Family favourites
Family businesses can have lots of strengths such as loyalty and commitment. Weaknesses can include paralysis arising from a fundamental difference in need between a family and a business.
So for example families tend to want to minimise change whereas businesses need to exploit change; families tend to be inward looking whereas businesses need to be outward looking; families often want to avoid conflict whereas businesses need to deal with conflict; families tend to be reactive whereas businesses need to be proactive.
It is these fundamental differences in need that can be the cause of conflict in family businesses. In the knowledge economy where the product and service life cycle is getting shorter and shorter it is more important than ever that these differences are resolved, one way or another.
Mind the gap
I work in so many Boardrooms that are largely populated by ‘baby boomers’ like me (born 1940 to 1960) but I am constantly amazed by how many sub optimal decisions they make.
In one instance this week, a ‘not for profit’ organisation discussed the fact that potential members are able to enrol online to join a competitor organisation.
For reasons that were not fully discussed, but it sounded like ‘membership’ is one particular Board members exclusive area of control, my client decided to continue with their manual system for enrolment. In the knowledge economy any Board decision that fails to address the speed of change or the reality of the market place can prove fatal.
Thirty year olds would have made a different decision; they live in a world that is different in kind from their predecessors.
First position
If director development points from their appraisals invariably involve behaviour of one sort or another, what bit of behaviour are we talking about? After all, when we meet another person we only have our words, our voice and our gestures with which to communicate.
I think that one common theme is that we don’t always consciously realise the impact of our words or our tone of voice or our gestures on others.
It is said that there are three ways of looking at the world: first position is simply through our own eyes, second position is through the eyes of someone else and third position is to see the world from an impartial, ‘fly on the wall’, perspective. It is also said that great leaders, people of influence and wisdom have this quality, the ability to see circumstances from all three positions.
And when I think about it, a lot of the work I do with executive coaching is to try to help people see things from second and third position. Most of us don’t have a problem with first position.
Another variable is that circumstances are never the same, so what was appropriate behaviour once, no longer is. So for example, if you are divorced it is unlikely that you will greet your former partner today in the same manner that you once did just before you got married!
Answers on a postcard please.
168 hours per week
Part of executive capability lies in effective use of time, one of the primary resources that we all have. The starting point here is knowing the difference between a reactive use of time and a proactive use of time.
The demands of the knowledge economy require that most of us move gradually from a reactive to a more proactive use of time. Where I live in Hereford there are 168 hours per week to spend. If any of my readers manage to squeeze more than 168 hours out of any week, please let me know because that would be a genuine breakthrough.
Half an hour ago, in the torrential rain, one of my windscreen wipers exploded. So as I sit under a bridge with no reception, on the verge of the M5 motorway in Worcester, England, waiting for the rescue service person to come there is nothing I can actually do.
Nothing that is, except write this blog.
It’s a large world
I was attending a Nigel Risner boot camp last week. Despite being one of the UK’s leading international speakers, an author and participant on the prestigious Richard and Judy show, Nigel pointed out that he is virtually unknown in this country.
To emphasise the point he invited anyone in the group to walk down Watford High Street and ask any member of the public if they have heard of Dr Stephen Covey. As many readers of this column will know, Dr Covey is a global business and personal development icon. Nigel was willing to bet that you would be walking for a long time before meeting anyone that has heard of Dr Covey.
The leadership issue here is that we sometimes fundamentally underestimate the size of our potential or actual market. In the knowledge economy market places are changing so fast that we need to understand this in order to be in a position to optimise our marketing strategy.
The personal agenda
It is extraordinary how many people at the top of organisations are struggling to reconcile their business life with what is going on at home.
Some people simply ignore the home bit; they have fallen into a pattern of behaviour with those they live with and there is no intention of revisiting the position. The situation is only revisited when a crisis occurs like a divorce or a bereavement.
Others are much more interested in monitoring progress as they go, usually with some form of outside support or counselling or mentoring. This, in my view, is always the way to fly. Circumstances are never the same and with jobs and markets and technology changing as we speak, it is no wonder that most of us need support at different times for different reasons.
