1. How to avoid short terming the longer term?
Effective leadership starts with:-
 a true understanding of current performance,
 clear strategic direction,
 a strong understanding of improvement options and
 alternatives to rapidly apply those options.
Not understanding these vital inputs, can lead to risky decision making, that on the face
of it may seem right for today, but in fact, could readily “short term” the “longer term”
future of the business.
Leaders too often promptly say “no” to paying money for:-
 insights to reveal the true health of the business,
 understanding the performance upside,
 accessing and delivering improvement options.
Broad statements such as “we don’t use consultants” or “we have no budget coverage”
are usually a clear indicator that the business does not know how to best manage the
use of external input.
Done well, external input can provide:
 independent insights,
 appropriate methodologies,
 specific toolkits,
 deeper focus on specific issues,
 fresh thinking,
 objective challenging and
 accelerated access to improved results.
Done poorly, it is easy to pay too much for sub optimal outcomes.
Unless you have alternative options to saying “no”, saying “no” has a “sting” in the tail.
You risk losing competitive position by effectively taking a “short term” decision for the
business on behalf of the shareholders. Not having a plan “B” usually results in
casualties one way or the other.
The rate of technology change continues to accelerate. If you are not keeping abreast
of the technology changes and the opportunities that these changes “enable” then your
business can readily fall off the pace. This then impacts profitability and cash flow and
erodes the ability of the business to achieve optimum performance.
Challenges in the form of trading conditions, declines in consumer & business
confidence, wild fluctuations in global financial markets, big movements in the Aussie
Dollar, uncertainty in export markets and changing interest rates sit alongside the
technological changes making it a relative “minefield” to navigate without accessing the
insights mentioned above.

2. The decision to not seek the right advice and insight when it is most pertinent now
starts to look ordinary if the leader had no effective alternative for achieving such advice
and insights.
Why do anything different?
Put simply, if the return on investment over the cost of accessing the real facts is
significant, then any decision against gaining these critical inputs on a timely basis will
effectively short term both the business and its longer term strategy.
Often leaders will try to use in-house resources to access and manage these inputs.
Unfortunately, these can be the same in-house resources that have led to the current
performance gaps. Controlled testing to the market with “fresh eyes” can provide rapid
insights without the dismissive in-house attitudes that are more concerned with
protecting the “status quo” rather than understanding that a real gap has opened up on
their watch and how it is best addressed.
From a change management point of view, it is always easier to build business buy-in
to required changes when there are compelling facts to support why change is required.
Staff can understand the facts, understand their role in the required changes and
engage more effectively and harmoniously. This reduces the time line to access the
benefits of controlled business change and maximizes the sustainability of the changes
being implemented.
Too many leaders wait too long before they fully understand their business position and
by then the options available have usually substantially reduced and the urgency for
action has dramatically escalated. This often results in leaders grasping for an elusive
“silver bullet” to address their business issues or resorting to using a “blunt instrument”
to drive urgent change. Unfortunately, options considered too late in the process, rarely
work and do drive casualties.
The forward thinking manager typically avoids these pitfalls, by pursuing market
leadership and leaves these pitfalls to their underprepared competitors who are left to
ask “what happened” rather than how do I make it happen.
If you have no aspiration to be a forward thinking manager, you can quit reading at this
point and get back to whatever you prefer doing.
Accessing pertinent inputs
Congratulations on your decision to read on. Now let’s get serious about taking your
business forward. Even if your business is performing strongly to date, growth and
success usually mask issues that are only exposed when the business comes under
stress. Having a strong understanding of all the critical operational components
identifies real issues earlier and facilitates stronger business strategy outcomes.
Each business is comprised of multiple moving parts that must work harmoniously
together to deliver effective outcomes. Identifying these components and accurately
assessing their health ensures that the operational framework of the business is
understood, managed and set to deliver sustainable business results.

