Met an interesting person yesterday – which sparked a debate about types of accountants. Not whether they are interesting or boring (!), but whether they are financial or management accountants.

Financial Accountants produce the raw data – they are the unsung heroes and heroines who make sure your numbers are produced on a timely and accurate basis, that debts are called in, and creditors appeased.

Management Accountants are a different breed. They look at the data and ask the “difficult questions”. Such as “Is this a good number?”, “Have we achieved what we thought we would, and if not, why not?”, and perhaps the most important question, “What is the implication of this data to our financial future?”.

Most businesses have Financial Accountants (for example the bookkeeper). I believe businesses need both kinds of accountant, and that it is very hard to find someone who can be both.

Who is asking the difficult questions in your organisation?

After following this blog for many weeks, and appreciating how much I have learnt from it, I thought I’d share the link:
http://www.financeweek.co.uk/ceos-diary

It’s the story of a CEO facing the same day to day issues and dilemmas that every business manager has.

OK, you may have more or less zero’s on the end of your income and expenditure targets, but the honesty, relevance, and rawness of his story is just great.

It may help to read the blog from the start, so grab a cup of your favourite brew, and enjoy.

Interesting article here:
http://www.irishmedicalnews.ie/index.php/component/content/article/1-news/440-health-charities-funding-concern

But it got me thinking about the term “recession proof”. I don’t think any organisation (with the possible exception of high street banks, given the government’s recent action) can ever be recession proof.

The best any business can hope to be is aware of the economic climate, and be able to adjust its business plan accordingly. Periods of growth demand a different strategy from a period of decline.

Are businesses out there struggling because they are unwilling to take the steps required to stay in good shape? No business has a “god-given right” to survive, not even a charity.

Social networking seems finally to be “coming of age”. Business leaders I meet vary in their opinion of such sites and means of communication, but this article shows that even serious sites have a lot to offer.

http://lateralaction.com/articles/social-networks-for-creatives/

That said, I don’t think that online networking will ever beat the good old fashioned chat over lunch or a cup of coffee. Or is it me that is old fashioned?

Having talked us into the recession, the media now seem to want to own the next hot topic of how to “get back on our feet”. I don’t know what depresses me more, that they think this is a good idea, or that they think they thought of it first.

Good practice can often equate to common sense and a firm view of what you think is best. Compromise and equivocation are often the worst enemies to battle with, as they lead to indecision and/or bad decisions.

So perhaps it’s worth reading the “self help” guides now emerging, and hopefully you will be able to say that you are doing the right things already. If you are not, then get some help – fast.

Just had a meeting with someone who confessed she did not possess a socially advanced phone. I suddenly had a sense of man and machine being closer than I had previously feared.

Are we now so reliant on technology that our social interaction depends on having the latest gizmo? Are we approaching a point where technology might replace face to face meetings to provide social interaction? Might your hard, or soft, ware dictate your social group? Maybe it’s been like this for a while, but is the point becoming more pressing?

Has the debate about have and have-not’s been extended to those who have the right gizmo’s, and those who don’t?

Are face-to-face meetings and social-technology two circles that overlap perfectly?

Interesting business breakfast this morning. Good pitch by a local authority strategic director.

Raised a chicken and egg question: which come first, the housing or the jobs? This is made particularly tough by the fact that each is “managed” by a different body. How quickly can a local authority react to a change in business needs? Would you locate to where the staff are, or base yourself in a place you like to live? Which can be changed quicker: the skills, or the availability of staff?

Must be a tough job predicting what we will need in 10 years time when most folk don’t know what they will have in 10 weeks time.

Attended the launch of Creative Republic last night in Coventry. Having lived and worked in and around the city for many years, it never ceases to amaze me how much there is going on and to see here. And yet…

How is it the city still has an air of despondency, why can’t it find the key to successfully promoting itself, what will it take for outsiders to take it seriously?

It struck me that there is a comparison with our economy at the moment. On the surface, it’s all doom, gloom and despair, and yet underneath there is a vibrant and enthusiastic marketplace.

What will it take to change the perception? Maybe those who exist to make money at other people’s expense need to visit Coventry.

After talking us into it, its interesting to see how the media is now telling us how to manage during a recession.

Despite the impact of the banks self-made crisis, people I am talking to are still working hard. Times are always tough when you are running a business, and having waves of negative publicity rolling over you doesn’t help. When faced with a decision, it will be more tempting to play it safe than to take a small risk.

I’m not talking people into taking unacceptable risks, but to look carefully at what is a real risk, and what is a perceived risk.

The opportunities are still out there.

I had an email from an ex-colleague yesterday who, in reply to my question asking how they were, replied “peddling faster than ever”.

While glad that they are “busy”, and apparently still enjoying the challenge of their work, I was left wondering whether the extra effort being used was resulting in extra output and benefit to the organisation.

I can still clearly recall the story from years ago, when I worked at IBM, when an employee under threat of redundancy started working every hour he could – to improve his chances of being kept on. Sadly, he was one of the many 100′s (1,000′s?) who lost their jobs, and I suspect one of the main reasons he went was because he had failed to understand that it’s not inputs that matter, it’s outputs. His extra work did not increase his contribution and value to the company.

We have to focus on what difference our work makes, which is a bit more complicated than just working differently (or harder).