Tag Archives: shared value creation

In which, we string together Golf, Diversity and the Schulich MBA

This week the Globe published an analysis of golf in Canada: more gloom than sunshine, but certainly no outright doom. Perceptions are an important part of assessing any situation, whether it is the subtle “half-full/half-empty” divide or the distinctions you make while applying an analytical tool. Former PGA tour player, Ian Leggatt cited some problems to attracting golfers to the game. In theory there are some interesting questions: At what point does this risk become significant? Does a market change mean an opportunity or a threat? (The symmetry of the SWOT analysis feels a bit like a dirty little secret.) In practice, we have to make decisions.

Leggatt identifies two specific issues to golf’s problem of attracting new players: (1) it is too expensive and time consuming, and (2) it is too tough thanks to golf course development in the past two decades that left us with public courses that pose too much of a challenge for the non-expert golfer. Sadly, part of the discussion of the latter issue involves entities like Clublink looking at redeveloping Glen Abbey. (Hey, it happened to Yankee stadium!)

There is already lots of attention to Problem #1, too: shorter courses, cheaper memberships, bigger holes, and a slew of other innovations. As a golfer and a bit of a traditionalist (and a member of Weston Golf and Country Club), I want to look at what can change without changing the fabric of the game… or redeveloping the land. This is how Iron Lady Golf caught my eye because founder Lindsay Knowlton sees “an opportunity” where others see nothing but threats.

More than an business opportunity, Iron Lady Golf is righting the lingering inequity that the game of golf creates tight networks that seem to be inaccessible to women. The programs and the thinking aim to build individual skills and confidence, as well as to create accessibility to the game and to golf clubs. The “exclusivity” of the private golf course has shifted from being a value-adding differentiator (MBA-speak for “a good thing), to being something that hinders a clubs existence.

Additionally, this history of “male-centric exclusivity” translates into the wider corporate world. The topic of “diversity” is in heavy rotation among large corporations, which also contain tight male-centric networks, though not restricted golfers. Will bringing more professional women into the game of golf solve the lack of diversity in corporate Canada? Probably not. Will it help? I would argue, “It could.”

The piece of curriculum in the Schulich MBA program that I deliver encourages thinking about multiple stakeholders and the intersecting interests. Such an orientation creates a rich landscape over which to layer in opportunities and threats. In identifying interests, the bigger questions become “opportunities FOR what?” and “threats TO what?” People mobilize quickly around existing self-interest. For me, threats to golf get my attention, as do opportunities to bring more people into a game that I really enjoy.

Results-Based Development (Under the hood of Aligning Interests)

In many different contexts, we see examples of competition contributing to higher performance. For competition in business, we can draw and important distinction between “good competition” and “bad competition,” which is sometimes under emphasized. As I understand it, “good competition” creates an environment where everyone has to “up their game” to remain competitive. As evidence that “the market works,” we would see examples of customers benefiting from competition because organizations have to work harder and smarter to remain in business. Conversely, “bad competition” creates an environment that destroys long-term value in the name of “winning” or “surviving.” In such scenarios, organizations harm the sector and themselves in a “race to the bottom.” Such scenarios also have organizations engage in ethically questionable behaviour to “win at all costs.”

To start, let’s assume that “good competition” is indeed possible. Let’s further assume that for it to work, it requires that parties share an understanding of what “good” they are trying to accomplish.

For businesses, making money is “good,” but so are other forms of benefit: safer automobile travel (Toyota), or sustainable practices (Unilever). Governments are expected to think more about the greater “good,” and as a specific illustration, let me use community health-care in Ontario.  Let’s say that “good” in this context is “efficiency in delivering necessary services to patients,” or something that balances provision of necessary services within fiscal constraints. As is the current practice, the government-funded payment to service providers for some activities can be attached to a result or outcome:  a service provider is given a lump sum to achieve a specific outcome (e.g. heal a wound). If they can complete the task more efficiently, profit is theirs. If it happens to take longer or more resources, the provider spends those resources, but can’t come back to the funder for more money. If this works, tax-payers in Ontario get better bang for their collective buck, and patients get high quality care; wins all around.

This same type of arrangement could work in a non-governemnt context as long as the service provider is at least partially interested in the same definition of “good.” This creates “good competition, and efficient organizations that do good work will succeed.

Slide1The realm of “bad competition” can be peppered with “perverse incentives,” whereby, for example, a service provider could legitimately want a patient to stay sick, or at very least, err too much on the side of caution and so as to go wildly offside with a “fiscal responsibility” effort. This is the potentially very ugly underbelly of the public-sector contracting out to the private sector. In a consulting relationship, this can create, for example, an incentive to run-up the billable hours.

Slide2 again

 

Setting goals and objectives that promote shared accountability is extremely tricky. From my experience, the real trick is to align activity to a common purpose (e.g. the “good”), and I will go as far to say that without a shared interest, collaboration of this nature is impossible because the result will actually create “bad” competition.

 

Collaborating for Automobile Safety

It has been almost 3 years since Toyota embarked on a collaborative partnership to address automobile safety. The Collaborative Safety Research Center in Ann Arbour Michigan has grown to include dozens of academic and social sector organizations united to improve the world of automobile safety. In the rearview mirror this is a rich collaborative exercise pursuing a noble cause. A web search for “Toyota” and “safety” in March 2014 will provide very important context to the venture as you sift through accounts of the $1.2B admission of wrongdoing that resulted in human deaths and in harsh criticism of the automakers modus operandi.

Often revered for its dogged focus on quality, the culture at Toyota contributed greatly to the Total Quality Management (TQM) movement and to many quality principles used pervasively today, not just in manufacturing, but in a variety of disciplines. It appears that “safety” somehow got uncoupled from “quality” with devastating results. When external perceptions don’t match the internal realities, the company has a PR problem. When an internal flaw has been exposed because of dire consequences to customers, the problem is different and much deeper.

Steven Berlin Johnson starts off his book Future Perfect discussing how progress in airplane safety has far outstripped progress in any other aspect of air travel. Statistics routinely tout air travel as safer than driving, and this is no mean achievement. (Note: Presumably science and tech innovation could not have prevented the yet unclear result of Malaysia Air’s recent tragedy.) Similarly, the Engineering and Technical institutions involved in the work with Toyota will no doubt achieve great results in moving the needle on automobile safety. Even with this progress, at some level, all drivers appreciate the myriad of risks involved in heading out on any road in any vehicle.

For Toyota’s part in this, the bigger question is: “how was driver safely allowed to slip on the priority scale in so many aspects of the business?” The CSRC will no doubt get more attention in the aftermath of the recent US legal decision. Potentially these events will result in the world being a safer and better place with increased attention on vehicle safety. This will be consolation only to the most philosophical of those directly affected by the shortcomings. Practices at Toyota may indeed change so that “safety” plays a clearer role. If so, the claims in its vision statement won’t ring as hollow as they do today.