource_file/9935588-594.pdf For a view of the EU advantages from data mining see http://www.libereurope.eu/news/licences-for-europe-a-stakeholder-dialogue-text-and-data-mining-for-scientific-research-purpose

[3] See for example, rule 9 of Project “Xanadu Every document can contain a royalty mechanism at any desired degree of granularity to ensure payment on any portion accessed, including virtual copies (“transclusions”) of all or part of the document.”

So Much Money and Profit in the Data Selling, Epidemic, SAP Now Coming in as a Middleman Broker to Interpret Data & Share Profits With Wireless Carriers- Banks/Companies Making Billions (ducknetweb.blogspot.com)
“Privacy advocates have long warned that allowing the government to collect and store unlimited…” (new-aesthetic.tumblr.com)
Robert Scheer: When Good Sites Sell Out, Who Loses? (huffingtonpost.com)
Everyone’s High… on Data Mining (iic2013.wordpress.com)

Posted in data protection act, information management | Tagged Amazon, Big Data, BUPA, Data mining, economic competitiveness, Facebook, Google, internet, invasion of privacy, NHS, Personally identifiable information, technology | 1 Comment

To get better complaints: help the customer to complain

Posted on May 16, 2013 by lawrence serewicz

Complaint Department Grenade (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I read this HBR blog and thought about how it could be applied to complaints. When a problem occurs, an organisation will often wait until someone before trying to fix the issue. As most organisations do not work actively to prevent or pre-empt complains, the complaint becomes an important improvement tool.[1] Yet, when the customer does decide to make a complaint, they are often faced with the standard complaints or contact page. There is rarely, if ever, an effort to help the customer complain properly or in a way that helps the organisation.

How organisations signpost complaints procedure tells you their value.

What we find are complaints pages or forms that have free text fields or contact details of the complaints team. Some organisations have an online form that has some questions to prompt a better complain. The standard approach is to ask the person complaining to explain the problem, give some details for context and to explain what they want done. The organisation hopes customers will use this online form and make a clear and concise complaint. Alas, this is hardly, if ever, the case. Instead, something like the following occurs.

Long letters without a point except to complain

The complainant decides to write a long letter, usually by hand, so you know immediately they are not going to use the online form. In some case, they may type an even longer letter or email. Usually the complaint wanders over various topics, and expresses personal attacks. Such complaints are usually poorly constructed and usually not well written.

The reader struggles to understand the complaint, the issue and struggles further to consider what might resolve the issue. Invariably they end up it finding a solution that best fits what the organisation wants. In many complaints, the organisations gets caught up with the extraneous, emotive issues like insults, and fail to recognise or resolve the problem. They focus on the complaint and not the problem. As a result, the complaint and not the problem becomes the issue.

What I have never seen, which is why I am proposing it, is an organisation that educates its clients and customers on how to make a complaint. By that, I do not mean explaining how to register a complaint. I mean educating the customer on the best way to write a complaint letter.[2] I have never seen an organisation give advice and help or even a link to material to help the customer complain.

Why organisations resist complaints

I understand why most organisations will resist or reject this approach.[3] Many senior managers view customer complaints as a hassle to be avoided. In many organisations, the complaints are seen as something to be minimized because they see the customer as the problem. The customer is a problem client, or a serial complainer. If they show the organisation was at fault, then it becomes defensive. Yet, by educating the public on how to complain, they could help themselves in a number of ways.

How educating the customer to complain can help your company.

First, it would show a commitment to customer service. Such an approach suggests an organisation confident of its complaints handling. At the same time, it shows an organisation that is willing to learn.

Second, the organisation would get better complaint letters. The letters would more likely to be polite, focused, and propose a solution. (See the list below for links to various web sites with advice on how to write a complaint letter).

Third, the complaint letters would be structured. An on-line form can capture the main points with systematic instructions on what is required. If the complaints are structured, they are easier to direct to the appropriate team.

Fourth, the process allows you to triage complaints and prioritize them. If you educate the public on how to complain, you can suggest your preferred style. With a preferred style, form or structure, the organisation can triage complaints and prioritize them. For example, if you use a form or required structure, then you can indicate that a concise complaint will get a quicker response than one that rambles and does not have a coherent structure.

Fifth, a structured approach focuses on the substantive points rather than secondary issues. The letter focuses on the proposed solution. The focus changes from the complaint to the substantive issue: the problem to be solved and the proposed solution.

Sixth, the proposed solution means that you do not have to solve the problem yourself. You are looking at how to make the solution happen. If you cannot solve the problem, then you discuss the proposed solution. By proposing a solution, it saves the organisation from having to expend a lot of effort trying to propose a solution that the customer will not find satisfactory.