3. It is too easy to generalise and overlook key inputs until their breakage becomes a
direct constraint.
Periodically testing the true health of your operating framework will feed directly into
strategy, prioritisation of business improvement initiatives and maximisation of business
outcomes.
To underline the point with an example, instead of focusing only on the obvious core
systems and processes, also create visibility of the support processes that must
collectively be managed as part of a successful business. i.e. staff retention, succession
planning, continuity planning, percent of plan achieved, promotions effectiveness etc.
The result is a holistic heat-map of where business issues exist today, that staff can
identify with and engage on regarding the need for improvement.
The operational framework looks at what should be in place, plus how effective the
performance is taking account of the “technologies” being applied in leading practice
businesses. This typically calls for independent input alongside your team to maximize
the accuracy of the operational framework assessment.
Some businesses do an excellent job of recognising the need for external input, but
then allow themselves to be drawn to a “brand” that loads them up with “kids in suits”.
When this occurs, the outcomes are typically not sustainable and resentment develops
within the business, compromising ongoing change management efforts.
It is not the “brand” that is important in accessing external input….it is the quality of the
external expertise actually engaged, and how it is applied within the business.
Success criteria in matching expertise to internal requirements include ensuring the
external expertise being applied has:
 the relevant skills, experience and toolkits
 a methodology that is embraced by the business (not a one size fits all model)
 a breadth of assessment and recommendation experience across businesses
 a proven understanding of how to convert ideas to sustainable outcomes
 strong stakeholder and business engagement credentials
 an up to date perspective of what is possible
Pertinent options to access external input to accelerate business outcomes include:-
1. Accessing proven skills via specialist consulting businesses that have the
expertise, breath of view and understanding of current leading practices
2. Application of specific external skills that have previously delivered the required
improvements to supplement internal resources and avoid undertaking trial and
error improvement
3. Introduction of proven specialist interim executive expertise to apply a deep set
of skills to issues that the business must crash through
4. Embedding expertise to work with the business to understand the issues and to
drive sustainable improvement solutions with business staff

4. 5. Applying stronger decision making and project execution skills to strengthen
delivery of targeted actions
The best fit of external resources to your business requirements will vary by business,
its vision, operational maturity and the specific improvement actions required.
To assist consideration of the best external options to accelerate delivery for your
business requirements, table 1 below compares the advantages and disadvantages of
each acceleration option.
Table 1
Acceleration Option Advantages Disadvantages
Consultancy
expertise
 Experienced expertise
application
 Accelerated timeline to deliver
targeted outcomes
 Execution skills, templates and
delivery capabilities
 Breadth of resources available
 Geographic coverage
 Quality often rests with the
senior staff supported by less
experienced junior staff
 Higher cost access of expertise
(including consultancy margin)
vs. benefits targeted
 Lower knowledge transfer to
your business
 Increased risk of consulting
recommendations being cherry
picked and diluted outcomes
and hence sub optimal results
 Ownership of “imposed” solution
implementation
 Consultancy firm constantly
looking to expand services
provided
Interim resources  High quality expertise applied
 Increased knowledge transfer
 Accelerated timeline to deliver
targeted outcomes
 Increased business ownership
of solution
 Engagement timeline and costs
more defined
 Higher cost of expertise vs.
benefits targeted i.e. Plus
interim margin
 Resistance to external advice
versus business paradigms
 Must be satisfied up front that
the interim resource can deliver
for your business
 Can be a black box if poorly
integrated into the business
 Timeframe to assess what is
known and not known within the
business
Embedded
expertise
 High quality expertise applied to
develop sustainable solutions
 Follow through from issue to
implemented solution
 Stronger access to facts to
ensure optimal outcomes are
pursued and change
implications managed
 Full knowledge transfer
 Accelerated outcomes all the
way through to benefits
realization
 Business ownership of
implemented solution
 Orderly handover to business
once objectives met
 Cost of embedded expertise vs.
benefits targeted
 More difficult to identify /
network to proven resources to
work on embedded basis
 Availability of strong embedded
resources more limited i.e. they
need to be available when you
need them
 Timeframe to assess what is
known and not known within the
business