How do you know whether you need this? Well, simplicity is one of the watch words here. If our purpose on this earth is to fulfil our potential and to help others to do the same, then is it working for you at all these levels? Would you say that you have great quality relationships with most people, most of the time? Does one and one make three for you more often than not? For anyone that answers ‘no’ to some of these questions then there is so much help and support available.
Half the battle is recognising that there is a problem.
Leadership and the training budget
In the old manufacturing economy you basically designed it, made it, sold it and eventually got paid.
So for example, 85% of the cost of a leg of lamb in those days consisted of the raw material itself and labour to put the product on the slab for the customer to buy.
Nowadays, in the knowledge economy, 85% of the cost of a Marks and Spencer precooked, frozen Mousaka is in the research and development, the packaging and in training people.
No wonder supervisors struggle if after twenty five years on the payroll they still haven’t had any effective training on being a supervisor. It can be an indicator about the health of the organisation as a going concern. Sometimes directors say “well, we haven’t got the training budget for that sort of thing” and then it’s time to look at the business model itself.
Ineffectual leadership
Sometimes organisations can have such weak leadership of people that those at the operative level are effectively telling those at director level what to do. In other words the junior employees are being allowed to perpetuate outdated, destructive ways of behaving and working because no one knows how to deal with the human issues involved.
This doesn’t happen on purpose of course; it builds up after years and years of neglect. It is most common in traditional, long established industries. Often it isn’t the people themselves who are to blame. After all, if a ‘supervisor’ of twenty five years standing, looking after four men, has never had one days supervisory training, what do you expect?
Temporary service at the top
How is it that a new England football team coach can receive such vilification and hostility after just four games in charge when they won the first two games 5 goals to nil?
I mean if that’s leadership, who wants it? Lots of people apparently.
As the product and service life cycle gets shorter and shorter in the knowledge economy I wonder if the honeymoon period for CEO’s in the Boardroom isn’t going to be curtailed too.
Guess we’d all better start putting the ball in the back of the net.
Talkin’ ‘bout my generation
A senior HR professional was heard to voice her disapproval yesterday at an emailed job application that started “Hi there”.
Alarm bells should ring out for leaders everywhere that are employing old fashioned HR people, however senior, that are deploying redundant thinking. The lady in question is a baby boomer, born between 1940 and 1960. She was referring to an application, not by an ‘xer’, born between 1960 and 1980, but by a ‘millennial’, someone born since 1980.
If it is the leaders primary job to attract, keep and develop the best talent that they can afford, the very last thing they need is HR people rejecting applicants at the first hurdle because of their own personal outdated prejudice.
For those that want to find out more, I recommend ‘Mind the gap’ by Graeme Codrington and Sue Grant – Marshall, published by Penguin.
Directors doing what they say they will do
On development points from a set of director appraisals I try to pick up the essence of what is being said in the room. It can be the tiniest nuance or a raised eyebrow or maybe a sigh at a particular moment in time that is the clue to unearthing a major point for open and honest discussion.
Sometimes development points are right for the organisation, but a bit of a challenge for the individual. Certainly that’s how it can feel for all of us on occasions! That’s why the follow up of exactly how these development points are to be addressed is so important.
The great news for all organisations is that the better the development points are addressed at Board level in the first instance, the more powerful will be similar work with everyone else on the payroll. If on the other hand directors pay lip service to, or effectively ignore their development points then ‘people problems’ of any description will continue to occur.
In the knowledge economy where we all face world class competition, the very last thing anyone needs is unresolved internal competition.
Making an exhibition of yourself
We all have to sell existing products and services to existing markets and that’s called ‘business as usual.’ If that’s all there is to it then we may not need to make an exhibition of ourselves at all.
Then we could try to sell new products and services to existing markets or existing products and services to new markets and that’s called partial diversification.
Finally we could try to sell new products and services to new markets and that’s called total diversification.
In the knowledge economy it could also be called madness.
(written at the B2B exhibition, Ricoh Stadium, Coventry, England)
Networking from the top
I had never really thought too much about the detailed theories behind networking. It always seemed to be something that I know we all have to do and something that I always encourage clients to do, but in a vague, non specific way.
