Ruthlessness

I heard the word 'ruthless' in two situations yesterday. And whilst sitting in a guge traffic jam driving home last night - it was one of the ones where people switch off their engines, get out of the car and walk around waiting for it to clear - I was thinking about it.

The first time it came up was yesterday morning when I was involved in one of those "did you watch that programme on TV last night" conversations. The programme in question was 'The Apprentice' with Lord Sugar. I can't remember exactly how we got on to the subject but I think one of the candidates may have described themselves as being ruthless and also my colleague described Lord Sugar as ruthless in the way in which he managed the relationships with the candidates, particularly in the boardroom.

Then it came up again during the evening when I was listening to the Radio 4 programme 'The Bottom Line'. The topic being discussed was being ruthless and the panel expressed some interesting views. Broadly, they agreed that whilst leaders are paid to make tough decisions it's really important to understand the human implications of them and to do so in a compassionate way. That definitely doesn't mean not taking difficult decisions but it does mean making the experience as good as it possibly can be for those people impacted by it. One of the contributors shared that the meaning of the word 'Ruth' is compassion, mercy or pity and therefore by implication being ruthless means behaving in a way that there is an absence of those things. She also expressed the view that no-one would be proud to descrive themselves as a ruthless mother (or father) so why would they be proud to describe themselves in that way at work? And yet, there are hundreds of books extolling the virtues of being ruthless in business. Strange....

I remember in the early part of my career that if a leader was described as being ruthless it was generally used in a positive context, as a character trait that was admirable. It seemed to be an accepted truth that in order to progress up the corporate ladder (and definitely to reach the top of it) leaders had to be ruthless.

I don't believe that's true any longer. I believe there's no place for ruthlessness in modern day organisations. In a world where it's accepted that the route to long term and sustainable business success is by engaging employees and creating a high performance organisational culture, I can't see how being ruthless can contribute. Maybe it's confused with being decisive and prepared to take difficult decisions? Whilst in the past not being ruthless was sometimes seen as a sign of weakness, should being ruth now be seen as a sign of strength?

By the way, if you'd like to listen to the Radio 4 Programme I refer to
above, it's here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b01dvwcz

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

The Problem with Change

In a world in which the pace of change is ever greater, and in an economy in which an inability to change can literally mean business failure, it's critical for businesses to be able to introduce and embed change rapidly and effectively. And yet, research has proven that most change activity fails to deliver the desired benefits. It doesn't seem to matter what the exact nature of the change is, change consistently fails:

• As many as 70% of mergers fail to deliver their intended benefits (CIPD, 2003)
• Re-engineering costs too much and takes too long and expected synergies aren’t achieved (Kotter, 1996)
• When poor integration occurs, leadership attrition soars by 47% within 3 years, productivity drops by 50% and employee satisfaction drops by 14% (Shuler and Jackson, 2001)
• The most common challenges cited are ‘soft’ issues; in particular ‘changing mindsets and the
existing corporate culture’ (IBM, 2008)

Considerable time and money has been spent trying to understand why, so that the process of change can be made more effective. But here's my view of the most important reason: when change is planned, the people elements are usually the last to be considered and have the least robust plans. Organisations rigorously plan plan the financials, the process, the operations etc. but few plan the people experience. Or at least few plan the people experience effectively.

And unsurprisingly this causes issues during implementation, which impact the effectiveness of the change:

• The process of delivering the change often disengages people emotionally, meaning they don’t support it
• The role managers play in the transformation is often disregarded , and they are critical in engaging people rationally and emotionally (both elements are critical for sustainable change)
• Communications are too mechanical and logical and fail to engage people emotionally
• Individuals' agendas are disregarded , and people are left unclear about “what this means for me”
• There is no method for gathering feedback from people throughout the change process, so it’s unclear whether people are ‘on-board’ until it’s too late

Don't put the people elements last. Put them right at the top of the agenda, prioritise the people experience through change, and the desired benefits will be realised and sustained more effectively.

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

The Racing Line and Employee Engagement

A couple of weeks ago in the lead up to the new F1 season, I heard an interview with ex-driver David Coulthard who is now a commentator on television. In it he used a phrase that I thought was interesting. He talked about 'The Racing Line'.

His comments set me thinking and so I did a bit of research on it afterwards. I learned that apparently in racing sports, the racing line is the optimum route for a vehicle to take in order to complete the course in the quickest possible time. When taking a corner for example, the racing line is the one that minimises the time spent in the corner and enables the fastest possible speed through it. The term is most commonly used in motorsport although others sports like cycling and skiing have similar concepts of an ideal line.

I thought about it again this week during a conversation with a client about their employee engagement plans. They are impatient to make progress and want to know the best and quickest way to engage their people. And they're no different to every other organisation I talk to, they all want to make progress quickly. That's no surprise, being agile and able to change is a key competency for every successful business. They are all seeking the racing line.

