Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce’s recent policy announcements have received a generally positive welcome. Tying an element of institutional funding to students’ course and qualification completion, requiring a reasonable pass rate for continued access to student loans, and rationalising the many redundant or overlapping qualifications; all seem to have gone down well. Even the usual naysayers have been muted in their response.
I find all this both gratifying and somewhat ironic. In 2001/2, the reports of the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission effectively recommended doing the same things. In July 2002, the people named to be the board of the Tertiary Education Commission (including me) reiterated their support for such initiatives. However, some were ruled out of bounds for TEC, eg. student support was deemed to a welfare issue not an education issue. Some we didn’t have the funding mechanism to implement (and for nearly 3 years we weren’t allowed to address that either, even though we rated it the number 1 problem to fix). Some the institutions weren’t ready to concede there were problems - eg. qualification rationalisation and completion rates. Some, like polytechnic governance, were, frankly, just too politically difficult for the then Labour-led government. However, we’ve been jawboning away on this stuff for all of the last decade and, like water on stone, we’ve worn down the obstacles.
Given the name of this weblog - Isambard Kingdom Brunel’s personal motto En Avant or “Get Going” - you’d be right to assume that I have been very frustrated by the time taken for all this. Smart policy development and implementation seemed often to have been trumped by the need to not upset anyone. To be fair, all the ministers I’ve dealt with have had their merits, and we’ve made increasingly faster progress. However, there’s a palpable difference when dealing with confident and capable ministers who understand the big picture and can drive through policy change, despite the naysayers inside and outside government and the bureaucracy. Governments can implement sweeping change quickly if they so chose and have the right people on the job.
There are still some big issues to address, not least being pricing - how much, how it’s presented, and who pays what to whom. Any good marketer knows the importance of price presentation. The new minister has already stated he’s interested in price as an issue, although he acknowledges this might take a little more time to work out. Given the current pace, that shouldn’t be another decade.
Declaration: I am a non-executive board member of the Tertiary Education Commission, and was recently reappointed for a third term.
Put 90 minutes aside on 24 March for breakfast with veteran US investor Bill Payne while he talks about governance in early-stage businesses.. This is an Institute of Directors event at the Wellington Club, and neatly complements the IoD’s “Fresh thinking, First boards” programme aimed at lifting the performance of small and medium businesses through smarter governance.
Here’s some background on Bill:
Bill Payne is in New Zealand as the BNZ University of Auckland Business School Entrepreneur-In-Residence. to impart some of his experience to NZ entrepreneurs, investors and universities. Bill is a prominent angel investor - so well known he is often referred to as the closest thing America has to an Entrepreneur Laureate. His angel investing history stretches back almost 30 years after selling his own engineering business to DuPont in 1982 and includes being involved in setting up four of the most prominent angel organisations in the USA.
He has written a book, The Definitive Guide to Raising Money from Angels, as well as having written or been interviewed for articles in The New York Times, USA Today, Business Week and many other investor/education articles and websites.
From 1995 he served as Entrepreneur-in-Residence at the Kauffman Foundation for twelve years. The Kauffman Foundation is a not-for-profit foundation in Kansas City often referred to as the world’s largest foundation devoted to entrepreneurship. Its vision is to “foster a society of economically independent individuals who are engaged citizens, contributing to the improvement of their communities” and it does this through education (including mentoring), entrepreneurship, advancing innovation and research.
While Bill is in New Zealand he will be working with angel investor groups, running seminars, meeting with government organisations (NZTE, FRST etc) and serving as a mentor to some ICE Accelerator companies alongside the ICE Angels. He’s also got a blog up and running on the Icehouse incubator website.
It is very rare that we get a visitor of Bill’s experience and respect in New Zealand and for such a long time. Over 50 organisations including 6 incubators, 5 universities and potentially thousands of people will be able to gain directly from Bill’s visit.
A new initiative from the Institute of Directors in NZ aims to lift governance skills in small and medium businesses. Most are owner-managed, and many suffer from the owner spending too much time working “in the business” rather than “on the business”.
Perhaps the biggest fear for owner-managers is loss of control, but a good non-executive director isn’t there to usurp the owner’s authority, instead helping shape thinking and encouraging decisive action:
They are committed only to the company, but can be objective about it.
Combine this level of commitment with skill in critical areas - say, international trade, marketing or finance - and you can tap into a powerful source to guide the company and help it to grow and develop. A well-chosen board is also one of the cheapest sources of advice available.
