Freedom after the sharks

Human identity, the idea that defines each and every one of us, could be facing an unprecedented crisis.

It is a crisis that would threaten long-held notions of who we are, what we do and how we behave.

It goes right to the heart – or the head – of us all. This crisis could reshape how we interact with each other, alter what makes us happy, and change our capacity for reaching our full potential as individuals.

And it’s caused by one simple fact: the human brain, that most sensitive of organs, is under threat from the modern world.

Aphorisms usually have many origins and reincarnations, but the nature of do what you love’ confounds precise attribution. The Internet often attributes it to Confucius, locating it in a misty, orientalised past. Oprah Winfrey and other peddlers of positivity have included the notion in their repertoires for decades. Even the world of finance has gotten in on do what you love’: “If you love what you do, it’s not ‘work,’” as the co-CEO of the private equity firm Carlyle Group put it to CNBC.

The most important recent evangelist of do what you love, however, was the late Apple CEO Steve Jobs. In his graduation speech to the Stanford University Class of 2005, Jobs recounted the creation of Apple and inserted this reflection:

“You have got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do.”

In these four sentences, the words “you” and “your” appear eight times. This focus on the individual is not surprising coming from Jobs, who cultivated a very specific image of himself as a worker: inspired, casual, passionate all states agreeable with ideal romantic love.

For those forced into unlovable work, it’s a different story. Under the do what you love’ credo, labour that is done out of motives or needs other than love which is, in fact, most labour is erased. As in Jobs’ Stanford speech, unlovable but socially necessary work is banished from our consciousness.

In ignoring most work and reclassifying the rest as love, do what you love’ may be the most elegant anti-worker ideology around. Why should workers assemble and assert their class interests if there’s no such thing as work?

Already, it’s pretty clear that the screen-based, two-dimensional world that so many teenagers – and a growing number of adults – choose to inhabit is producing changes in behaviour. Our attention spans are shorter, personal communication skills are reduced and there’s a marked reduction in the ability to think abstractly.

This technological-driven generation interpret the world through screen-shaped eyes. It’s almost as if something hasn’t really happened until it’s been posted on Facebook, Bebo or YouTube.

Add that to the huge amount of personal information now stored on the internet – births, marriages, telephone numbers, credit ratings, holiday pictures – and it’s sometimes difficult to know where the boundaries of our individuality actually lie. Only one thing is certain: those boundaries are weakening.

And they could weaken further still if, and when, neurochip technology becomes more widely available. These tiny devices will take advantage of the discovery that nerve cells and silicon chips can happily co-exist, allowing an interface between the electronic world and the human body. A professor recently suggested in an article that someone could be fitted with a cochlear implant (devices that convert sound waves into electronic impulses and enable the deaf to hear) and a skull-mounted micro- chip that converts brain waves into words (a prototype is under research).

Then, if both devices were connected to a wireless network, we really would have arrived at the point which science fiction writers have got excited about for years. Mind reading!

Fascinating thoughts​, but more down to today’s technology, which is already producing a marked shift in the way we think and behave, particularly among the young, which is far from do what we love’ and more about love as we please.

What do you know about Generation Z? Born in the 1990s, they are beginning to enter the global workforce in greater numbers – and they mean business.

Gen Z arrived into an internet-ruled world, and grew up alongside the first phase of social media. While Generation Y – also known as millennials – were known for their entrepreneurialism, Gen Z are more entrepreneurial and independent than ever.

A large proportion of them want to start their own business, rather than be employees, and most are determined to turn their hobbies into full-time jobs.

In a world where everyone advertises their success on their social networks, they feel pressured to gain professional experience at a young age and they often hop between jobs.

The introduction of smartphones and tablets has made them the first digitally innate generation – and they regularly multitask across five screens. They are high in self-esteem, eager to network, and have an intense interest in new communication technologies.

The question is are you ready for generation Z leadership?

McKinsey & Company, the premier management consultancy firm in the country, were insisting that corporate success today requires a talented mindset. Just as there are naturals in sports, they maintained there are naturals in business.

As the saying goes, some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.

Now a new study claims to have proven the theory that great leaders are all born – not made.

Research by a leading military academic claims to have put the debate on whether it is nature or nurture which creates greatness to bed after finding the most effective really are a breed apart, and have brains that are wired differently to most.