5. Injection of stronger
decision making
and project
execution
capabilities
 Business develops stronger
breadth of decision making and
execution capabilities, reducing
dependency on a few key
project management resources
 Business avoids assigning effort
to poorly considered options
 Delivery of business
improvement projects
strengthened
 Overcomes the one size fits all
approach that often occurs,
stifling less complex business
projects
 Knowledge transfer
 Increased delivery options
available through the life of
delivery projects than poorly
defined projects
 Cost of accessing practical
decision making and project
management training
 Management need to commit to
project delivery principles on an
ongoing basis to get best from
having these skills in place
Each of these acceleration options can be very effective and should be considered on a
case-by-case basis for your business circumstances. They can also be considered in
combination if circumstances call for a more rounded set of options and the return on
investment remains compelling.
Looking beyond the engagement of external expertise, the sponsorship, management
and accountability for stated deliverables is a critical consideration and directly impacts
the return on investment. Lax sponsorship, cherry picking components of solutions,
unclear deliverables, poor change management and poor execution can readily
compromise the achievement of targeted outcomes in any business.
When should external expertise be accessed?
All too often, significant business issues are allowed to linger, being widely accepted as
problematic, but not assigned the necessary attention to fully address the problem. It is
only when underlying issue cuts across business performance or impact strategic
direction that the necessary urgency develops.
Having taken too long to move on the issue at hand, not finding the most effective
solution then risks compounding the problem.
In less refined businesses, too much focus is applied to the cost of finding a solution
without considering the value of addressing the problem on an ongoing basis. When the
value of addressing the problem is appropriately considered, moving on specific issues
sooner rather than later creates value, plus in some cases, new unforeseen
opportunities.
For example without engaging appropriate embedded and interim resources in 2007 to
urgently address it’s severely constrained bandwidth supply, Hamilton Island
Enterprises could not have hosted the best job in the world media event in May 2009.
Rapidly enabling the business strategy addressed strategic issues and opened up
opportunities that then allowed this business to outperform its competitors.
Do not let your issues accumulate to undermine your longer term business outcomes.

6. Which approach to accessing external input is best?
The best approach to rapidly resolving business issues will depend upon the urgency
for resolution, the solution clarity, implementation complexity, change management
implications and the associated business payback of addressing the issue at hand.
The more opaque the solution, the greater value can be gained through the application
of specialist expertise either in an embedded or via an interim role. When requirements
are more straightforward, it becomes easier to apply consulting input, targeting specific
objectives with lower risk of cost and timeline blowouts.
From a management perspective, the sooner you are dealing with facts, the better the
decisions become. Having an appropriate initial assessment of the issues and options
can greatly assist identifying the best way forward and acts as a significant input to
addressing the change management implications.
Dealing with resistance?
In selecting any approach to address business issues that have previously been
neglected there will be resistance.
The primary resistance usually stems from a poor understanding of issues, options and
actions required at an appropriate time. Day to day issues are all too often accepted as
being more important, when in actual fact, the bigger strategic issue is the constraint
that has not been recognised and assessed.
Operationally there is often internal resistance in the form of “why do we need to apply
external input to address an internal problem”. This resistance is from the people who
have been holding back or unable to address the issue to date. It is effectively an
outpouring of frustration rather than a valid criticism of the actions now required to
deliver optimal outcomes.
Surprisingly, the most damaging form of resistance is passive by nature, but typically
the “showstopper”. It is the internal execution environment created by management in
which to implement the targeted solution. No matter how good the solution is, it will not
survive poor execution, or poor change leadership.
Strong project management to deliver business improvement initiatives is not just about
having strong, experienced project leaders. It is about effective governance and a
defined set of disciplines applied across all critical business initiatives within the project
execution environment.
Generalising, there are three typical execution environments:-
1. the low execution capability,
2. the flawed execution capability and
3. the high execution capability.
Low and flawed execution capabilities will serve up resistance and dilute the access to
successfully implemented solutions and targeted benefits. Table 2 below summarises
the typical outcomes across these three execution environments.