A good board will challenge the perspectives and attitudes of the owners and managers. If the owners, perhaps unconsciously, have been used to getting their own way, they may find this a bit of a strain…to say the least. The smarter, progressive ones will get over it and recognise the benefits of being challenged, but also properly supported, by independent-minded people.
The role of owner, owner-manager or Managing Director can be pretty lonely. A board gives them the opportunity to test their ideas and get a sense of perspective from people not involved in the day-to-day
Another common fear is expense. However, just like hiring good staff, a good director will easily help you make or save many times the cost of their fees.
If you look at successful medium or large businesses, almost all have at least one independent non-executive director. Very few of those companies would consider not having that oversight and advice. Visit firstboards.iod.org.nz for more information.
Disclosure: I’m a member of the IoD Wellington branch committee.
The global Toyota car recall has been extensively covered in the mainstream media. Product recalls are not a new phenomenon in the car industry; even the highest quality marques have them. So why has so much media commentary, particularly in the US, been full of delighted glee at Toyota’s misfortune? Simple - they’ve had 30 years of hearing and telling each other that US car makers (and by implication the US itself) are rubbish, having been resoundingly trounced by Toyota in market share, production methods, quality and general admiration. As Dave Segal wrote in the New York Times last week, “Life … is just high school writ large.” Finally the smart Japanese kid who has beaten you year after year has failed a test. Schadenfreude.
However, if past experience is anything to go by, Toyota can turn disaster into success. In the 1980s, Toyota suffered a massive and widespread quality failure in New Zealand. In a country where cars don’t rust much (for reasons I don’t fully understand), it seemed that the entire Toyota fleet was rotting away, and people referred to their most popular models - Corolla and Corona - as Toyota Corrodas. Branding hell. After a slow start, cash-rich Toyota did something very few other companies could have. It offered a free panel repair/replacement to every Toyota owner with a car less than 5 years old (and didn’t quibble if it was several years older). At the same time, Toyota developed and introduced a virtually rust-proof multi-layer galvanizing process to its body manufacturing, and announced a comprehensive long-term warranty on not just the body, but the entire vehicle. A carefully-conceived, long-term advertising campaign shifted the Toyota brand positioning away from technical promotion to emotional connection. The end-result - Toyota became more local than the locals and one of the most trusted brands in the country.
US automakers should watch out. Toyota may be a bit slow to respond at first, but it has huge resources, and when it sorts itself out, then beware. Toyota will be back, and better than ever.
Josh Forde asked a good question in his comment on “Setting the tone“. For those of you who rely on news feeds or Twitter to follow this blog, here it is, with my response:
Question for you Jim : What do you think gave you the authority to do that with other people? We all have situations of seeing behaviour that we disagree with but don’t always feel we can effectively confront it or that we carry the respect to do so. It can’t be just about being the boss, it has to resonate with something larger than that?
Good question, Josh. Actually being the boss does give you positional authority, but you use it carefully, and it only works well if it is backed up by personal authority - being assertive rather than authoritative, having confidence and conviction, and having earned respect for your past actions, knowledge and demonstrated behaviour. That’s something you build over time. Even if you don’t have it yet, it’s never too late to start. Most people recognise valid thinking when they see it, and although you may not persuade them this time, you’re building a personal ethos and reputation which will evolve into personal authority as a formal leader or as an important and respected influencer. And sometimes, all it takes is for you to speak out; you’ll be surprised at how often someone else jumps in to support you - the world is full of good people who want to do the right thing.
Some staff have an unfortunate sense of what’s appropriate. How you react will set the tone of your organisation. Your people will watch you closely to pick up that tone.
A customer mailing list file called “ratbags” (or somesuch). As soon as I saw it, I insisted the name be changed. There was some shame-faced bluster about it just being someone’s silly sense of humour, but a glowering look stopped that. The word went out - always treat customers respectfully.
Walking past some staff drinking wine at their desks in the middle of the afternoon, I came back. simply said “That’s not appropriate” and walked off. The wine was gone in a minute and the staff later apologised.
On hearing that I wanted a more effective approach to late payment for electricity supply rather than simply cutting off customers’ power, the team leader responsible for credit control and payments proclaimed that “they’re all liars, and it’s the only thing that works”. I said I doubted that, and asked him to produce an analysis of the past year’s late payers and their frequency. Out of 40,00 customers, approximately 10% had been referred for late payment - most only once, and only 200 were chronic bad payers. He acknowledged he was wrong, but didn’t change his approach. He didn’t stay long and we made credit control part of a new customer service approach under a team leader who saw her job very differently, looking for ways to help customers not fall behind.