The discovery could revolutionise how organisations assess and develop leaders, with brain scans being used to identify those with the ‘leadership gene’ early and train them accordingly.

It seems the most successful have more grey matter in places that control decision making and memory, giving them a vital edge when it comes to making the right call.

When Warren Bennis, interviewed great leaders, they all agreed leaders are made, not born, and made more by themselves than by any external means. Bennis concurred: ‘I believe that everyone, of whatever age and circumstance, is capable of self-transformation.’ Not that everyone will become a leader.

In the world we operate within globally we see managers and even CEO’s become bosses, not leaders. They wield power instead of transforming themselves, their workers, and their organisations.​

Management expert Professor Sean Hannah, of Wake Forest University in the United States, said: ‘Once we have confirmed how the brain works in these leaders, we can create an ‘expert’ profile. This profile can help us develop brain training methods to enhance brain functioning in leaders, such as the neurofeedback techniques that have been successfully used with elite athletes, concert musicians, and financial traders. The discovery could revolutionise how organisations assess and develop leaders, with brain scans being used to identify those with the ‘leadership gene.’ The study was published in the American Psychological Association’s Journal of Applied Psychology.

Leaders who had a more complex sense of their leadership skills and greater neurological complexity were found to be more adaptive and effective leaders in these scenarios.

Prof Hannah, a retired Colonel with 26 years of experience in the U.S. Army, said the results are a step toward finding out how effective and adaptable leaders not only think and act, but how their brains are wired to lead.

So are we ready for the new generation Z to breed their new profound strategy’s of how to manage billion dollar corporations from 5 screens or will leaders continue to be born or made?

Last week I wrote a blog around brand differentiation which lead me on to this week’s blog around the world’s most powerful brands.

Coca Cola, the world’s most famous FMCG giant, was finally dethroned from its stronghold as Interbrand’s most valuable brand – a position it has held since the Interbrand ranking began 14 years ago.

At the top position in the Best Global Brands ranking of the most valuable brands in the world ranking since 2000, Coca-Cola handed over its position as the world leader in the report this year.

Interesting enough replacing Coca Cola are Apple and Google – two brand names that have come to define popular culture and the sign of the times for many global tech users.

The breathtaking rise of these two technological innovators signals a shift in global values, from traditionally “consumable” products to technological enablement.

More than that, though, it provides a valuable lesson for brands and branding experts in how to create a worldbrand that appeals in today’s market.

Google and Apple’s expertise in innovation and new product development (NPD) is a given – valued at $93,291m (£58.5m) and $98,316m (£61.6) respectively, their stronghold in the field is indisputable.

As a result, Coca-Cola took third place with a brand value almost stable (+2%) at $79.21 billion.

Is this just the start of the rise of tech brands to the global market?

In the Top 10, in addition to Apple and Google, the tech companies are well represented with IBM, Microsoft, Intel and Samsung, i.e. 60% of the 10 most valuable brands in the world.

HP (14th), Oracle (18th), Amazon (19th) or Ebay (28th) are not very far. And Facebook, which despite its “merely” 52nd place, has the strongest increase in the report this year with a 43% increase of its brand value.

The presence and growth of digital and tech companies in the ranking of the most valuable brands in the world is not new. But today, it marks a turning point. Symbolized by the “fall” of Coca-Cola – historical and undisputed leader up to now – from the number 1 position of the most valuable brand in the world. The beverage brand is now on third position behind Apple and Google.

Coca-Cola spent 14 years in a row at the number 1 position of the most powerful brands in the world… before being overtaken by Apple and Google.

However, more than a real decline of the Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) brands, we are rather experiencing a stagnation of their brand value (+2% for Coca-Cola, +5% McDonald’s, +1% for Gillette, +8% for Pepsi and Kellogg’s or -4% for Nescafé). Which is, combined with the high increase of tech brands, the reasons that lead to these evolutions in the 2013 Best Global Brands.

If the Interbrand’s ranking includes some results that may surprise (IBM is at the 4th place, Colgate is 50th, etc.), it remains the objective witness of a real change in the consumption patterns among consumers. The new technologies took a major role in the lives of consumers. Tablets and smartphones are selling by tens of millions of units worldwide. More than a billion and a half persons are connected to Facebook. And the transition of a part of our economy towards the information technology industry is now a reality.