Conclusion

I cannot guarantee this approach will transform customer complaints. However, it would help to reduce the 20 page letters and it would help to find solutions. Most importantly, it would help to find learning outcomes for the organisation. The learning outcomes will be derived from the proposed solutions. By improving complaints, you can save money as the customer helps you to improve.

[1] Please note that this is different from “feedback” or “customer engagement”. Instead, this is about the point at which a complaint is going to be prepared and developing a way to make it easier for the customer and develop it as a learning tool for the organisation.

[2] The following list of sites on how to complain was chosen at random from the internet. I am not endorsing them nor do I have an interest in them.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0002121.html

http://www.businessballs.com/complaintsletters.htm

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/letters-of-complaint

http://www.wikihow.com/Write-a-Complaint-Letter-to-a-Company

[3] Here is an interesting psychological insight into why customer and companies fail at handling complaints. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201105/complaint-handling-where-companies-and-customers-both-fail

Posted in customer service, management | Tagged Company, Complaint, Customer, Customer experience, Customer Management, customer service, Facebook, Twitter | 4 Comments

Systems thinking for middle managers: workplace democracy in action.

Posted on April 6, 2013 by lawrence serewicz

English: System Dynamics Modeling as One Approach to Systems Thinking (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As middle manager, I have been thinking a lot about how I do my job. As a colleague explained to me, “We are the jam in the sandwich.” I liked the idea because it shows a central, sweet, and connective role we have in an organisation. The middle manager has a special role because they connect the senior management’s vision to the frontline work. In that role, we act as translators of the organisation’s mission or vision into action, which can sometimes lead to unintended outcomes. Aside from that translating role, there is also an unappreciated democratic role.

The idea of work democratic workplace has been a key theme in Harold Jarche’s work. If you have not come across him before, I strongly recommend you check out his excellent site. Middle managers represent a democratic ethos in an organisation because they manage and are managed in turn. Just as in a democracy in which people govern and are governed in turn, the middle manager has a similar experience. Middle managers often have to have “difficult” conversations as well as set targets, and manage the performance and in turn, their performance, their targets and the difficult conversations they have with their managers. Middle managers have a unique role because often how they manage others is how they have been managed. The more they are “networked managers” the better chance they and their staff have to succeed.

The idea about the middle manager as being a democratic model came to me when I was reading Brendan McCarron’s article in CIPFA’s PINpoint magazine,[1] which drew on the, work of Ferninand Fournies. What McCarron did was take Fournies idea and apply it to it of particular interest is that it uses a systems analysis to understand how to find solutions to common performance “ problems” in the work place.

We often hear about systems thinking or lean thinking. From a system’s perspective, we can often have what appear at first as nonsensical ideas proposed. For example, we hear that:

Staff have only a very small impact on the performance of the organisation.

At first glance, this seems strange if not impossible. In a command and control organisation this sounds seditious as if it a shirker’s charter. Yet, as middle managers we see this intuitively in our work. We performance manage staff and staff are our biggest concern with improving performance avoiding grievances and getting the work done. We constantly seek ways to keep staff motivated, engaged, and productive. What we may need to do is focus on something else, which was brought up in our session on performance.

As Brendan McCarron explains, the point is that staff actually have very little influence on their own performance.

Staff can indeed be “our most important asset” and work themselves ragged, but if the system they work within in is poor, their efforts will be largely wasted.

What we find is that improvement reviews or lean reviews often reveal that staff are often not doing their work, the value added work *because* they are working on other tasks such as redirecting members of the public to other parts of the authority; doing other section’s work; or putting right other people’s errors. If the system around them is not structured to allow them to do their work, then

No matter how hard the staff worked, they would not be able to make a big impression on the performance of their section because the system itself is to blame for the poor performance.

As middle managers, we help to design and to implement the systems. When we see something “not working” in the system say, performance targets are unrealistic or not SMART, we need to readjust or remove the target. We need to look at the system around the performance to understand what contributes to that performance. At the same time, we have a responsibility to ourselves and to our staff to speak up on systems issues if we do not have control over the system.

If you promise to improve performance by managing the staff better but the system will not allow your staff to succeed, then how can you succeed?

We may need to see the situation carefully to make sure we understand what is happening and not trying to solve the immediate problem, poor performance or poorly performing staff, because the system may be requiring the staff to operate in a way that undermines their performance.

McCarron draws on the list developed by Fournies after thousands of interviews across hundreds of companies. He set out examples of common performance “problems”. Here are some examples:

“Problem”: Staff think something else is more important

Suggested advice to managers: Often staff are “too busy” on something of less importance. It is your responsibility to explain clearly your priorities and to verify they understand the importance of them.

McCarron look at the problems Fournies identifies as a clue to a deeper system design issue that needs to be addressed. As our work is based on systems, we need to understand those systems so that we can design it or redesign it to make the system more productive. Here is an example of this type of challenge.

