DAILY TELEGRAPH (UK): Too busy to see the oncoming train: “More than 30 years ago, the people at Royal Dutch Shell planned not only what they needed to accomplish but also what might happen in the future. They ran the only energy company that was ready to deal with what we know as Opec. Their plans enabled them to be prepared when the price of crude oil skyrocketed. They were thinking in terms far longer than the literal tomorrow. Unfortunately, this ability within Shell appears to have disappeared.” (ShellNews.net) 3 March 05

(Filed: 03/03/2005)

Dr James Rieley tackles management issues head on 

The Institute of Directors recently released the results of a study they commissioned to see how much effort businesses were putting in to getting ready for the future. When I read some of the results, I was floored.

Sixty-nine per cent of respondents to the question "What factors inhibit future thinking in your organisation?" stated they were "too busy". Too busy to figure out what the future might bring? Wake up, lads – the light at the end of the tunnel just may be an oncoming train.

According to the report, 30 per cent mentioned they had "a lack of in-house expertise" and another 31 per cent cited "inadequate resources" as the reason why they could not anticipate what the future held.

These responses raise a serious question – how can organisations expect to survive into the future when no one is trying to determine what that future might bring? Yes, managers today are probably busier than ever. But busy doing what?

Most of the managers I speak to seem to have their diaries filled with ongoing, recurring problems that have never really been solved. They are inundated with assignments and responsibilities that feed the addiction to reactive thinking and fire-fighting.

Just look at the stories in the media – budget airlines that don't seem to care if they alienate their customers because they assume others will fill the seats.

Or what about the managers of energy companies who are so busy patting themselves on the back because of high profits that they forget it wasn't their decision-making excellence that generated them but instead the global demand for oil.

Elsewhere, senior managers are quick to say their heads are on the line, then shun responsibility for organisational performance.

The ability, or in many cases willingness, to look to the future can be a make-or-break competency for companies. Behaviours and skills that were acceptable a dozen years ago just don't cut it in 2005.

Being "too busy" to try to bring clarity to potential scenarios is akin to driving your car at high speed day and night just to rack up as many miles as possible.

Sure, you may see your odometer climb quickly, but if you don't stop once in a while to check the engine or put petrol in, you will end up sitting on the side of the road watching your competitor cruise past.

To put it plainly, there is simply no excuse for not trying to understand what the future might bring. Unless, of course, you don't care.

And in some companies I know, that is the case. The average tenure in a senior organisational position today is declining. CEOs seem to last as long as an English summer and when the new one arrives, his first piece of business appears to be how to make his mark.

That behaviour is almost understandable. They are given highly paid jobs with lots of responsibility and are under pressure to deliver the results the last guy apparently wasn't able to.

However, seldom do we see new leaders begin by ensuring that the business will survive long after they have retired.

Instead, the focus is on driving short-term results that distract from the larger issue of sustainability.

More than 30 years ago, the people at Royal Dutch Shell planned not only what they needed to accomplish but also what might happen in the future.

They ran the only energy company that was ready to deal with what we know as Opec. Their plans enabled them to be prepared when the price of crude oil skyrocketed. They were thinking in terms far longer than the literal tomorrow. Unfortunately, this ability within Shell appears to have disappeared.

The story of GEC-Marconi is another example.

When Lord Weinstock was the head of GEC, the company kept thinking about what the future might bring. Then Lord Weinstock stepped back and new managers came in who were blinded by the immediate future. As shareholders of Marconi can attest, the once proud company is now a shadow of its previous self and probably lucky to be in business at all.

Does Ryanair really think it will always have enough customers with their apparent policy of "do it our way or go find another carrier"?

Are the decision-makers at BP so sure that the price of oil will never again go down? Do the senior people at BA think that just because they used to be the best, they will always be in business? What are these companies going to do if they are wrong?

Come on lads, let's use some common sense and realise that the future is not guaranteed.

Planning for the future is just as important as planning for the next quarter, and not having people looking long term is inexcusable in today's business world.

Dr James Rieley is the author of Gaming the System (Financial Times/Prentice Hall) and Plain Talk about Business Performance (PenPress). He is speaking at a free Telegraph Business Club seminar in London on March 16. To attend visit www.telegraphbusinessclub.co.uk.

Dr Rieley can be contacted by e-mail at management@telegraph.co.uk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/03/03/ccrie03.xml