Digital and tech brands have completely changed consumption patterns, therefore, the brands “that count”, those which relate to consumers and accompany them in daily life have changed. The companies in the digital and information technology sector are now installed in the front seat of the most valuable and powerful brands in the world. And it’s should stay this way for a moment.

Samsung, which is still seen today as a challenger to Apple, could pull out of the game in the years to come. And as technology continues to evolve, new usage and products should continue to play an increasingly important role in consumers’ lives.

As Interbrand writes in its report: “Every so often, a company changes our lives, not just with its products, but also with its ethos.” This ethos, famously pioneered by celebrated visionary Steve Jobs and summed up in the “Think different” motto, is valuable to us as consumers because it also alters how we are perceived socially, by association.

They have made themselves indispensable, creating a genuine consumer “need” for their products across many levels – emotional, psychological and social.

They have bridged the gap between technology and the consumer, pioneering a new sense of intimacy within the sector. And this they have achieved by starting from the beginning, rigorously building their brands before applying the same rigour to their products.

From this starting point, both have appropriated that recognisable “worldbrand” cycle, with brand attracting not just consumers and sales but also talent; with talent and research fuelling new growth and with that growth leading to an increased capacity for innovation, customer insight and “getting it right”.

Within the tech sector, Google and Apple aren’t just at the forefront of this movement – arguably, they have pioneered it.

But the Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) brands may not have said their last word. They have still thousands of ways to innovate and enhance the customer experience and their relationship with their audience.

The Internet and social media offer them now a new field of possibilities to engage and reach their consumers in a different way, we will have to wait and see.

Recently I have been engaged with many discussions about company brands, and the questions that have been asked are “brands back in crisis… again?” Not because of the difficulty in competing for the consumer’s attention among the 3,000 new brands launched each year, without counting the Internet, nor because of the repercussion on the brand’s image of the unethical business practices of certain multinationals, but because of a problem that may undermine the foundations, the fundamental principles and the origin of the concept: Brand indifferentiation.

A recent study by consultancy firm Copernicus published and entitled The commoditisation of Brands which reached the conclusion that it was increasingly difficult for the consumer to perceive the differences between a certain brand and that of the competition. The study claimed that 86% of brands in multiple categories tended to have the same key attributes.

This distinction is now outdated and fairly inaccurate, because we all know the enormous success of some of these brands. Wal-Mart, in the United States, Sainsbury in England and Caprabo in Spain manage a portfolio of brands with a power of attraction and levels of quality that many manufacturers would like to have.

The problem is so important that even the branding gurus are beginning to use the term superbrand or powerbrand to designate the strongest or those with a greater power of attraction than others.

This is the living proof and acceptance that there is a hierarchy within brands, what we could call a level of branding, that is to say brands within brands.

As is well known, brands were created to be able to differentiate what we offer from what the competition offers. We “branded” it to avoid confusion and help people to remember, identify the manufacturer and aid the choice of purchase.

A strong brand should fulfil three basic goals: information, differentiation and seduction:

Information because it should tell us something about the product offered that is intelligible and decipherable: I have to understand the proposal of basic value or what the product offered consists of.

Differentiation because what it tells us should be perceived as different by the purchaser or, in other words: I understand what you are telling me and I think that it is something that the others haven’t told me.

Seduction because this is the raison d’être of any brand. The first two are in the service of the third: in the end a brand has to tell us something that we consider to be interesting and that ends up seducing us. And seduction is something very subtle.

There are many brands that have reached the first stage. They have succeeded in getting us to recognise their logos and we see their advertisements.

We should not confuse Communication with brand creation or management. The objective of Communication may be to achieve renown for what we offer, but we have to define the brand, to know what to communicate, what to say in our communication plan. In short, what meanings, values and personalities are important and distinguishing. The objective of Brand Management is to maintain the consistency and strength of the brand so that it can be adequately exploited. This should be the work of a good brand manager.

Following a brand’s Vision, Mission and Values, it is important that a brand is:

1. Emotional as well as a real offer

2. A feeling of community

3. The values within the consumer

4. A communication goes further

5. An obsession with small details

Before communicating and transmitting, however, you need to define. Three very important elements make up the product we offer: what it is, what it does and what it means. If we cannot complete and define each of these dimensions we do not have a strong brand. All products talk about what they are, and today we are rarely differentiated by what we do. To think about brand management is to consider the creation of meanings.

