MARYLEBONE — This year is a big year of change. In technology, in the world economy, the world of sport, even in the way all our countries are run.  There are elections in America, France, India…

What is more significant in a country than a change of government?

And that’s what is promised in India, Malaysia, Taiwan, Serbia,  Kuwait, El Salvador, The Gambia, Armenia, Algeria, Madagascar, Libya, Mongolia, Mexico, Cameroon, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Belarus, Ukraine, Ghana, Angola, Bhutan, Guinea, Lesotho, Zimbabwe and Togo.

New presidents in Yemen, Senegal, Mali, Russia, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Albania, France, Kenya, Turkey, the United States of America, Venezuela, Sierra Leone, Egypt, Kosovo and Zimbabwe.  Yes, Zimbabwe.

We know that the United States presidential election of 2012 is to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. It will be the 57th presidential election.  And it will get a lot of attention.

But how about the world’s largest democracy?

Yes.  That’s India.  How about that one?

Or the big red splotch above?  Russia.

That’s important too.

There are other changes coming too.  Some, we seem to know for sure:

• Gold prices will keep going up.  And hit $2,000 and ounce in 2012, they say.
• The Internet is going to change.  A new IP address protocol will mean that companies may start building two sites for a doubled up Internet — the old one, and the new one.
• We’ll all be talking about faster, slimmer smart phones and The Cloud.  If you don’t know about either, now is the time to do some research.
• Plus many more things you may want to share?

This time next year things will be very different.

I promise.

Businesses will fail.  Some will be dominant that you haven’t even heard of.  Yours will merge, divest, make a 90 degree turn, or implement similar significant changes.

So, what are you doing about it?

Well it is a topic that is quite dear to our hearts at Able and How.  We are launching our Able and How Change Index this year.  And our change management work the world over continues at a pace.

We will be keeping an eye on business, political and social trends this year.  And keeping you up to date with the Able and How Change List (look for it soon in our News section).

Change is good.

Get into it with us.

/df

P.S. And, by the way, NASA assures us that the world is not going to end.  After many years of fielding wild calls, they were forced to put up this website.

LONDON — It’s been hard not to think about Korea this week.  But I have different things on my mind.  Not the loss of a dictator.  Not the worry that still has South Korean’s practicing evacuations like WWII Britain and Cold War America.

I am thinking about Korea’s fertile business culture and the country’s uncanny ability to reinvent itself, rebuild and refocus just in time for tremendous success.

See if you can read this bit without stopping in your tracks:

• in 1961 South Korea ranked 117th in the world for arable land per capita (behind Saudi Arabia and Somalia)
• in the last 50 years Korea’s per-capita GDP has grown at 23,000 percent
• today the tiny country (smaller than Iceland) has the world’s 12th largest economy by purchasing power
• unemployment is 3.2 percent
• one of the world’s lowest rates of public debt
• 80% of the 49 million people live in urban areas
• Koreans are four times as likely to have high-speed internet access as Americans and they pay very little for it

A series of seemingly prescient government decisions have constantly shoved the economy in the right direction.  Even through the tough economic times in the late 90s and mid 2000s the countries has seemed to make the right choices.

Today they are pushing — against their own traditions — for more entrepreneurship.  And I wouldn’t bet against them.

In fact, I’d like to be there now. If the chaebols’ would give us a call? Samsung, LG, SK… we’d like a word.

/df

SOUTH KENSINGTON — There was a piece in the Independent yesterday about Sir Richard Branson’s “three point plan” to get the UK economy going.

Unfortunately the plan is completely pants.

I wish it weren’t, but it is.

Years ago, when I worked in politics a very worthy husband and wife team approached my cabinet ministers with suggested legislation: A Good Samaritan bill.  The bill was to recognise that restaurants, food stores and food services companies throw out masses of food everyday.  And yet many, many people didn’t have enough food to eat.  The only reason this happened — they said — was because you could be held liable if you gave people food that made them ill.

The Good Samaritan Bill would solve that “by absolving people of all legal responsibility for the food they made available…”

What?!

I was so surprised by how wrong that was that I couldn’t even talk to the proposers.

Today Sir Richard proposes a plan that would:
- make it much easier for businesses to hire and fire young people
- offer small entrepreneurs easier access to small amounts of money and
- reducing time spent at university

And I feel the same kind of confusion.  Why would it be better for businesses to be able to take on more people for shorter periods of time?

Do we believe in the fairness of our laws, or not?  Do we want to protect people from the pure business drivers of companies?  Or are we happy to have them bought and sold, hired and fired, compensated appropriately, or not?

The appeal for business is obvious.  Any business manager could see that.

But for young people?  It’s much harder to rationalise.  I have no doubt one can rationalise it… But should you?

The same unfortunately goes for micro-finance for entrepreneurs.

Yes, small businesses account for much of the job growth in the UK.  Yes, entrepreneurs (like Sir Richard… like me) help bring better competition and innovation to our economy.