So is there one when it comes to employee engagement? Well yes, and no. Yes, there are principles that can and should be followed in every engagement programme. And yes, there are levers to pull in every business that will be most effective and have the greatest impact BUT no, they are not the same for every organisation. In the same way that the racing line is different at every circuit because the design of each one is different, so the most effective way of progressing engagement is different in every organisation because the culture of each one is different. Designing a standard approach and applying it for every organisation is like a racer using the same racing line for every track, it doesn't make sense. As the racer seeks the racing line specific to each track so an employee engagement practitioner needs to seek interventions specific to the organisation.

The role of the employee engagement practitioner is to:

• Understand the desired future state
• Understand the current state
• And then design the most effective way of moving from current to future state

That's the employee engagement racing line...

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

A terrible customer experience (and the risk of giving third parties access to your customers)

I've just stumbled across a truly stunning example of a 'special' introductory offer positioned as beneficial to customers but in reality designed from the organisations perspective to take advantage of each customer who responded. There have been numerous examples in the past of companies encouraging you to take a 'free' service for a period and then making it difficult for the customer to exit the service if they choose to cancel it before it becomes permanent. Those arrangements are 'sharp' but not as bad as the one I'm about to share with you....

The business in question is Perform Media Services Ltd on behalf of Football League Interactive. The company provides a service to the majority of football league clubs which enable supporters to see video content and also receive live match commentaries for their team. Keen to grow their list of subscribers, they have been promoting a free two week trial of the service. In truth I don't know whether this has been a promotion through all football league clubs or to a selected number - the example I've come across refers to the experience of a fan at one club in particular.

The story is that he decided to take advantage of the offer. He was aware that after the initial 14 day period he would have to pay. The small-print said ""When your 14 day free access period ends, you will roll onto a 3.99 monthly subscription unless cancelled". He says that after the trial period he wasn't impressed and therefore decided to cancel. I suspect by the way that he intended to cancel from day 1 and was simply taking advantage of the free period, but I don't think that's the point - read on.

Upon cancelling he was notified that he must give 10 working days notice - meaning that the first monthly premium would be taken. In essence it also means that in order to avoid the monthly payment he (and anyone else) would need to have given notice immediately after subscribing to the trial.

I question the legality of what they're doing because the wording of the clause doesn't indicate when cancellation has to be done in order to avoid the payment, but leaving that aside, what a truly amazing example of a business taking advantage of and misleading its paying customers. Do the marketing team there think it's likely that this person will EVER come back to the service in the future. His trust in the organisation is so badly damaged that it's just not going to happen. The broader damage is potentially huge too - the message board he posted his experience on has thousands of visitors each day.

It's also an interesting example of how the relationship with your customers can be damaged by a third party supplier. There's nothing the club can do to put right this injustice apparently but it doesn't appear that he's clear on the distinction between the club and the provider.

If your organisation is collaborating with others to provide a service to your customers, are you sure they're representing your brand in the way you'd want?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

I can't not discriminate, and neither can you.

I had to talk to someone I find difficult yesterday. I like to think of myself as a good natured and amiable person, able to 'get on' with most people. There are very few people I just can't make a connection with - but this person is one of them.

Perhaps you know what I mean because there's someone you struggle with? If so, I'm sure you'll recognise the tell-tale signs in the relationship. Body language is incongruent, there's little eye contact, extreme care not to invade each other's space, stilted conversation. You possibly can't put your finger on exactly why, but you just know that you just don't feel positive about them and negative thoughts go through your mind whenever you think about or meet them. Perhaps you don't like yourself very much because of those thoughts, perhaps you feel guilty about it?

If so, perhaps it'll help you to know that it's involuntary, it's a result of the way in which the human mind works, and it means that each and every one of us discriminate, we're all prejudiced. Not in the way in which we've become conditioned to think of prejudice i.e. race, ethinicity, age, disability religion or sexual orientation but more broadly, dependent on whatever is important to us as an individual.

The thing is that we all filter the hundreds of experiences we have every day. Unconsciously we delete what's not important to us, we generalise to make comparisons with previous experiences we've had and we distort to make things fit with our model of the world. We create an internal re-presentation of each experience in our brain and it's formed based on our values, our beliefs and our memories of previous experiences. It's why we can witness the same event as someone else, and have a completely different view of it. It's because the way we process our experiences is different for every one of us.

On the face of it this might seem to be a bad thing. Far from it, the amount of data we're faced with every day is much too great for us to process. If you don't believe me look around right now and notice, really notice, every detail of everything you're seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. It's overwhelming isn't it? Our brains have to decide what we pay attention to at any moment and it filters out everything it considers to be unimportant. If you still don't believe me than answer this question - "did you notice what your clothes felt like on your skin?" I suspect not, at least until you read this question?" It's because you filtered it out - your nerves received the data and information is constantly being transmitted to your brain but it wasn't important and only by specifically reading the question was your mind brought back to it.