Therefore Actimel does not sell fermented milk but the ability to strengthen your defences against external aggressions, a VW Beetle is much more than a compact car, a Palm is almost like a Game Boy for adults, a Hallmark card is the possibility to communicate a feeling, Evian is the purest, most crystal-clear water in the world, Disney sells you eternal youth, and a BMW is for those who know how to appreciate the subtle difference between driving and ‘driving’.

Fortunes have been made by those who found opportunities in the face of adversity. And many of those have been CEOs who generated reputations for bringing value to stakeholders in the most difficult circumstances.

The current economic environment may well be setting the stage for a new round of stand-out CEOs.

Speculation about a further recession dominates the business press these days not to mention geo-political issues, sanctions and even elections in 2015. Turmoil in the capital markets, concern over consumer spending and layoffs fill the headlines. Wall Street Journal economists, Goldman Sachs and the Tatum Survey of Business Conditions are all predicting recession.

Even optimists have noted that continuing talk of recession can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In the current environment the daily pressures of managing are exacerbated by the uncertainties evidenced daily on the national news. Companies that were in marginal condition a year ago may benefit from some degree of restructuring this year as a course-correction driven by the economy.

Many in the C-suite think the approach of a turnaround situation is obvious. For example, if a company is experiencing successive quarters of losses and is having difficulty paying its vendors on time, there is clearly need for assistance. But it is important to understand that rarely does a company’s financial health deteriorate to that extent overnight.

Many businesses in the early stages of potential difficulty may not be showing the outward earnings or cash flow signs of distress. There are almost always more subtle indicators which, either singly or together, can give management a “heads-up” that there may be some rough waters ahead. These leading indicators may vary in importance across various industries, but they generally are the same few.

Now is the time to consider the early indicators, because erosion of financial performance is like an illness – by the time the signs are obvious the disease has become harder to remedy. Performing a financial diagnostic during a volatile economic climate is a sensible preventative measure not unlike a basic health screening that enables you to take action before a situation becomes dire.

So how can the C-Suite tell if a changed approach is warranted?

Many of today’s finance executives have come of age during a strong economic period and may never have experienced recession while in a leadership role. Happily, there are lessons that any business leader can learn from the world of Turnaround Management. Executives who specialise in turnarounds see again and again situations that could have been more positive if the management team had recognized issues at an earlier stage.

Below I have detailed some leading key warning indicators:

• Declining Gross Margin and/or Operating Margins. Is there sufficient cash to sustain the company? This includes cash on hand, cash to be collected, or cash from a DIP (debtor in possession) loan.

• Inability to Meet Forecasts. It is not unusual that actual financial and operating results for a given month or quarter might vary from the original annual budget.

• Increasing Debt. Cash, whether on hand or as the result of borrowing, is most always an indicator of the health of a company. Lack of available cash coupled with the need to incur debt for capital expenditures or for an acquisition can be positive reasons to incur debt.

• High Turnover among Employees and/or Management. Even in today’s highly automated world, corporate results are still the product of the efforts of management and employees. When there is corporate health there tends to be stability in the workforce.

• Declining Market Share.Market share can be the most difficult and contested business metric that exists, especially if your industry has a substantial number of closely held private companies.

Early corrective action denotes strong leadership. Taking early action when warning signs first appear is where reputations can be built. All companies face some difficult issues during their life cycle, and CEOs and CFOs who take decisive action are recognised for their keen awareness of their business metrics and the resulting steadiness during business cycles.

An experienced outsider can help assess issues and recommend actions to make a course-correction to a more profitable future. This objective perspective will vastly enhance the speed of insight, given the officers are typically already stretched thin. Remember, when the economy changes drastically the techniques that have worked before may not be effective.

There is always a certain loneliness at the top, but this generation’s stand-out CEOs would do well to consider how the techniques of Turnaround Management could bolster results. Many pitfalls can be avoided with wise counsel, protecting or even building the reputations of the leadership team who stays ahead of the curve.

Social media sites already offer free advertising in the form of tweets and Facebook posts, but these tools can only take your brand so far. The next step involves paying for social media ads, and if you’re considering this option, you’re probably most concerned with one big question: What will my return actually be? Will spending money on an ad on Twitter or Facebook bring more customers to my business than the same amount spent on Google AdWords?