“Problem”: Staff do not know what they are supposed to do.

Suggested advice to managers: Separate out general responsibilities (e.g. liaise with colleagues) from specific tasks required of staff (e.g. “agree decisions about x with Bill and Jan”), test understanding and keep under review.

We can work to improve their individual performance, but if we are not changing the system at the same time, the results will not change. We may have to look at ways to redesign the system to cut the problems.

If you want to read more about this approach here and here are some other examples of this in practice.

I would be interested to hear of your experiences as a middle manager. Does this reflect where you work or do you have a different experience as a middle manager?

[1] I have to declare an interest. I wrote an article for the same edition of the PINPoint Magazine. If you are interested, my article can be seen here.

Monkey study reveals why middle managers suffer the most stress (esciencenews.com)
Is it Easier or Harder to be a Senior Manager than a Middle Manager? (changingdestination.wordpress.com)

Posted in change managment, learning organisation, management | Tagged brendan mccarron, Business, Democracy, difficult conversations, Harold Jarche, Human resources, leadership, management, Middle management, Senior management, Thought | 1 Comment

In the age of social media, will your Chief Executive sort your mail?

Posted on March 8, 2013 by lawrence serewicz

English: President Richard M. Nixon and the Apollo 13 crew salute U.S. flag during the post-mission ceremonies at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. Earlier, the astronauts John Swigert, Jim Lovell and Fred W. Haise were presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom by the Chief Executive. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The question is shocking, as it seems impossible. Yet, in today’s social media enhanced workplace, the potential is implicit within the technology. We would not expect a Chief executive to open a company’s mail, sort it and deliver it. Yet, technology, by giving Chief Executives access to large amounts of information, both about the company and its industry can have that effect. The following temptations can emerge.

The Chief Executive as Editor in Chief
The Chief Executive the Entertainer
The Chief Executive as Press Spokesman
The Chief Executive as Project Manager

The Chief Executive as Editor in Chief.

As social media and technology tools allow the Chief Executive becomes immersed in the details, they can become like an editor. Like a copy editor, they focus on the details of the business, the comma, the grammar. We can see this with Lyndon Johnson and the desire to manage specific targets during the Vietnam War. The desire for more information gets the Chief Executive immersed in the detail. The challenge is to set up the processes and procedures that sifts the details into a action plan for the Chief Executive. To put it directly, the Chief Executive has to offer more than being an editor. He has to provide the vision and strategy. To continue this analogy, he has to be the publisher not the editor.

The Chief Executive as Entertainer

Here is where the need to create content and meaning as set out in McKinsey’s report on social media skills for leaders. Here, though, the social media becomes an end in itself. The Chief Executive becomes engrossed in the operational rather than strategic tasks. The challenge is that the Chief Executive becomes the face of the organisation and thus becomes responsible for the details of the media message. They are blogging, tweeting, and posting online videos. The Chief Executive becomes the frontline staff by default. As the demand for content increases, they are drawn into more media work rather than strategic work. In worst-case scenarios, the Chief Executive becomes the Press spokesperson.

The Chief Executive as press spokesperson.

The more the Chief Executive becomes available through online media, the more tempting it is to read the reviews. The Chief Executive can become overly concerned with appearance if their focus on outcomes is only to manage their appearance, then their approach is to act as a spokesperson. In that situation, the social media, because it allows all views to be seen and heard, creates the fear of bad press. To paraphrase PT Barnum, you cannot keep all the people happy all the time. As a result, the fear of “bad reviews” leads to a greater, rather than less, in the media message. If the Chief Executive does not step back from the stage, then the danger is that actions are taken to avoid bad press. In United States politics, Richard Nixon was a case study in avoiding bad press, which lead to an almost pathological concern for leaks.

The Chief Executive as Project Manager

In the social media age, this is the greatest temptation. The Chief Executive becomes involved in so much detail that agenda items soon reach double digits. The reports, papers, and presentations run to hundreds of pages as the thirst for detail increases. As a result, the Chief Executive and senior management team has no time to think or discuss. They are drowning in details.

The senior management team try to take control of the detail and revert to project managers. They lack the time or energy to develop a collective vision. They have forgotten their role and responsibility. As a result, the organisation begins to drift. Without the critical distance to set strategy, the Chief Executive allows operational issues to take priority. The management team need to set a strategic vision. They need to structure their meetings for strategic issues. Meetings need to be shorter on issues that fall within their role and responsibilities. They need to set up the procedures and systems so that reports come to them for decisions not details. They need to communicate the division of responsibility to the management teams. The organisation as a whole has to be clear about the relationship so that the information provided by social media is managed and monitored for the Chief Executive to understand its impact on strategic plans. If the Chief Executive is focused on the latest tweet or blog, they have lost their strategic vision. The detail is only important to the extent it affects the strategic vision.