On hearing a product manager suggest that we make unsubstantiated claims in our product specifications, I respond “We don’t lie to customers.” On hearing the justification that “everyone else does it,” I reply “I doubt that, and in any case I don’t care. We don’t lie to customers.” That product manager didn’t last long either.
A product development team, given the challenge of designing a new antenna product platform at half the cost of the existing platform, started calling itself the CNA team which, on hearing for the first time, I learnt stood for “Cheap and Nasty Antenna”. My instant reaction: “You will drop that name immediately. I never want to hear it again. From now on, you are the EYE team - Elegant Yet Economic”. It not only set a different expectation for the new product platform; that name became a badge of honour and they still called themselves the EYE team years after that particular project had successfully finished.
You don’t always have to be quick on your feet; sometimes, a measured reaction is appropriate. Sometimes you’ll want to take a more consultative approach; asking people to think about the matter and decide what’s appropriate. But an instant reaction sends a very powerful message, as does a direct order, especially if you don’t usually act that way. Importantly, be consistent. And always remember, who you hire or fire, who you give an important project, who gets promoted, rewarded or praised - these all send important and closely-watched signals. What you do sets the tone.
Fletcher Building, one of New Zealand’s most prominent companies, marked its 100th anniversary this year. As part of the coverage, Hugh Fletcher, grandson of the founder and a prominent businessman in his own right, was interviewed by Radio New Zealand on Saturday morning. It’s become fashionable to disparage Hugh Fletcher in recent years, but he points out that, in his 20 years as deputy CEO or CEO, shareholders achieved an average 16% annual return; that beats most investments anywhere in the world. However, he freely admits he was “tired” at the end of his tenure. I’m not commenting on Fletcher’s career, but I will pick up an interesting distinction he made between mistakes and bad outcomes. A decision, a strategy may be the right one, but sometimes the outcome is bad. Maybe it was bad execution, maybe bad timing, maybe just bad luck. That doesn’t make the original decision a mistake. You might argue that this is equivocation, but Fletcher makes a valid point. Do you become risk averse and do nothing to avoid the possibility of mistakes? Clearly not. All business involves some degree of risk, and good businesses like Fletchers tend to boldness. However, in an era where many media commentators and shareholders are eager to demonstrate their superior 20/20 hindsight (from positions of much lower personal risk), I doubt many will take it on board.
Know anyone who wants to play a big role in a new web business in Wellington, NZ? Get them to look at this. Some people I know are planning to build an international business-to-business on-line marketplace for clients and providers of a specialist business service. I’ve had a look at what they’re planning and it’s very promising; probably the best web business idea I’ve seen recently (locally). The market is truly international in scale and scope. However, while these guys really know their services market, they freely admit they know little about building and operating an on-line marketplace. They’re looking for 3 key people to join them in the start-up team:
The CEO: someone who knows how to build a web business, build and lead the team and operational processes, drive the strategy and international marketing push. Excellent English language written and spoken communication skills. Proficiency in another major European or Asian language would be useful, but not essential.
Head of development: Leadership experience in Agile web-business application development. Knowledge of on-line payments, cloud-based infrastructure, etc.. Good understanding of customer-centred product management and design.
The business could also use the occasional services of someone who understands (at a business level) cross-border payments; maybe consult, maybe part-time, maybe advisory board.
So if you, or someone you know, want to put yourself on the line with all the challenges and potential rewards of a start-up business, please email me with a short pitch on what you have to offer. Those wanting a big salary, fancy offices, hordes of staff, regular hours and business class travel should not apply!
PS: Thanks in advance for any links from bloggers and twitterers.
17 years after the release of the Cadbury Report, the accepted wisdom in most English-speaking countries is that, except in unusual circumstances, the same person should not hold the roles of CEO and chairman* of the board at the same time. European countries have increasingly adopted the same practice. The USA stands notably apart, having a very high prevalence of combined CEO/chairman appointments. However, do the results justify the change? 5 years ago, professors from the Wharton Business School said that, as shown by analysis of the financial performance of US corporations, there was no evidence to support separation. Now Harvard professor Bob Pozen reports similar findings from British and European studies. Given this lack of evidence, Pozen comes out against any mandatory requirement for a separation of duties in publicly listed companies.