But that does not mean that if we could convince more people to to try it we’d get even more jobs and more innovation.

Creating and sustaining a business is the single hardest thing I have ever done in my life.  Without exception.  I am still not sure that God really meant for me to be an entrepreneur.  But we did really do all our due diligence, never borrowed, worked like crazy, fought off dragons, made millions of mistakes and only just scarped through.

Often I think it’s something that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.  Why would we decide that more and more and more people should do it?  How many more open and closed restaurants do we need on our High Streets.

And less time in university.  Really?

There are answers to this economic crisis.  Or certainly things we can do to help fix it.  But I am far from convinced that these are they.

Give me better managers and better trained and supported entrepreneurs… better skills… any day.

But not this.

/df

PICADILLY CIRCUS — Looks like the sun might actually come up in London today.  That’s a relief.  And one of my biggest concerns.  Yesterday was dark and I can’t handle that.

So, how lucky am I?  That trivial issues like that concern me?

Yesterday umpteen decisions were made that affect all of our lives and futures.  Not just in London, New York and Beijing.  But in Rome and Athens.  In Geneva and Berlin and Paris.  And in Damascus and Doha. And…

Open the paper and have a look through.  There are an amazing amount of fundamental, big decisions being made by people in places all around the world.

Last Monday Chancellor Merkel said she thinks we’re in the biggest global crisis since 1945.

And she and a group of other diverse, independent leaders, are trying to make sense of the whole thing.  New leaders are being sworn in.  Senior financial gurus are being tapped up.

And big decisions are being made.

In recent years here in the UK a chorus goes up of people saying: easiest job in the world! Paid for nothing! Crooked! Useless!

And today they are doing more than any of us to save our collective backsides.  That’s what leadership is — and probably what we need.  It may even be more than we deserve.

/df

EDGWARE ROAD — Yesterday we were lucky enough to have a booth and a speaking spot at an event called “Reorganising Government” at the exceptional QEII Conference Centre.

It was filled with public sector employees facing mergers, takeovers and dissolution. They were a remarkably chipper lot, all things considered.

And while I am on the topic, let me add something important: countries like the UK are very lucky to have the public sector employees that they do. These are intellectually curious people. They are often doing thankless jobs. They serve many discordant stakeholders. I wonder if it’s not a bit like being a chamber maid for a whole tower of council flats.

And so we were there talking about change.  And why organisations are so rotten at it.

My theory is that we’re bad at it because, it is like organisational communications was 20 years ago.  Everyone says its important and claims to know what it is… but no one is genuinely any good at it.

This can and will change, I know. Certainly the people I met yesterday are interested and focussed enough that they will get onto it.

I was asked — I think it was by a lovely lady from the LBRO — what the best enablers of change were. And out of that we had a good discussion.

People — is the obvious answer!

It is wrong to say that people are “change averse”. As we all like to say. (Even people who don’t really know what it means.)   People actually like change.  Even if it’s painful.  Change is about having a new job.  It can be complicated and difficult.  But it is a challenge.

After all, we are a nation of gardeners, for pity’s sake!  We like to do things that have very long turn-around times.  We like to get dirty.  And we like to get up every morning looking for green shoots.

People do like change. People like exciting new projects.  People like to see progress and to be involved in creating stuff.

‘Change’ can succeed or fail based on our ability to get people involved.

It’s a very simple idea.  But it’s one that we set up Able and How to address.

/df

TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD — Twenty years ago I was trying to decide what to do with my life, and had set up a meeting with Joan Donaldson.  This modest woman of the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) was just about to go live with CBC Newsworld – the broadcaster’s national ‘all-news’ network.

I was excited to see her.  I had even re-tuned and steam-ironed my CV.  I bought a crisp brown envelope to put it in.

Then suddenly and mysteriously she was hit by a cyclist on a cycle path outside the CBC offices in Montreal harbour.  She suffered brain injuries and never recovered.  That was 1990.  She died 4 years ago.

This week there’s been a Tube strike in London.  It coincides with the arrival of London’s Barclays Cycle Hire.  The bikes are famously modeled on Montreal’s Bixi programme.

So this week London is slowly filling up with people taking to the bikes.  And it begs a simple question:

“What are London’s cycling the rules?”

I am sure they are published somewhere, but they’re not enforced, or coherent. 

• How many people need to be found under a bus?
• What happens when people come off the bikes?
• How do you stop them being the drunken mode of transport du jour? (Oh, yea, I’ve seen it.)

Bicycle rules in the city are already a shambles.  Bike paths take you down one way streets.  Cyclists berate each other over jumping lights, riding on the pavement or wearing helmets.

• Have you ever seen a head hit pavement?  Even from 3/4 feet up?  (I have and it’s not nice.)
• Who’s liable when bike meets pedestrian?
• Is ignorance an excuse?