In reality, none of these archetypes exists. Instead, they demonstrate the traits that can emerge because of the power of social media. They are more likely to occur in larger organisations, but smaller organisations are not immune. The challenge is to spot the archetype as it emerges. How senior managers and the chief executive meet this challenge will depend on their awareness of social media and how it influences the organisational culture. The stronger the culture as centred around a common vision shared by all staff, the less the ephemera of social media will affect it.

The challenge is not so much to turn off social media, but to put it in the strategic context. The stronger the strategic vision, the less the Chief Executive will be tempted by social media’s daily hum.

James Strong – a passing of an outstanding leadership brand – You will be remembered! (jonmichail.org)
Social Media For CEOs: I’ll Frame The Debate – You Decide (ceo.com)

Posted in change managment, leadership, management | Tagged Business, Chief executive officer, Project manager, Richard Nixon, Senior management, social media, Strategic planning, United States | Comments Off

Tesco, horsemeat, and how to write an apology letter.

Posted on January 20, 2013 by lawrence serewicz

tylenol bottle closeup (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Tesco has been at the centre of a food scandal recently in which value beef burgers sold under its label were found to contain horsemeat. While other companies such as Aldi and Iceland have been involved, Tesco has received the most attention. In response to the scandal, Tesco apologised and removed all the identified products from its shelves.

For some commentators, the focus of the scandal has been on the question of the food chain. A related approach by commentators is to look at supplier networks for major supermarkets. For others, it is about the question of whether horsemeat is an issue. Finally, for some it is resigned exasperation as they ask “what did you think was going to be in a value burger?” These questions, and the lines of enquiry they show, are interesting in their own right, yet my focus is on Teco’s customer service apology letter.

I found the letter to be of an exceptional quality based on its content, cogency, and most of all its refreshingly honest and direct language. Tesco did not waffle. They did not seek legal defences. They did not blame someone else. Most importantly, they did not blame the consumer. One wonders if governments or other organisations would be willing to write such frank apology letters so quickly. Tesco’s customer care ethos is in marked contrast with the callous indifference of the South West Water Authority, which in July 1988 refused to tell the public in Camelford about poisoning their water for 16 days. Moreover, they ordered their staff to remain silent about it even though they knew the risks and the danger to the public. Organisational silence can be deadly.

To appreciate how good of letter this is, we need to look at it detail. The following is a line-by-line analysis. From this analysis, I think anyone in a position of authority, especially business but probably most importantly government could learn.

We apologise.

The opening to any letter sets the tone and this one hits it. The language is direct and to the point. Once you have apologised, you have broken the ice. The main thing that consumers and customer wants is someone to say sorry, to acknowledge something went wrong.

You have probably read or heard that we have had a serious problem with three frozen beef burger products that we sell in stores in the UK and Ireland.

They recognise the problem and the wider issue. They understand they are part of something bigger, but are not trying to hide from it.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) has told us that a number of products they have recently tested from one of our suppliers contained horsemeat.

They have connected it to the official judgement so there is not attempt to look for an excuse. They are acknowledging the evidence and the quality of evidence. This is not an opinion or your word against theirs. They respect the authority and responsibility of the FSAI. They are not trying to undermine them or question their qualifications, research integrity, or jurisdiction. This may come later during legal proceedings, but the consumer is not interested. The consumer wants to be reassured and Tesco is making sure that this is clear.

While the FSAI has said that the products pose no risk to public health, we appreciate that, like us, our customers will find this absolutely unacceptable.

In the past, an organisation may have brazened this out and insisted it was safe. In the Haringey case, the corporate officer involved insisted, on national radio that despite a child being killed, Ofsted rated them three stars. Tesco has acknowledged the issue, understood that it is a problem for their customers and they are stating that the outcome is unacceptable. Even if it is completely safe, Tesco understands that it is not acceptable for its customers. In legal proceedings, they may use this defence, but in terms of customer care (and public relations), they understand that this is neither the place, nor the time, to make such an argument.

The products in our stores were Tesco Everyday Value 8 x Frozen Beef Burgers (397g), Tesco 4 x Frozen Beef Quarter Pounders (454g) and a branded product, Flamehouse Frozen Chargrilled Quarter Pounders.

They name the product so that customers can act if they are affected. They are not trying to hide the issue nor pass this off, at least publicly, on their suppliers. They understand that it is under their label so it is their responsibility to alert the customer and make the changes.

We have immediately withdrawn from sale all products from the supplier in question, from all our stores and online.

They have not waited. Much like the Tylenol scare following the unsolved cyanide poisoning case, the makers immediately withdrew the product and changed its procedures for packaging and safety. Tesco have acted quickly and efficiently in responding to the issue. Here is how Johnson and Johnson’s, the makers of Tylenol, reacted:

“As the plan was constructed, Johnson & Johnson’s top management put customer safety first, before they worried about their companies profit and other financial concerns.”