I got my comeuppance on Thursday when I spoke to the London Ecademy group. Thomas Power, joint founder of Ecademy said my talk was great but it could have been brilliant if I had understood either Ecademy or the audience!
He has since kindly sent me his superb ebook on the topic plus a wealth of other information that I can use on my latest, somewhat impromptu development point.
These days we don’t have to wait for an appraisal to get our development points, they can come anytime, anywhere and from anyone!
Intimacy
Some elements of executive coaching are very similar to the CEO’s own appraisal. Certainly we can touch the same levels of intimacy. Is 'intimacy' the right word?
Well development points from an appraisal for anyone can involve discussion around ‘thinking’ and ‘intelligence’, how we use our time, how we use our energy, even aspects of our personality. Development points can include aspects of technical competence, the skills and knowledge required to do the job.
We can and do talk about everything and anything that could affect the organisation.
And what is the most common development point that has arisen from hundreds of executive appraisals I have conducted? It concerns ‘behaviour’.
That is why ‘intimacy’ is the right word.
Executive coaching
Executive coaching usually starts at the business level, discussing competencies that relate to the job.
I can’t tell you how often it ends up discussing competencies that relate to personal life issues.
Because the executive role is ever more demanding in the knowledge economy, it will always have an impact on what goes on at home.
Unless all parties are discussing and evaluating this impact on a fairly regular basis then there will be an even greater need for more executive coaching.
Investors in People in the Board Room
I was doing some work with Investors in People UK in Central London yesterday. As part of our discussions I said that I believed the Standard to be more powerful and more apposite today than at any time in its fifteen-year lifetime.
As I was sitting on the train back to Hereford I wondered what was behind that comment? And more importantly, is it true?
Why should it be that a National Standard that has been in post over a period that has seen the explosion of the Internet and the knowledge economy be even more relevant than ever?
In the group we were wondering aloud when Investors in People Director of Client Relations, Gary Mathews suggested that in a world of incessant change maybe the Standard is the only constant. Maybe it is a safety net, a framework or a stability that allows for creativity and innovation?
After all you can use the Standard in any Board Room of any organisation, anywhere in the world to:
À Clarify Direction
À Develop Trust
À Enhance Performance
These are the three steps that all organisations need to take in order to develop and sustain competitive advantage. I was discussing this concept with Paul Thandi, newly appointed CEO of NEC Group in Birmingham, England only last week. He suggested that if you think about a committed relationship between two people, these three steps would work for them too.
So perhaps that is the answer. The Standard is actually based upon enduring human values. You can draw some similarities between what works for two people that are committed to developing a relationship and what works for a group of people that are committed to developing an organisation.
That is why the Investors in People Standard is still the most powerful business development tool for any organisation.
On the rocks
People ask me how long it can take directors to agree on the bull’s eye for their organisation.
Part of the answer is that some never do. When this happens you have to row back upstream to find out when they first stopped talking to each other, when they first stopped listening to each other, when they first started taking unilateral action and no longer shared ideas.
The longer ago it was, the less likely they are to agree now, and there will be too much water under the bridge. It’s not much different from a personal relationship that is on the rocks.
Sharing the platform with Bob Geldof
We have a ‘business 2 business’ event here in Coventry, England where Bob Geldof, musician, businessman and fundraiser extraordinaire is speaking. It is a two-day event and they expect an attendance of some 2500 company directors over this period.
I got the chance to speak because my topic is ‘transforming executive performance in the knowledge economy’. The knowledge economy and its impact on UK plc is a red-hot subject right now. Newspapers, magazines, radio and TV, everyone is talking about it. And with good reason. BRIC countries, namely Brazil, Russia, India and China are regarded as very serious competitors for the foreseeable future.
Only thing is that with all the talk about Web 2.0 and the internet phenomenon, it is easy to forget that whatever the organization, whatever the sector, wherever it may be, it is still only people that can deliver excellence for customers.
My question for Sir Bob will be ‘How do you reconcile the need for ‘Best Practice’ in organisations with the reality of organisational politics?’