Social media have become an accepted part of a company’s marketing efforts. Around 70 per cent of Fortune 500 companies have a Facebook page and 77 per cent have a Twitter account, according to a study by the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Center for Marketing Research. The average company spends around $19m on social media a year, according to research group TCS.

But at the same time there is a creeping feeling of dissatisfaction – are those social media campaigns producing results? Nate Elliot, analyst at Forrester Research, sounded the alarm on social media advertising last autumn, saying that marketers were less satisfied with Facebook and Twitter advertising than many older forms of digital advertising, including email marketing.

Snapchat recently started to include advertisements in its popular ephemeral messaging app, but its advertising strategy is notably different from its competitors’ strategies. Snapchat says it has no interest in tricking its users into clicking ads by blurring the line between advertising and organic content created by actual users.

The majority of social media platforms purposefully gather as much user data as possible to help brands place relevant and targeted ads. Snapchat calls that strategy “interesting,” but the reality is that it can it deliver targeted ads?

The question is though, would they been better spending a couple of thousand pounds on LinkedIn advertising?.

Do high-value customers respond to ads?  Even highly targeted ads pushed to them by popular sites like LinkedIn or Viadeo?

The facts are, if you are going to advertise you need to consider the short-term and long-term view, tactical and strategic, to build the brand and convert the advertising spend into ROI, social media advertising needs to be integrated into your social media marketing:

·        Understand your targeted social media channel

·        Target the correct users with your message

·        Ensure the advertisements are supplementing the present content on the social site

·        Have a social networking presence

This covers the two obvious targeting issues: get the right network and target the right users; and then tackle the issue of integration: connect your adverts to your social media presence and engage with the people visiting/connecting with you. I have heard of social media consultants running Facebook ads that, instead of linking to their landing page, links directly to a Facebook Page (or Group). This resonates with the last two points above and makes a tremendous amount of sense – the ad-clicker is already signed into Facebook so they can take action simply by clicking that they “Like” the page. No landing page could get that result in fewer clicks.

Nielsen and Facebook recently teamed up to create an “independent” report which highlighted the value of combining “social” with advertising. Unsurprisingly, people responded better to adverts that told them which of their connections “Liked” the company whose advert they were viewing.

In summary, social media performs two important functions. The first — and most obvious one — is that it enables participants to communicate among themselves. With the possible exception of LinkedIn, that’s the less important role for experts, consultants, advisors and thought-leaders.

The more important role when it comes to marketing is how social media functions as a search engine. People still go to Google to search, but increasingly, when clients are seeking answers to their most vexing problems, they turn to social media.  After Google, the second most powerful search engine is YouTube, (which is owned by Google).

When clients are trying to discover who the true thought-leaders are in a particular field, they turn to Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn as the tool for finding who’s at the forefront. If you are not visible, you will not make it on the short list of those who are viewed as experts.

The good news is that most experts, consultants and advisors still think of social media as a place to primarily interact with others. They have not grasped the huge potential social media offers to break out of the pack and become highly visible. For those who are aggressive now, there is a huge opportunity to capitalise on this huge benefit of social media, before others jump and cease new opportunities. I think this window will only stay open another 12-18 months, which by then it will be common knowledge.​

 

Although it may seem ideal to tackle all data issues at once, it’s far more effective to target specific assets to start. Implementing data governance in a targeted way sets a firm foundation for taking it across the enterprise.

For starters, it helps to avoid one of the biggest historical problems with data governance: lack of follow-through. By targeting an area of the organization, such as marketing, one can work with the underlying organisational structure to take action and ensure accountability. Information goals are clearly aligned with business strategy. The information architecture is clarified by taking inventory of the data assets – how they are managed and used as well as how they support the existing application architecture – and by evaluating and removing obstacles. Diverse stakeholders reach consensus and coordinate with one another. They find key data entities and critical data elements and develop information policies. This is far easier to do when targeting specific areas.

Consider, for example, the possibilities for data governance in customer relationship management (CRM) initiatives. It can greatly improve call center effectiveness and cut frustration due to lost or duplicate information, multiple mailings, or delivery to wrong addresses. In sales and marketing, data governance can improve sales by solving issues with multiple, inconsistent product catalogs and inaccurate customer demographics. In risk management, it can improve auditing and reporting, solve privacy concerns, and prevent fraud. In finance and accounting, it can ensure accurate, consistent billing and provide a consistent credit picture. These are just a few examples where success in one area will lead to success in others, and the organisation can reap immediate measurable benefits.