However, Pozen notes:
… most US firms already have an independent person performing the key functions that you would want from an independent chair. That person is the lead director, an independent board member who helps set board agendas and conveys the concerns of independent directors to the CEO. The lead director is also needed to preside over periodic executive sessions — attended only by independent directors — which are now mandated by listing standards at US stock exchanges. Choosing a lead director is a less dramatic way of fulfilling this listing standard than appointing an independent board chair.
In other words, there is a degree of separation and oversight in many USA listed companies, albeit the CEO is still the dominant player. However, notwithstanding the lack of empirical evidence one way or the other, I suspect most boards who have separated the roles of chairman and CEO, especially outside the USA, will be extremely reluctant to go back to the old model. Boards want CEOs to perform, to get things done, to drive the business forward, but they like the positional advantage a chairman has over a CEO on the odd occasion they need to rein the CEO in. It’s easier for a board to steer via the chair, than from the side.
Finally, Pozen adds:
… there is only one arrangement with generally negative results for a company: having a former CEO becoming the board chair of the same company. This can undermine the power of the new CEO. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, over 15 percent of US companies have this arrangement. Clearly that practice needs to change.
PS:
I am a member of the Wellington branch committee of the Institute of Directors in New Zealand, whose recommended best practice is generally separation of duties.
I use the chairman* title in a non-gender specific way, taking my cue from some notable female company chairmen who vehemently eschewed the “chair” title prevalent in more PC circles.
This weekend, I finally got round to reading Michael Hill’s book “Toughen Up.” For those who don’t know him (US and UK, I’d guess), Michael Hill is the founder of Michael Hill International, the publicly-listed mid-market jewellery retailer which grew from a single store in small-town Whangarei to a multinational chain spanning New Zealand, Australia, Canada and (recently) the USA. Hill’s story is an inspiration to those who think they’ve left it too late to strike out on their own. Hill didn’t do well at school, and he wasn’t talented enough to pursue a career in music or architecture, his early passions. When he was 17, his parents arranged a job in his uncle’s jewellery store where, learning from his salesman father who also worked there, Hill discovered he was good at selling jewellery. For 23 years, he drifted along, eventually running the store despite his uncle’s disdain and repeated refusals to let Hill buy into the business. Everything changed when Hill’s house burned down. Watching the flames, he had an epiphany, resolving to buy his uncle’s business. When Uncle Arthur again refused Hill’s very generous price, Hill announced he would set up in competition; he was ordered to clear out there and then. The rest, as they say, is history.
Michael Hill’s book (co-written with Claire Harvey and already in its third print) is a deceptively simple read. With a light, self-deprecating and chatty manner, he expounds his business insights through his personal and company history. I found myself nodding vigorously at several points, particularly learning not to fight on too many fronts at the same time, keeping things simple, keeping focused on big goals, and being prepared to make mistakes. Several chapters feel like something I might have written myself when explaining business ideas to staff.
Hill’s narrative is interspersed with adoring short notes from some of his staff; some readers may find that it feels too much like a company indoctrination manual. Even so, persevere. There are some golden nuggets of business wisdom in there. And the title? It goes back to Hill’s house fire epiphany at age 40. Times may be tough now, but there is no better time to start something new.
Seth Godin has a knack for capturing a complex idea in a few words. With his permission, here’s what he has to say on those banes of progress, the trolls:
Lots of things about work are hard. Dealing with trolls is one of them. Trolls are critics who gain perverse pleasure in relentlessly tearing you and your ideas down. Here’s the thing(s):
1. trolls will always be trolling
2. critics rarely create
3. they live in a tiny echo chamber, ignored by everyone except the trolled and the other trolls
4. professionals (that’s you) get paid to ignore them. It’s part of your job.
“Can’t please everyone,” isn’t just an aphorism, it’s the secret of being remarkable.
That last point is critical. I’ve said many times that good strategy requires making choices and meaning it. That includes deciding who you want to please and who not. As my Vista pal Mark Di Somma says, “make enemies.” Sure, you want to listen to others - that’s one way to improve - but it’s very easy to get distracted by naysayers, white ants, and stick-in-the-muds who offer little constructive criticism. If you believe in yourself and what you’re doing, stop being so polite, stop listening to the trolls, stop giving them credence. Do it your way.