The company immediately alerted consumers across the nation, via the media, not to consume any type of Tylenol product. They told consumers not to resume using the product until the extent of the tampering could be determined. Johnson & Johnson, along with stopping the production and advertising of Tylenol, recalled all Tylenol capsules from the market. The recall included approximately 31 million bottles of Tylenol, with a retail value of more than 100 million dollars. (Broom, Center, Cutlip, 381)

If you have any of these products at home, you can take them back to any of our stores at any time and get a full refund. You will not need a receipt and you can just bring back the packaging.

They are reassuring the public that this will be handled immediately and without question. Their deeds will follow their words. They have also said that there is no need for a receipt so they are not going to haggle, or quibble, or refuse to take responsibility at the point of sale. Again, this shows a willingness to do what is right to make the customer happy and reassure them that if they want a refund, they will be given one.

We and our supplier have let you down and we apologise.

Attentive readers will note that Tesco mentions their supplier only after Tesco has apologised. They do not name the supplier nor do they try to shift any public blame. Instead, they show solidarity in agreeing that they have let the customer down and they have apologised. They reinforce the opening message with a clear unequivocal apology.

If you have any concerns, you can find out how to contact us at the bottom of this page, or go to any of our customer service desks in-store, or ask to speak to your local Store Manager.

They offer the customer several different ways to address their concerns. They are prepared to handle the complaints, questions, or issues at all levels. They are not trying to force the customer to a particular channel. Nor are they only offering one channel, which may be overwhelmed, which would create additional problems.

So here’s our promise. We will find out exactly what happened and, when we do, we’ll come back and tell you.

Here the direct language reaches its peak. At the end of the apology, Tesco is promising to find out what happened and tell the consumer. One hears echoes of Vinegar Joe Stillwell. When his army was thrashed by the Japanese and forced to retreat out of Burma back to India, he did not look for scapegoats. He did not blame others. He did not sugar coat it or try to play “politics” to look good for an audience. He retreated on foot with his soldiers and said it like it was.

“I claim we got a hell of a beating. We got run out of Burma and it is humiliating as hell. I think we ought to find out what caused it, go back and retake it.”.

The tone and the directness of the language are very similar. Tesco is telling us they will take action, they will find out what went wrong, and they will tell their customers about it. They will not wait for legal proceedings. They will not wait for a long drawn out inquiry. They will act.

And we will work harder than ever with all our suppliers to make sure this never happens again.

The last sentence shows their determination and their focus on collective action. They set a promise that it will never happen again, which shows that they will hold themselves to a high standard and they expect the public to hold them to that standard. For a company that prides itself on customer service, and high standards on its products and its service, this is a strong and reassuring message. The message also sends a signal to the staff that the senior leadership are taking this seriously and providing a standard by which the frontline staff are judged is the same standard as those who deal with customers every day.

Even though no one died from the horsemeat scandal, it represents a good case study in crisis management. Like Johnson and Johnson, Tesco has put its customers first and itself second. How many organisations can say they do this when it comes time to apologise or make amends for their failings? How many are willing to do that before they are called to court, or called to testify before Parliament? If a company is dealing with customers and needs to reassure them about the issues, they would do well to learn from Tesco’s apology letter.

When was the last time your company or organisation gave such a direct, unreserved, apology and promised to investigate and explain what went wrong?

Tesco sorry for horsemeat in burgers (sfgate.com)
Tesco publishes horsemeat apology (bbc.co.uk)
Customers’ disgust over horse meat in Tesco burgers (standard.co.uk)
Horsemeat In Burgers: Tesco Removes Product – Sky News (news.sky.com)
Tesco chief uses Talking Shop blog to rein in horsemeat burger scandal (guardian.co.uk)
Tesco Apologises For Horsemeat In Burgers (theblend.ie)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Aldi, apology letters, FSAI, Horse meat, Iceland, Ireland, Johnson, Tesco, Tylenol | 2 Comments

Privacy and the right to be forgotten: who owns your personal information?

Posted on December 31, 2012 by lawrence serewicz

RFID (radio frequency identification) ticket to Bergen Science Centre. VIP, student, child and adult from left to right. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Over the past year, the right to be forgotten (RTBF) has become a topic of debate and interest. What began as an academic or theoretical issue has become a legislative proposal within the European Union. From the perspective of the data protection act, in the UK, which institutes the EU Data protection Directive, the RTBF fits with the 4th Data Protection Principle. The principle covers the idea that data should only be held as long as necessary and unlimited storage should be the exception and not the default. In this blog, though, I want to discuss how the RTBF is based upon a right of privacy that assumes, incorrectly, that we own our own personal information and raises philosophical questions about what it means to be human in the digital age. As such, the right is a technological solution to a technological problem created by a bureaucratic process and not a fundamental, or natural, right. By only providing a technological response, the right does not address the fundamental idea of what makes us human, and therefore gives us privacy. In other words, we are working on the false, but understandable, belief that a technological solution will resolve our philosophical problem.