7. Table 2
Low execution
capacity
Flawed execution
capacity
High execution
capacity
Focus  Internal focus fails to
understand importance
of urgent delivery
 Lack of focus on what is
important to successful
delivery
 Lack of urgency
 Lack of focus on all
aspects critical to
successful
implementation
 External focus
underlines importance
of delivery
 Ensures full focus on
what is critical to
successful
implementation
Prioritisation  Lack of structured
prioritization
 Prioritisation is talked
not backed up with the
walk
 Strong prioritization
applied
Timeline  Aspirational timelines  Timelines assume
everything goes right
 Focus on benefits
release timeline
 Realistic management
to targeted timeline
Resourcing  Heavy reliance on
internal resources
 Focus on cost of input
 Balance of expertise
and skills applied but
is not always cohesive
 Appropriate expertise
and skills applied
 Resourcing focus on
the targeted benefits
release quantum
 Application of skills
that have done it
before
Inputs  Untested management
perceptions
 Poorly sampled data
used to understand
issues
 Robust data used to
baseline and to ensure
current issues are
understood
Methodology  No structured project
management
methodology applied
 Quick to start project
that fail to define
explicitly what will be
delivered and how up
front
 Poor consideration of
available
implementation
solutions
 One size fits all
approach frustrates
business outcomes
 Clear objectives
stating what will be in
place at the end of the
project
 Robust project
management
methodology drives
targeted outcomes
 Best option identified
through structured
assessment
 Appropriate
accommodation of
differing project size
and complexity
Change
management
 Little or no change
management
 Loose change
management applied
 Robust change
management
throughout the life of
the project
Outcomes  Low quantification of
targeted benefits
 Lack of measurement
 No accurate baseline
 Targeted benefits are
defined but not
measured
 Loose baseline if at all
 Accurate baseline
established
 Targeted benefits
release tracked
The better the project execution environment, the more manageable the organisational
resistance becomes.

8. If you as a leader are not prepared to take the steps to ensure successful
implementation of what you set out to deliver, don’t start.
All too often, you see leaders race to start actions on a critical project without early
understanding or validating the best option and the likelihood of success. Scarce
resources are sent on a mission that they are unlikely to be able to deliver on.
If you knew up front that your project would not succeed or significantly under-run its
benefits, overrun its costs or timeline, would you give it the go ahead? The simple act of
predicting the likelihood of project success can conserve scarce resources and ensure
projects undertaken are more successful. Tools such as Boston Consulting Group’s
DICE readily support such project predictions. (Harvard Business Review – The hard
side of change management – 26.04.2006) https://hbr.org/2005/10/the-hard-side-of-
change-management
As a manager, you cannot remove the market uncertainty, but you can address issues
at the right time, the right way and with competent execution.
Delivering change
Accelerated results don’t just happen. They are planned, based on facts, appropriately
resourced, prioritised and managed all the way through to benefits delivery.
Imagine a situation where you have collected comprehensive business improvement
input from your employees, assessed the input, identified the improvement
opportunities and then cannot effectively prioritise the actions. Your employees lose
confidence, feel that the only way to get improvement is to move on beyond the
business, and the business drifts further backwards. Unfortunately this happens.
Along similar lines, projects that only partially address issues and have them “spring up”
again, frustrate operations and consume additional resources over longer time frames.
A sound solution to complex business issues can be brought completely undone
through poor change management.
The staff in a business can be your greatest asset if effectively engaged and working in
concert with the business strategy. This includes appropriate stakeholder engagement
re the change management elements i.e.
 why is this change important?
 what is my role in the change?
 what are the targeted benefits from this change?
The external input accessed to identify business issues and improvement opportunities
are also well placed to provide advice on proven effective change management
approaches for the business improvement issues being addressed.
The greater the decision making, project execution and change management skills that
are brought to bear within your business, the greater the quantum of project activity that
can be driven in conjunction with your existing personnel and the greater the return on
investment.

9. In conclusion
Rather than focusing purely upon what is perceived as important in the current
conditions, the leadership focus should be on what must be prioritised to protect the
business and take it forward.
Realising sustainable improvement outcomes:-
 starts with understanding where the business is truly performing currently and
rigorously exploring the most appropriate improvement options
 calls for alignment of efforts undertaken with the business strategy and
targeted outcomes
 requires appropriate resourcing applied to the prioritised items
 calls for application of appropriate project execution skills, change
management and governance to ensure the targeted benefits are delivered
Effective leadership can ensure that management of the short term issues does not
“short term” the “longer term”.
Copyright: Maurice Hibbert – Applied Expertise Pty Ltd January 2017
ACN 616 231 371 Telephone: 0419 540502
Applied Expertise