The first step is to objectively assess where business improvement can bring the most benefit to the organisation immediately, and establish a beachhead there. It’s critical that this assessment is objective, using an outside point of view. Work with an organization that has helped others successfully implement data governance. One that looks across the organisational silos, has a methodology for assessing data governance across the enterprise, and knows the key questions to ask to assess where to begin a data governance initiative. It should also understand the best data governance models, data governance and data quality processes, and ongoing organisational processes.

The demand to improve your business continues to increase as expectations change, new technologies emerge and competition grows. An effective way to establish continual improvement within your organisation is to conduct regular business process improvements (BPI).

Business processes can be informal or formal and touch a variety of company functions: information technology, employee development and training, customer service satisfaction, etc. Regardless of the process you are trying to enhance, the improvement procedure follows a similar path.

Analyse Current Process: Once you have decided which process you are going to improve you need analyze the current procedure. This way you can fully understand the process from A-Z and set realistic improvement objectives. Regardless of the tool you choose for analysis (process mapping, operational surveys, cause/effect analysis, etc.)  you should consider the following questions:

• What in the process is broken?
• Which steps in the process create roadblocks?
• Which step requires the most time to complete?
• Which step causes the most delays?
• Are there any steps that cause costs/resources to go up?
• Are there any steps that cause quality to go down?

Create Improvement Strategy: With the process analysis phase completed you need to develop your strategy. It is recommended that you include what steps in the process are broken, why and how they should be improved and any financial and resource implications.

Answering how the process can be improved is a springboard to create your improvement objectives. It is recommended that you set realistic and measurable objectives that align with your overall strategic goals.​

 

December is always a calendar month for reflection across how well we did or did not do in the previous year and for most people, particularly in start-up or pre-revenue businesses, December is actually too late.

The importance of strategy and planning in a business should be a living a breathing document between the directors and employees daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly.

Why?

Without strategic planning, objective setting with goals and proper financial planning and business care rarely manage and develop and grow.

We are also experiencing a new level of uncertainty in our current world about geo-political events and sanctions, that can also disrupt a company on an existing coarse or plan of growth, learnings, among other things, that we need to expect the unexpected, you should be prepared for disruptions to the business on all fronts and all levels of severity.

Planning is one of the most important but poorly utilised management tools of businesses. This is true whether the focus is on planning a start-up business, operations planning, expansion planning, strategic planning or other planning.

Before you being the planning process you need to create the proper environment within the business. This will increase your chances of having a productive planning effort.

1. Create a culture within the organisation that is open to planning. It is easy for management to focus all of their attention on day-to-day management and forget about the long-term direction of the business.

2. Involve all management personnel. It is often believed that planning is a business function separate from management. However, to be successful, all management personnel need to be involved in planning. Involving management personnel is the way to create “ownership” and “commitment” to the plan and its implementation.

3. Remember customer needs. During the planning process it is easy to focus on matters internal to the organisation and forget the customer. Remember, satisfying customer wants and needs is the reason the business exists.

4. Focus the plan on goals. The purpose of the plan is to achieve the goals of the business and help reach its vision and mission. So, the first step is to re-examine the business mission statement and  the goals associated with it. Without goals, planning is meaningless.

5. Set realistic deadlines. Setting a time deadline for the first draft of the plan is important. It forces management to move forward on the planning process. However, expecting too much to be done in too short of a time period usually leads to a poorly drafted plan.​

6. Provide enough time and money for the planning process. Planning is often entered into half-heartedly. So, it is often under-funded with insufficient managerial time allocated to it.

7. Make good assumptions about the industry and market environment. The business will be operating in an industry and market environment. So, it is important that you thoroughly understand these environments. The assumptions you make about these environments are important for the success of the business.

8. Focus on results. To be successful, planners need to proceed through the various steps of the planning process. During every step of the process, planners need to focus on the expected results of the planning process.