The technological solution to a technological problem highlights a bureaucratic process that appears almost uncontrollable. In the past, my data (my bureaucratic shadow) was relatively limited. If I checked out a book, the library would know. Depending on the topic, the state and the era, the FBI might know as well.* Other than those two bodies, no one else would know or be interested in knowing what I checked out of the library.

Your library book can now be analyzed to track your existence

Today, as more records are electronic and control systems are electronic, our digital shadow has increased. The bureaucratic process has become technologically enhanced as the spirit of the technological infuses our lives. Even leaving aside the official bureaucratic records, such as birth certificates, driving licences, and national insurance or social insurance numbers, we have a huge amount of data accumulating about us every day. Unlike the older library, modern libraries have Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags in books. The RFID tags allow us to monitor the book for audit purposes within the library as well as allowing a location to be identified depending on the software. When we connect that to big data centres where smart algorithms that can match a GPS signal to a person’s smartphone or to the book’s RFID tag, it can show who the person met, if they are holding the book when they meet and their GPS signal is scanned. In the past, that information did not exist. It exists today and people would like to know that it is “forgotten” and is not being used to shape their lives without their permission. If you are interested, have a look at these sigma scans on future of information technology especially the emerging use of sensors.

Forgetting relies upon institutional memory the problem of archives

In many ways, the technological approach to privacy is beyond the abuse allowed or generated by a paper-based system. The current laws we have are paper based laws and even the electronic laws we are developing are behind the technological trend concerning data creation, retention, and manipulation. I am purposefully ignoring the archives issue, in that records are retained in an archive and thus have always been available, because of the philosophical dispute that archives represents a clean break with current records management. By that I mean, the arguments about archival requirements are a secondary issue that do not address the fundamental philosophical issue. In other words, archives, which have always existed, present the same technological problem, but only in a paper (or limited) format. Archives are important, yet they do not in themselves create a break point that limits legislative oversight of the political space or of political memory. Moreover, their special status needs to be challenged if their function does not provide a collective memory so much as an institutional memory based on institutional and not community needs. (See my blog on the Shaw report). n light of abuse histories one finds that the RTBF becomes moot because the institutional memory never wanted or even tried to remember in the first place. Instead, what we need, in those circumstances is a right to remember, but we may as well chase the horizon.

The gap between our digital person and our physical person

I think there is an increasing need for clarity because the gap between our “digital person” and our physical person. The RTBF is showing us a demand that our “digital person” be treated as our physical person would be treated. By that I mean, instead of viewing it as data or information, it is seen as an extension of the person. We then move beyond data protection towards an essential understanding of due process, and fundamentally, a new question of what it means to be human. Thus, the state will have a higher, and more extensive, responsibility about that information (even as it controls the records) and we will have a greater (if sometimes passive) role in it as well. The question, though is whether the digital person becomes fully a creature, a representation, of the state and is no longer natural.

Will we have digital “natural” rights? Can we be human without them?

The RTBF is in the end, a bureaucratic solution to a technological problem created by the bureaucratic system’s reliance on technology. We have yet to figure out what we mean by freedom, which is what the RTBF is trying to articulate, but that is a political question rather than a technological question. To the extent that it has become a technological question, we return to the Heideggerian question of technology. To put it differently, but directly, our need for a RTBF shows us that we still do not know what it means to be human. Our reliance on technology further removes us from our human nature in that our fundamental freedoms, our humanity, are becoming representations of data. We no longer have access to our digital shadow, in a way that we had (continue to have) access to ourselves as selves. By that I mean, 1500 years ago someone may have had a right to property and a right to their own person. Later, as rights became developed as an idea of property that could be exchanged, we lost touch with our natural rights, as rights, and took on positive rights as representations either of the state or an institution, like the Church or a Monarchy. In the 21^st century, we do not even have a right to our digital shadow let alone access. In sum, we have become further removed from our natural rights, as we become more of a digital “person”.

If the RTBF is to work, or any “digital rights” are to work, we need to connect them or at least found them in our natural rights. Perhaps it is time to discover our digital “natural” rights.

*The FBI used to pressure librarians in major cities to disclose the details of individuals checking out certain books in the late 60s early 70s, or at least that is when it came to light in the 1980s.

