May 10, 2012

Building trusted relationships

Businesses run on trust. No matter how you cut it, the wheels of commerce are greased by promises, good will, and the potential for legal consequences.

Our personal and work lives are surrounded by electronic gadgets that can automatically log, record, and preserve our actions for posterity.

Data collection and analysis is nothing new. Governments and large businesses have been widely using these tools for 30 years. What has changed recently is the sheer volume of retained data collected automatically, and the potential for extracting value from that data.

Retailers and financial services firms have turned client data analysis into a very profitable art form over the last few years. Customer rewards programs are often little more than data surveillance of clients, sugar coated in marketing fluff.

So called “big data” technologies, which analyse huge volumes of disparate corporate data to look for patterns and trends, are now becoming more widespread.

As Charles Duhigg covers in The Power of Habit and this New York Times article, major US retailers are already profiling and predicting customer behaviours to extraordinarily creepy levels. He outlines instances where retailers are routinely “concealing” the true extent of knowledge that the retailer has about their customer’s life situation, to avoid customers realising that they are under surveillance.

Within Australia, the federal government has 10 Privacy Principles which focus primarily on the collection and use of customer data.

While the privacy principles are clearly well intentioned, with a prime directive of “only collect information that is necessary”, it is easy to see why “big data” companies like Facebook and Google are based outside Australia.

I think we all know people who should be sharing less of their lives on Facebook. For many businesses, the ease with which employees can deliberately or inadvertently share confidential information is also an area of major concern.

While it is technically feasible to restrict access social media websites via work computers, and many large businesses certainly do block them, this approach can easily have unintended consequences. The most likely outcome is employee frustration, and attempts to find ways around restrictions. Employees can easily bring their own laptops and tablets into work, and connect to social networking sites via telco 3G services.

If anything, completely restricting corporate access to social networking sites is likely to encourage employees to work using their personal devices, and transfer corporate data onto fundamentally less secure systems – so that they can continue to work productively without constantly switching between systems.

Rather than rely on blunt website restrictions, it is far more productive to design business processes and IT systems to reduce the risk of data loss, and ensure employees are trained to understand the associated business risks and how to avoid problems.

Further complicating matters is the mess of laws that govern workplace privacy issues across Australia. Each state has their own legal regime covering workplace surveillance, which includes email and website monitoring.

In NSW, businesses need to clearly inform employees of policies around monitoring, and who will be able to access the data. In Victoria, businesses need to go further, and seek explicit consent from an employee.

The impact of the woeful legal mess is neatly summarised in this cute, interactive map of the legal quagmire of privacy legislation enacted around Australia.

Privacy issues essentially boil down to an issue of trust. Rebuilding shattered trust can be an expensive exercise. Business leaders should very carefully consider how their use of customer data will be perceived in the market, and how social media tools and cloud based web applications might be safely integrated into their employee’s work.

 

April 16, 2012

Taking the risk out of diversity

The top ranks of Australian big business have garnered a well-deserved reputation for being a boys’ club. In 2011, 250 of the top 500 ASX-listed companies had zero women on their boards.

Despite the ongoing lobbying of the Diversity Council of Australia, appointments to directorships at ASX-listed companies have long been the almost exclusive domain of a rather homogenous group of men.

A 2011 research report by the Reibey Institute into the board composition of the 500 largest ASX-listed companies found that a mere 235 individual women held directorships in our largest public companies. Those women held a grand total of 10 chairperson roles and 307 directorships.

A more sensible team balance is clearly needed by many companies, and it is not just a matter of hiring more women. Skills and age diversity are also relevant, and are also lacking on many boards. Boards are meant to represent shareholders – not the interests of the incumbent management team.

While the DCA regularly promotes studies which attempt to link company performance with board diversity, a lot more research needs to happen before we really understand the numbers.

A very controversial recent study by the German Bundesbank looked in-depth at how diversity within executive leadership teams impacted overall risk management within the German banking sector between 1994 and 2010.

The uproar created by the study was intense. The study effectively found that German banks which had higher levels of female executive participation at a CxO level (between 1994 and 2010) had taken measurably higher risks.

While hyperventilating critics paint the report as another piece of misogynistic propaganda, it is worth looking deeper. If anything, the study findings argue that CxO level executive experience and qualifications are absolutely crucial to organisation-wide performance. The conclusion presented is that mandated quotas for female participation led to people with lower levels of experience being appointed, resulting in the adoption of higher levels of risk.

The simple reality is that many Australian businesses could benefit from taking a few more risks. Attracting a more diverse range of people (and skills) to your executive team will give you a wider set of experience to draw upon when you are facing challenges.

Diversity is not a compliance issue. It is a leadership issue that needs to be dealt with seriously by every level of your organisation. Sensitivity to workforce and customer diversity should be embedded into business processes, employee retention programs and hiring policies.

Quotas are the real risk to business performance, as they can sideline team members who have the highest levels of skill and experience.