Finally, the plan is a “living” document – revise it regularly as needed. Business leaders often believe that a plan cannot be changed once it has been put in place, or at least until the next planning period. Although a plan should not be changed frivolously, it needs to be modified and updated when appropriate. As a plan is being implemented, it is not uncommon to uncover deficiencies in the plan as well as changes.

Quarterly budgeting and 100-day plans with allocated responsibility and tasking can help support business planning, transformation and growth.

The office Christmas party is fraught with perils usually due to the over-consumption of alcohol. There is the danger of having had too much to drink and telling your boss that you hate them or posting inappropriate ‘selfies’ of you at the party all over social media and texting your hot colleague or partner with innuendos.

Now, a survey of more than 1000 UK workers and managers by the Institute of Leadership and Management (ILM) reveals which misdemeanours at the Christmas party cause the greatest unease when you return to the office.

So what are the consequences of the office Christmas party and what should you watch out for? The ILM survey found:

• Almost 9 out of 10 workers (87%) have seen colleagues drink too much

• 48% have gone to work with a hangover after their office party

• 28% have heard staff revealing their colleagues’ secrets

Every so often we get to partying and we end up having a couple more drinks than we planned. As adults, we get to the point where we know how to drink responsibly, but like they say, “I didn’t go looking for trouble, trouble found me.” When that trouble is in the form of an adult beverage, it can quickly lead to embarrassing moments. Whether it’s your office party, birthday, or you just got a little too far ahead of yourself before dinner, it happens. Of course, you know what happens next… you take out your phone and get to texting.

Everyone has either received them or sent them … some of them are funny and some of them are just down right annoying! So, when is enough, especially when you are dating someone?

Research has shown that age comes into play with this; if you are in your low twenties, then this will happen more often than not with apps like What’s App, Snap Chat, BBM etc. But, if you are closer to thirty or over thirty, that is when you start to scratch your head and think, “Really?”

In a recent blog ‘What is Happiness’ I mentioned that in terms of relationships and happiness at home, according to a new Brigham Young University study published by researchers Lori Schade and Jonathan Sandberg, romantic couples who text each other with confirming messages (“How are you?” “How’s it going?” “I miss you!” “I feel tingly just thinking about you!!!”) tend to experience greater relationship satisfaction. Confirming messages are best conveyed with an emotional dimension – communicating essentially: “I care about you,” and “You’re important in my life.” In fact, sending affectionate messages to one’s partner yield even greater emotional satisfaction than receiving them.

On the other hand, couples who rely on texting for conflict resolution tend to experience lower relationship satisfaction. When texting, vital verbal, non-verbal and emotional cues are invariably missed, which can severely limit a couple’s ability to reconcile.

There is a latin phrase which is often continued as, “In vino veritas, in aqua sanitas“, i.e., “In wine there is truth, in water there is health.”

But is there truth is drunkenness as a state of condition or mind?

According to Bruce Bartholow, author of Alcohol Effects on Performance Monitoring and Adjustment: Affect Modulation and Impairment of Evaluative Cognitive Control, alcohol does not make you behave badly, it just makes you care less.

For all of you trying to apologise or rectify some misspoken words, the excuse, “I was drunk, I didn’t mean it I am sorry for being stupid” does not cut it anymore.

Bartholow, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Missouri College of Arts and Science, concluded that alcohol dulls the brain’s “alarm signal” that warns you when you are making a mistake. These dulled warnings are what lead to the loss of self-control we often regret after one too many.

If you think back to that moment you were saying all those things you wish you could take back (if you can remember them, of course), wasn’t there a part of you that knew what you were saying? Only, at that moment, you didn’t care about how much it was going to hurt the other person … or you.

Is drinking all about a whirling, tumbling gamble of life? We throw away all our inhibitions and knowingly drown ourselves in a liquid that, at certain levels, is poisonous enough to kill us.

Another thing with drunk texting is that you have that alcohol courage helping you out. So not only have you sent that oh so important text message to declare your undying affection, but you have also sent a billion other text messages in a row that are pointless gibberish. And that will start to annoy anyone who is on the receiving end especially sober people. So because of all the other messages, the most important message you wanted to get across is lost on that person, because they are too busy counting how many text messages you have sent in one hour.

So the moral of the story ladies and gentleman is if you are drinking, please ask yourself over and over, if you really want to send that text message because once it is sent, you cannot take it back, possible best to switch the smart phone off and resume once in a sober state!​