Is Privacy History? Top 5 Ways You Are Being Digitally Monitored and Catalogued Daily (wakingtimes.com)
RFID Tags To Track Elderly At Home (futurepundit.com)
Travelon RFID Blocking Passport Case (gadget.com)

Posted in change, change managment, data protection act, information management, innovation | Tagged Business, European Union, FBI, GPS, internet, Privacy, Radio Frequency Identification, RFID, rfid radio frequency identification, RTBF, technology | 2 Comments

Is augmented reality the future for archives in a digital age?

Posted on November 11, 2012 by lawrence serewicz

English: Beth Cron, Program Specialist at the National Archives opens with the first talk discussing records management at NARA. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have been thinking about the future of archives for the next 20 years and how services will be delivered. I am interested in how the public (archive users) will access the archives. In particular, I am interested in how born digital records will shape the archival offer and what needs to be done now to prepare for it.

To manage the thought process, I have broken the issue into three distinct phases.

Phase One: Next 5 years 90% paper/10% digital.

Phase two 5-15 years, 50/50% or 40/60% paper/digital.

Phase three 20+ years 10%/90% paper/digital.

In 20 years, we will have a large amount of digital records and a smaller, but consistent, amount of paper records. The question, then and now, is how to preserve or converse the archives as well as provide access.

Preservation as Access

Do born digital records change our priorities of preservation/conservation, and access/use? In the paper era, the access and preservation were opposed to each other. If you accessed a fragile document too often, it would decay or disintegrate. To overcome this, we digitize the record. In the born digital age, decreased access means the record is more likely to decay because digital integrity (cite article on decay of bits) and the need to future proof. If your computer system is Word for example, you are more likely to keep updating it and future proofing it. If you stop accessing it and the systems are no longer supported, then preservation may be harder because the record starts to decay.

If this is the trade-off, the “birth process” for digital records needs to be explored. How are archives or CROs linked to records management process of organisations that contribute to them? For County Record Offices there is a clear relationship with their local government authority. Yet, for others the relationship is uncertain. Many organisations are unaware of the process by which their records they create may arrive at the archives. The reason for this is that few organisations have a robust understanding of the records management life-cycle, which leads to the archives or County Record Office. In the paper era, the challenge, though different, may not have been as great. The process for producing the records, such as minutes, reports, and process was relatively clear. In the digital age, the same clarity does not exist. There are tools emerging (such as HP/Autonomy) for creating meaning and order out of unstructured data, but their take up is uncertain.

Will born digital change our focus of archives as heritage.

I am assuming a local government perspective rather than a community or heritage perspective. The research organisation or private sector archives present an additional if related challenge. In the future of the born digital, there will be an increasing distinction (potentially false) between digital archives for communities and or research universities and local government or government work. In a sense, local government, rather than universities, are often seen as the focus of heritage. By that, I mean local government represents the whole while a university or a community group reflect a part. In any case, the parts have to work together. Born digital create an issue because official records (products of the local government or government process as public record office) may be perceived differently from those reflecting community or heritage.

How will Heritage Lottery Funding shape the digital future?

Over the last 10 years, at least, the Heritage Lottery Funds (HLF) has shaped the archives or County Record Offices. The focus has been on creating heritage sites or protecting collections on behalf of a community’s heritage. The programme has been successful in developing archives and ensuring they have the funding to make the changes. The question, though, is whether the focus from HLF has to be on developing the digital archives. How will we encourage heritage in a digital age and how will archives establish themselves digitally and maintain a community or heritage offer.

The challenge increases because as archives become digital, their users change. The heritage focus has been on place, but if the place is now virtual and access is mediated through the internet, how does one support that type of “place”? At the same time, the focus on heritage and place, especially in the digital age, begins to reveal a wider gap between a CRO and archives found in research libraries. Digital will either exacerbate the difference or remove. The way that CROs approach access and how those within research approach access is related but different. The divide is not simply public or private, government or academic, the challenge is how their digital access is enhanced. At one level, the two approaches should be the same, but the future of archives in an electronic age may, unintentionally, be less access. In effect, the push to digital reduces one mediated experience, the physical control of access to documents and records, with a different mediated experience through electronic access. Two gaps occur in the access realm. The first is the implicit gap regarding Archival User Intelligence.

Teaching people how to access archives?

If the future is digital, we will need to double our efforts to educate our users. By that I mean, the explicit gap between archivist and user cannot be closed because it will remain mediate through the internet. What will likely happen, as in other industries, is that online finding aids with self-help automated systems will emerge that allow archivist to leverage their knowledge. What we may be seeing is two interrelated effects. The first is that the access becomes mediate in a different way. In the past, the archivist may have been seen as a gatekeeper controlling the archive. The new user was initiated into the archival search by talking with the archivist and other archive staff. In an electronic age, where it is difficult to “meet” the archivist, how does that education work? How do we educate people to the archives and how to use it when they are less likely to come through the door and more likely to be online? We also need to consider the archivist’s digital education and what is required to manage the digital archives. The second issue, which I will treat first, is that the archives themselves stop being mediated in one way, but become mediate in the second way.