And then, once you’ve decided, how will you let people know?  The lovely maps and cash-taking machines are silent on the issue.  Will Barclays, the Mayor of London and TFL be happy when the accidents become the story?

I know what Joan Donaldson would think.  And I know how much I would have like to have met her.

/df

LONDON — It’s an interesting question. Are we already? Could we be more so?

Clearly the UK is a desirable place to work, because people come here and stay. It is a sought-after spot for foreign postings. But in spite of much talk from various parties about the importance of highly skilled workers, I think that questions remain about how much we have created a country that is a great place to work.

What are the factors?

1. Tax
2. Administration
3. Public transport and other aspects of ‘quality of life’
4. Education and access to skills
5. Immigration and renewing our workforce
6. Workplace regulations and laws
7. Working hours
8. Culture of work
9. Ability to manage change
10. Business leadership and involvement

The first 5 of these are often in the political discourse. The other 5 are not.

They are all well within the control of governments. And all would contribute greatly to the success and prosperity of the country.

So why are we not talking about them all?

/df

FULHAM ROAD — I didn’t watch the three ‘Chancellors’ debate last night. The UK’s equivalent of party Finance supremos were on Channel 4 talking about the future. The papers are full of it this morning.

In many ways.

We do tell business leaders that what they ‘do’ is as important as what they ‘say’. We encourage people to work on their empathy and “Emotional Intelligence”. But there are limits.

Business leaders still have to do a good job.

They have to make the business run soundly.

It seems that’s not the case with politicians anymore.

The papers are filled with reviews of last night’s debate that make snipping between drama critics seem like acts of Homeric scholarship.

Even smart media outlets talk about the quality of jokes and length of the applause. The posture of candidates is discussed. Any stunts that you can drag up are always good. References to Kennedy/Nixon in 1960 is helpful too.

Anything but content.

And then we get rude declamations about how people have lost interest and don’t vote any more.

Throw us a bone.

/df

EARL’S COURT — There’s a polar bear melting in Trafalgar Square. (There’s one in Copenhagen too.) Somehow, all of my family saw it this weekend. Except me.

One child reported back that the key thing is that people are encouraged to touch it. And that is making it melt faster.

“The head’s already gone.”

And for her that symbolised everything you need to know about global warming.

It’s not a bad thing for a child to have taken away.

Small messages are some of the things that we need to learn out of this conference. In spite of the flurry of disjointed attempts to say climate change isn’t an issue… the core ideas are increasingly accepted.

I love the work being done by the Maldives to put their case. Great governmental PR. And no great loss to brand “Maldives” either.

I think we’d all like to see real progress at Copenhagen. It is, after all, one of those global conferences that only used to happen in comic books and sci-fi films. But the fact that it’s happening at all will help us in the end.

/df

DISTRICT LINE — The newly appointed Lord made a bit of a storm in Parliament with his maiden speech. Perhaps any minimalism in grace and nuance will inadvertently help our regular politicians, by showing how hard it is to speak without edits, teleprompters and producers.

Describing his views on small business he said:

“I have also seen some poor examples of businesses that simply will not succeed, even in the best of times. The reality is that, however good the help provided by government, some businesses simply do not work. Government and banks cannot just write blank cheques to anyone who thinks that they have a good idea.”

And that’s the basis of the argument. Essentially, if you don’t succeed it’s likely that your idea was rubbish. And that winds me up a bit. Because it sounds like the ‘American dream’ which is often translated as ‘if you work hard enough, you will succeed.’ And my experience, after working in government, in large businesses and in small business is that there are many things that government and large businesses do to keep small business down.

Which is why I like this second quote from Lord Sugar of Clapton:

“In Britain, small businesses have a lot to be proud of. They employ over 50 per cent in the private sector and they generate as much turnover as big business-in fact, 99 per cent of all businesses are SMEs. The credit crisis has pushed our SMEs to the limits. Some companies have struggled, not because of failure in business, but because of the tougher credit conditions.”

And in many ways it contradicts the quote above from the same speech. I have not seen any real effort made to help small businesses in a coordinated or concerted way. There’s lots of nice rhetoric, but the way that Lord Sugar describes small businesses is pretty much the way they feel treated: ‘Do this! No, no sorry, do that! Woops, you screwed up. Must be your fault.”

The fiscal, judicial, regulatory and bureaucratic systems are all stacked against smaller businesses. Rules seem to be written for organisations with means, access to expertise and advisers, and an institutional history in doing this stuff. Small businesses need to negotiate a maze of complexity that no regular business person has all the experience to master.

In analysing his own speech later, Sugar said:

“During the ceremony, I only got a mild ‘hear, hear’ – mostly from the Labour lot, but they’ll like me in the end.”

I will stand in front of the Palace of Westminster itself and give him a mighty round of ‘hear, hear’ myself if he can address the real, structural issues that are holding small business back.

No one wants something for nothing. A proper helping hand to succeed would be good enough.

/df