So it's a good thing, but......it the implication is that in the process of deciding what to pay attention to and what to ignore, our brains are discriminating, they're making a distinction in favour of or against something, showing partiality to something rather than another. The bad thing is that we see our experience as reality and assume that our view is 'right', the only valid perspective.

I know I'm discriminating against that person I met yesterday and that it's having an impact on the relationship. Who are you discriminating against? And what's the impact - at work or at home?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: (0044) 07906650019

Don't you just hate clumsy cross-selling!

It's Mother's Day tomorrow - so I joined lots of other fathers out shopping this morning. Cards and chocolates bought, I also decided to get some stamps and buy a newspaper.

As I was in the town centre I went to the main Post Office for stamps. I haven't been in there for quite some time so was surprised (and impressed) with how it looked. It has been refurbished and looked much, much smarter. The screens separating customers from cashiers has been removed. The queueing rails have also gone, replaced by a ticketing system and there's comfortable seating if there's a delay being served. But that wasn't really what was noteworthy for me about th experience.

Whilst passing me the stamps I'd bought, the teller asked if I was intending to travel abroad anytime soon because if I was they sold travel insurance. A bit bemused about where that had come from I said no, took my stamps and left. A few minutes later I called into Spar to buy a newspaper. At the checkout the assistant asked if I'd like some hot-cross buns.

Now I don't mind attempts to cross-sell to me PROVIDING just two conditions are met:

1. The person doing it prepares the ground properly by making their interaction with me more than a simple transaction. They at least have to make the effort to engage me in conversation and develop some rapport. For me that's table stakes, it's them earning the right to even attempt to cross-sell.
2. That I fell their intention is to help me and that it's genuinely in my best interests to know about the product they mention. It's of benefit for me, not for them and by implication their business.

And usually the product should build on or connect with the product being bought. Neither example today fitted these criteria. In Spar, packets of hot-cross buns were piled up next to the checkout and every customer was being asked the same question. I don't know whether that was also the case in the Post Office, but certainly the teller hadn't earned the right to cross-sell and the approach was motvated solely by his desire to achieve sales targets. I guess the approach is that if you ask enough customers sooner or later one will buy.

I understand that of course that in the current difficult economic conditions retailers need to work hard to maintain sales. And I've noticed that more and more are trying to cross-sell to do so. If it's done well and meets the conditions I descrive above I think it's a great strategy but unfortunately most are at best clumsy and at worst may actually be damaging the relationship with customers.

The really disappointing thing is that there's so little thought going into it. The Post Office sell greetings cards, Spar sell chocolates and flowers - and it's Mother's Day tomorrow. In both places it would have been easy and topical to ask if I'd remembered and got everything I needed. Build on the product being bought, talk about something topical, or don't bother and simply deliver the transaction effectively so that the customer comes back next time.

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Hidden, in plain view...

Whilst waiting for an appointment this morning I caught the start of a TV programme about World War II. It opened by explaining that it was presented from the perspective of soldiers who were there, and that the content had been developed by interviewing old ex-servicemen. The narrator went on to explain that given the length of time that has now passed, the number surviving is reducing each year and that those who are still alive are "hidden in plain view". They are simply old men in an aging population, unless you talk to them and uncover the rich stories they have about what happened more than 65 years ago.

That phrase - 'hidden in plain view' - makes you think doesn't it? It makes me think anyway.

What are the things that are hidden in plain view in all our lives because we can't see them? What are we missing about the relationship we have at home, with partners, with children, with wider family? What are the things we miss about our relationship with friends?

At work, what do we miss about the relationship we have with work colleagues? What do we miss about the teams we lead or work in? What do we miss about customers? What do we miss about the culture of the organisations we're part of? All because of the unique way we view the world as individuals, the way we process our experiences, the way we think and the thoughts we have?

I think it's good sometimes to have our view of the world loosened a little, to have the pre-conceived ideas we have whenever we approach any situation shaken a little. In Dante's famous poem 'La Commedia Divina' (the Divine Comedy) there's a few lines which I think I once read are the most quoted in western literature and (depending on which translation you refer to) they read:

"In the middle of the road of my life
I awoke in a dark wood
Where the true way was wholly lost"

The poem is an allegorical vision of the afterlife so perhaps I'm taking this out of context a little but ....perhaps all of us in business would sometimes benefit from getting lost and not 'knowing' the answer, so that we can view things afresh? Perhaps it would enable us to see things which have previously been 'hidden in plain view' and thus to be better at what we do?


LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019