Slave to the SEO?

If the archives become increasingly digitized, then they may become captive to the search engine optimisation (SEO) requirements. In the past, the archivist may have been seen as the gatekeeper, the one who mediated or controlled access to the collection. They controlled access as well as the shape of the collection. Yet, the search engine may replace that gatekeeping or mediating role. As documents become digital, the internet becomes the new mediator. If the public’s access is mediated through the web, for example, through a firewall, or a pay wall, or a subscription wall, how accessible will the collections become? Even if the access is “free”, the search engine optimisation requirements may keep the archives hidden. In a sense, you may access the archives, if you know where to look, but you may not know what the archives hold or that you need to go to the archives unless the material is indexed to the internet search engines. The same problem with attracting users in the physical world carries over to the electronic, but in a different way. The public will have to access the archive that fits the search engine and not the needs or intent of the archive. At the same time, the challenge is that a belief, in the future, that all records are digital may require the warning sticker that, simultaneously, there are paper records that need to be examined on the site. Even now, the search engine optimisation leaves large swathes of material untouched because they rank low on search indexes. If records are born digital and archived digitally, will they be connected to the internet directly, or will they be mediated through the archive?

Reversing Plato’s cave: trading one form of mediation for another

With born digital records, the mediated experience will change the need to visit the archives physically or electronically. In the future, we may have more access to archives, through the electronic means, but the access becomes increasingly remote. I mean that literally, as we become removed from the concrete (relatively speaking) nature of the paper or physical record. Even though electronic records can have the same integrity as paper records, there will remain a perceptible gap between paper and digital records. Paper remains the most enduring and the most accessible; it may become the medium of choice for archives and users. Yet, the gap will remain and could increase as the electronic will remain suspect.

We may be further removed from the document and in that gap we may see other issues emerging about whether the digital record is the “true record”. In that sense, we are pushed into the cave. Instead of trying to escape the cave, make the records and archives more accessible, by digitizing them, people want to come to the archives because they have the “permanent” records the paper records. The wider digital sphere becomes the ephemeral or meta-universe while the paper are considered the physical.

Augmented Reality the future of archives is everything in its place?

Where do we go from today if born digital is the future of archives? With digital records and digital artefacts, we open up the third dimension: place. By that, I mean we need to consider the geographical location data associated with born digital or digital artefacts like photographs. If these records are tagged, then their geographic metadata must be similarly conserved. Moreover, do we then need to start tagging all records so that we can associate with a geographical space? If we do, then the next generation in archives will have an augmented reality offer. In this sense, you will be able to see (literally) where the Dickens lived and the archival records associated with the building. The City of Philadelphia Department of Records is being to use an augmented reality approach with photographs and archival work in Philadelphia. In twenty years, the following scenario is possible. People who want to use the archives never visit it, nor do they access an archive’s website unless they want more detail. Instead, they will go to locations, where their augmented location devices will bring up or highlight the digital records from the archives associated with that location. In that future, the archives will go to the people. At the same time, the archives or the CRO site will contain the original born digital records or the paper records.

I would be interested in your views on the future of archives in a digital age. The future of archives will be one where the public experience or use them through different mediated experience. As these develop, we will need archives to be structured differently to adapt to an augmented reality as the documents are linked to a place outside the physical archival storage. If the next stage of access, already emerging, links records to places, how do we prepare our records for that future? In that sense, we return to a question at the start of born digital records, is access now conservation?

Activist Archivists and Digital Preservation (blogs.loc.gov)
An Early Look at the BitCurator Environment (mith.umd.edu)
Born Digital Minimum Processing and Access (blogs.loc.gov)
Step-by-Step Management of Born-Digital Content Received on Physical Media (blogs.loc.gov)

Posted in culture, information management, learning organisation, local government, records management | Tagged Archive, Archivist, Born-digital, digital integrity, digital phase, Heritage Lottery Fund, HLF, Information Age, Rare Book School, records management, Research | 1 Comment

Thoughts on management

Who is creating the rotten barrels in your company?

Culture eats your structure for lunch

Snowden’s public resignation as a whistle blower: lessons for changing an organisation?

As the raw material of the digital economy, are you worried about your privacy or your cut of the profits?

To get better complaints: help the customer to complain

Systems thinking for middle managers: workplace democracy in action.

Tesco, horsemeat, and how to write an apology letter.

Privacy and the right to be forgotten: who owns your personal information?

Is augmented reality the future for archives in a digital age?

Follow Blog via Email

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages

Buy me a cup of coffe.

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Follow Blog via Email

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages

Buy me a cup of coffe.