Des Dearlove and Stuart Crainer, visiting professors at IE Business School in Madrid and associates at London Business School’s Management Innovation Lab, have published “The Thinkers 50 - 2009“, their biennial ranking of the world’s top business thinkers. Sponsored by The Times and other organisations, their criteria included:
Are the ideas and examples used by the thinker original?
Have the ideas promoted by the thinker been implemented in organizations? And, has the implementation been successful?
How proficient is the thinker at presenting his/her ideas orally?
How proficient is the thinker at presenting his/her ideas in writing?
How committed are the thinker’s disciples to spreading the message and putting it to work?
Do they practice what they preach in their own business?
How international are they in outlook and thinking?
How well researched are their books and presentations?
Have their ideas had an impact on the way people manage or think about management?
The clincher: are they, for better or worse, guru material by your definition and expectation?
Professor CK Prahalad is #1 for the second time in a row, followed by a mix of academics, economists, business writers and business leaders. I must admit that I’ve never heard of some of them before (and I think I’m reasonably well-read) so I’ll leave it for you to decide if everyone’s inclusion (or omission) and ranking are justified.
Need an extra PC? Time to replace the older clunkers in the company car fleet? An extra workstation because you’ve hired someone? Who gets the latest stuff? The best office or workstation? In many firms, seniority rules. Even avowedly egalitarian meritocracies often revert to pecking order when it comes to handing out the goodies. The boss gets first pick, and a team-wide shuffle passes everything down.
That may not be intentional. Staff often take it on themselves to equip the boss with the best stuff.
To understand what your staff have to put up with, maybe you should have the oldest PC, the worst car, the dingiest workstation. It may make you realise that you need to improve things, or give you the knowledge to resist unnecessary lily-gilding. Let the people with the greatest work requirement have the pick of the crop. If you believe in egalitarianism, it will show you stand by your avowed principles.
I’m not advocating equality of reward; I believe in rewards going to those who earn them, and that everyone with the ability and aptitude can have a shot at those opportunities. I just don’t believe in obvious displays of the baubles of office. I call it egalitarian elitism.
“Loose cannon” originates from naval parlance. Until the mid 19th century, naval cannon were very heavy discrete objects, mounted on wheels, and secured by ropes to hold them in place and drag them back into position after being fired. (This wasn’t a design flaw; basic physics required it). If a cannon escaped its securing ropes, especially in rough weather or manoeuvring, it would roll around the ship and cause immense internal damage. There were only two things to do. Tie the cannon down quickly; failing that, use its momentum to quickly push it overboard. No procrastination; secure or jettison, now!
You’ll come across loose cannon in business too: someone nominally on the team (operational, management or governance), but who causes a lot of internal mayhem and strife. Unfortunately, many leaders dither and hand-wring while the loose cannon continues wrecking their team’s ship. Your choice is the same as the sailors’. No procrastination: secure or jettison, now!
I’m chairing an Institute of Directors dinner at The Wellington Club, 6.15pm on Tuesday 4th August. Our guest speaker is Rick Christie, addressing the question “Challenges for chairs of government companies - can a private sector model work?”
Rick had an impressive executive career, as a director of BP New Zealand, Managing Director of listed industrial group Cable Price Downer, CEO of Tradenz (NZ Trade Development Board), and CEO of investment group Rangatira. He’s even busier as a professional director - he is currently Chairman of Ebos, Chairman of ProvencoCadmus, Chairman of Argenta, and a Director of Tourism Holdings, Wakefield Health, and the NZ Pork Industry Board.
To name but a few of the positions Rick has held, until recently he was Chairman of crown research business AgResearch, Chairman of the government’s Growth & Innovation Advisory Board, Deputy Chairman of the Foundation for Research Science & Technology, and Chairman of the Victoria University Foundation Board of Trustees, He was a a Director of Television New Zealand, and a member of the Prime Minister’s Enterprise Council.
Clearly Rick must know a lot about chairing government entities! Given Wellington is the nation’s capital, it’s no surprise that the dinner sold out almost straight away; but one place (price $110) has come available. The dinner is restricted to IoD members with at least 5 years experience as a director. The Chatham House Rule applies to the evening’s discussion which, knowing Rick, is bound to be lively. Contact me via comment or email if you’re interested.
