Having more than one person involved in decision-making can really help

I am firmly of the belief that reading expands the mind, and I generally get something out if every book I read. I've just finished a short book on the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's called Thirteen Days and was written by Robert F. Kennedy. The book itself is quite factual and it isn't until I reached the conclusions after the crisis wax over that I thought of practical applications towards business. In the chapter "Some of the things we learned..." Robert Kennedy stated that he felt it of significant importance during the crisis that there were different points of view throughout the process. The group of people that sat together to deliberate and report back to the President (the ex comm group) had people from different backgrounds and had different ideas on how to handle the crisis. Robert Kennedy believes that from this group, the right decisions and course of action was achieved because "opinion, even fact, can be best judged by conflict, by debate." He even goes so far as to say that this lack of conflict was part of the failure of an earlier Kennedy administration operation in Cuba - the Bay of Pigs invasion.

In terms of the way this can bring about lessons for business for me, is as far as business decisions are made. Too often one part if the business makes decisions that affect other parts of the business without consulting them. Taking the time to have different viewpoints and for this to provide the opportunity for the decision to be debated can only be healthy. I liken this to the coalition government we have had in this country for nearly the last five years. Although we don't 100% what has happened behind the closed doors of government, it appears from the outside that each party have had to agree on policy. In many cases this has resulted in policy being adapted to keep both parties happy - and for the common good of the country.

The book also reminds me of another book I read fairly recently, called Why Your Boss Is Programmed to Be a Dictator: A Book for Anyone Who Has a Boss or Is a Boss by Chetan Dhruve. It's well worth a read and in one chapter he tells about the mistakes made in the run up to the invasion of Iraq because the military's advisers told their boss (President George W. Bush) what they thought he wanted to hear. More debate would probably have resulted in a different course of action and many fewer lives lost.

One of the best estate agency branch managers I have worked alongside used a collaborative process for certain parts of the business. Everyone ones he was the boss, there was no dilution there, but in certain areas there was a discussion and a decision was based on agreement. One such area was the start of day huddle and particularly when looking at the market appraisals for the day. We would look at each property in turn with the lister and have a discussion over the marketing price. This had the effect that all the team knew about the pending properties, had a buy in with the process and a price was sometimes agreed that the lister perhaps hadn't first envisaged. Having a second, third, etc pair of eyes to run over the situation can enable a healthy discussion and come to a considered decision. This is something that Robert Kennedy refers to directly in his book. Try looking at involving all of your team and perhaps some of your customers in your decisions.

What do you say about other agents to your (potential) clients?

Speaking to a few agents this week has got me thinking. It took me back to when I was an estate agent in a town where I knew a lot of people. Word would often come back from clients and friends relating to what other estate agents had said during market appraisals about us and other agents in the town. Rather than focussing on the positives about their own service, certain estate agents would use the market appraisal as an opportunity to be really negative about other agents-

"They're not on Rightmove."

"They don't do floor plans."

"They don't sell houses."

"They rip you off."

"Their fees are high."

"We'll beat their fee."

"We'll match their fee."

What is your stance on this?

Personally I think that in an ideal world the focus would solely be on what someone COULD do and not on what they don't do, but I'm not naive enough to think that everyone is like that.

I think that you should focus on what you do best, on what differentiates you from the competition - so "we're the only agent in town that offers floor plans as standard" is the positive way of saying "they don't do floor plans."

I think that positivity will win out and eventually you will get a reputation of being a fair, honest and open estate agent, where your rivals that have nothing good to say about themselves will lose out in the long run as customers become more aware of how they operate.

Think of all the positive things that you can say about your own team, marketing, track record, sales, Rex and make these the basis of your market appraisal , not knocking your competition verbally but hitting them where it hurts the most - in the pocket.

A vibrant High Street secures my commercial property investment

As someone who has been involved in commercial property in the past, I am interested in the mix of properties on a High Street, and how the vibrancy of a town centre can affect the likelihood that my tenants default and/or the time it will take me to find a new tenant.

In short, the vibrancy of a High Street affects the security of my investment.

I'm sitting on a High Street, looking at the range of shops and wondering if the mix of shops makes the difference in the vibrancy of any High Street or town centre.

Just in my line of vision, I see a food shop, shoe shop, pet shop, pound store, pharmacy, clothes shop and a variety store. Over the street is a coffee shop, an optician, a card shop, 2 fast food shops, a bookmakers and a charity shop. It's a good mix and with ample parking and safe places to cross the road, it's a vibrant area with places to spend, eat and just stop and watch the world go by. Slightly further in the same street are 2 supermarkets, another fast food shop, a car wash, a chain pub and a DIY store.

When High Streets and town centres grow up organically to have a collection of shops that attract a range of customers, then it just works.  It's when the free market doesn't provide this vibrancy that local planners and councils need to get involved.

So how does this happen?

When there is a high demand for commercial property, then planners can look at accepting or rejecting certain uses based on the mix they already have. Landlords can look at choosing a tenant based on the longevity if their tenure as a viable business and a degree of survival of the fittest occurs to ensure the very best retailers are present.

When it doesn't happen

But we haven't been in a situation as competitive as this for several years now, so landlords will be far less choosy in their tenants. At the start of the financial meltdown, commercial landlords would probably have taken anyone who could pay the rent.

So planners have to take the lead and provide planning rules that allow diverse retailers to a High Street without penalising the landlords. This is a fine line, and planning officers have generally been quite lenient in their criteria over the last 6 years or so.

I would strongly suggest that the criteria be clearly laid out and stuck to rigidly for every application. Filling a High Street with charity shops or discounters in a downturn isn't the only way out of the downturn.

People look for bargains, look for value but the days of buying things just because they are cheap has disappeared. Customers are savvier and want something that will do the job they've bought it for.