Let me offer you a word or two of advice. If you want to formally pitch something to me as an investor, as a director, or indeed in almost any capacity, send me some information to read before we meet. Send me a pithy pre-meeting email, document, brochure, proposal outline, webpage link; something which gives me the gist of what you are presenting or proposing. Then I’ll have had time to study it, think about it, perhaps do some background research myself, so that when we do meet, we’ll be able to focus your time and mine on clarification, criticism, suggestion, discussion and, above all, decision. You’d be amazed how often we can save us both time, by quickly saying “Go ahead “or “No, thank you”.
Ask most CEOs and board members, and they’ll tell you the same thing. Senior executives and board directors are usually fast readers and quick decision makers. It’s part of how we got there. So we get very irritated by people who want us to sit through long-winded presentations and discussions on topics where they won’t give us the key information until the meeting. Especially when the “big reveal” is neither big nor revealing.
Ever wondered what colour you are? Rick Smith, author of career-planning book “The Leap“, has made an online personality testing tool available. It explores 3 facets of your persona - leadership, curiosity and execution - and plots them on a 3-sided chart with different shades of green, red and blue. You’re placed in a colour zone, which is “your primary colour”. There’s a further set of questions to test if your current role fits your personality.
I’m not convinced that the questions are discriminating enough to give accurate and consistent interpretations - I could have made equally valid different responses to several questions - but it seems harmless enough, and could be fun to do at home or with your mates. Before you ask, I was assessed as “blue velvet” (top line, centre right). Make what you will of that.
Regular readers will know that I’m an admirer of Toyota, in particular its lean thinking and unity of purpose. This is not unconditional admiration. Toyota can be bureaucratic; its brand marketing is usually uninspired me-too (the NZ emotive campaigns in the ’80s and ’90s being rare exceptions); and its designs are worthy rather than exciting. However, I’m quibbling; that worthiness has helped Toyota climb from humble beginnings to overhaul the once-mighty General Motors as the world’s No. 1 auto-maker.
Toyota is renowned for incredibly flexible and efficient manufacturing, with a ruthless attention to eliminating waste in all its forms (rework, shoddy materials, unnecessary movement, set-up time, inventory, and so on). But, according to a Bloomberg-sourced article appearing in major newspapers, as Toyota started to close on GM over the last decade, Toyota has been more driven by numbers. It started to build inflexible single-purpose manufacturing plants, not training its people properly, and operating these new plants in a very un-Toyota way. Toyota recently reported its first operating losses since 1950, and has suspended production in many plants. Blame can be partly ascribed to the global recession, but that just exaggerated these other problems.
I usually take such journalistic analyses of companies with a large pinch of salt, but this story passes my “gut feel” credibility test. It isn’t a story of a company being stuck in a mindset that no longer works. That’s the GM problem. No, this is a story, if true, of being blinded by success, of losing sight of what made Toyota great.
However, Toyota’s leadership is onto the problem. After the numbers went wrong, Toyota’s honorary chairman and founding family figurehead, Shoichiro Toyoda gave a stinging rebuke to the company’s top 400 executives. The company has a big job on its hands, although not as big as that facing Bill Ford 10 years ago when he took over the helm at the business founded by his great-grandfather. Unlike Chrysler and GM, Ford’s award-winning product range, operational methods and funding management have enabled it to avoid bankruptcy. That precedent did not go unheeded by Toyota’s board. New CEO Akio Toyoda, a car nut like Bill Ford, is the grandson of Kiichiro Toyoda, the founder of Toyota Motor Corporation. He is steeped in the Toyota credo. Expect a back-to-basics Toyota in future, although maybe with a little more excitement added to the mix.
“Loose cannon” originates from naval parlance. Until the mid 19th century, naval cannon were very heavy discrete objects, mounted on wheels, and secured by ropes to hold them in place and drag them back into position after being fired. (This wasn’t a design flaw; basic physics required it). If a cannon escaped its securing ropes, especially in rough weather or manoeuvring, it would roll around the ship and cause immense internal damage. There were only two things to do. Tie the cannon down quickly; failing that, use its momentum to quickly push it overboard. No procrastination; secure or jettison, now!
Regular readers will know that I’m an admirer of Toyota, in particular its lean thinking and unity of purpose. This is not unconditional admiration. Toyota can be bureaucratic; its brand marketing is usually uninspired me-too (the NZ emotive campaigns in the ’80s and ’90s being rare exceptions); and its designs are worthy rather than exciting. However, I’m quibbling; that worthiness has helped Toyota climb from humble beginnings to overhaul the once-mighty General Motors as the world’s No. 1 auto-maker.