Change Management...

Not only have I contributed to change management, also at many occasions I had the chance to exchange experiences with fellow managers. You probably know the standard change stories; where staff gets uneasy - up to even hositle - against the announced changes and the process seems like a dragging agonising suffering towards a 'forcefully ' imposed result.

If this is indeed the case, then obviously something has been applied the wrong way. Many mechanisms in every day business life are subject to a real time response requirement: If you see your stocks plummet on the market, you are expected to get rid of them as soon as possible, else you face a big loss - unless you are a gambler-type, relying on a full bounce-back. Or if demand is high and commodity scarce we know that prices go up... 

Yet in other areas, which should equally respond more dynamically to market changes, this assumption seems almost non existent. Only after a decade or so, a department realises, it is applying inefficient or over outdated processes. Why does management - and it happens often enough - underestimate needs for changes, such that when it becomes unbearable a thorough turnaround becomes imperative - and is unnecessarily adding up to the distress?

Understanding, that e.g. on the technology side, one is to a degree limited by a status of hardware implementation for a set life-span. Nevertheless, many changes are a sign of reacting too late.

Businesses should understand that a business process or a philosophy may be just a temporary desirable state, needing adjustment the moment the external factors shift. Darwin's theory would also easlily apply here; not the strongest survives, but the fittest - the one, who knows immediately to react adequately to a change. Keeping this in mind as one of the business objectives can prevent much pain and agony from costly and too complex change management exercises. Better to regularly visit your doctor and take his advice to heart, rather than waiting too long, where perhaps in the worst case even the doctor would no longer be able to help the patient. 

Workable partnerships

As an interim manager, one has the opportunity to see and compare a number of clients - either simultaneously or at least within relatively short time-intervals. It provides a person with many valuable insights and experiences on how management ticks; different styles in different situations, for different branches of industries, and the like. No schoolbook is able to provide such a rich baggage to a professional.

When getting better acquainted with a new business, one always discovers the overall functioning of the place. In fact, the role of the interim manager implies that (s)he blends in as smoothly as can be - and not only with regard to the designated portfolio. The (short-term) duties and responsibilities require a very pragmatic but most of all a very critical point of view, which should avoid falling into hidden trap that could lead to a grave problem.

The expectation nowadays in general is that candidates are team-players, and taken from experience, this is usually dangerously misinterpreted as a jolly get-along-well conformist attitude. It reminds me sometimes of a teen-age couple, who fully infatuated dream of days of wine and roses. When two business partners get together, like in private life, one should be equally accepting the fact, that even the most "beloved" partner will have a flaw, and maybe especially the apparently less ideal types will turn out to be the most loyal and contributing most to the business. 

In real life, businesses will always have weak links, and this is a reality, which we all need to accept. These weaknesses, are not exclusive for any level; they do occur even at the top. Therefore, assuming that the 'perfect' stereotype profile exists in a candidate; when looking around, I sometimes wonder about the congruency of a company's expectation and the existing culture inside. And yet, this rich variety of profiles is more efficient in the long run than the opposite, as it makes the business more flexible and able to yield external threats. Yet, why do so many managers require the latter instead? Though I know the answer, I leave it as a purely rhetorical question for now.

Understanding (and accepting!) each other's position, input and skills is very important. A team member (down or up), not getting sufficient room - to expand either skills or talents - will soon become a drop-out risk, which is always a drain for the company. Business only succeeds, when both company and a team-member/candidate find a workable partnership A workable partnership is based on mutual acceptance, and especially accepting the enriching variety. Sadly enough, we focus too much on too many irrelevant details, and are no longer able to see the overall strategic objective. Learning to re-gain this ability is the only way towards a win-win situation. And believe me; happy people make happy bosses.

A false Sumo comfort - a failing HR in time of crisis

In the past few weeks, I have had many interesting discussions with several headhunters, HR managers and top management consultants. It could be perhaps sheer coincidence, but when discussing certain trends within the HR area and comparing these to the ideal world, all of them were in a strikingly similar agreement. One would say "well of course, as professionals they should be since certain matters depend on basic common sense". I could agree, were it not, that what they identified as being preferable, is - generally speaking - exactly the complete opposite of what is happening in today's HR.

Despite the fact, that we can find many indeed very useful articles and discussions on the internet, which sufficiently highlight certain pitfalls, hiring processes and managing staff development seems to be rather an area, which seemingly hardly any business fully understands. An astonishing paradox. But a paradox, which is not merely a philosophical chat around dinner table, but can potentially be of danger to your business, and therefore shoudl not be underestimated.

The current level of most (please note, I say "most" since there are some exceptions fortunately) HR processes is conducted by people, who do not have the necessary predisposition to control this. Not just that a junior HR assistant is doing an intake interview, just following a standard check-list, but the senior level hardly being concerned about development and having a feel for the feedback of staff. A check-list, no matter how well assembled by experienced people, is hardly a guarantee that the interview's outcome is indeed reflecting a correct image of the candidate. Is this to be blamed on the junior assistant? No, it's the management's responsibility. 

Management, on the other hand, seem to be over-indulged in either reporting and/or trying to blindly comply with the directives from above, mostly without any true responsibility of strategic ownership of the problem. Do you really believe, they will report failures as openly as you would wish? 

There is generally a false sense of security among businesses, believing that once a process is set, it is therefore functioning properly. Like a Sumo wrestler - the heavier he is, the most likely he will win. Not quite. For real Sumo experts will tell you, that even a lighter opponent, provided he has the agility, technique and a good sense of timing, is able to floor the heavier opponent - sometimes within seconds. 

When browsing through all possible HR related sites, it is striking, that most articles are about how the candidate should dress, how to answer, how to interpret the candidates non-verbal langauage, how a "professional CV" should look like, and so on. It is a bit alarming, that we focus so much on the candidate's presentation and hardly question the skills of our HR people: why is a capable and motivated candidate rejected? One can always find a list of reasons, but businesses should also be aware of many missed chances by rejecting the right people, who could have had contributed far beyond the companies expectations. Instead, they prefer to wait for another couple of months without a vacancy being filled. 

Recently, I came across a company, which was desperately looking for a person (on a strategical position). The company was not able to define precisely what they expected from the candidate, and perhaps half of the town's population went for an interview, with no success.

A poorly equipped HR, where people only carry out standard operating procedures (an in the long run become catastrophic for your company. Talking about the crisis is a lame excuse - especially now companies shoudl take heed and brace themselves. Without having properly competent, skilled and flexible staff, even the best leader/manager is worth nothing. Your staff and only your staff is your biggest asset - not an expense. Understanding their needs is essential.

Coincidentally, an interesting article appeared this week the Dutch media, where it clearly stated; businesses that are not listening to their employees are facing more problems. Management is not about making profits or sticking to forecasts. Forecasts should adequately be adjusted to the circumstances. Remember, it's not the dinosaurs that survived - rather the tiny mammals, who finally took over. See to it, you get really added value to your company and utilise the know-how. Not an obsolete abdstract inefficient rusty bureaucratic process. Please, show me more vision and good leadership.

If we are social beings, then why...

We have all learned that human beings demonstrate social behaviour; we interact, communicate and unlike our co-inhabitants of the earth, we have the ability not only express immediate hunger, fear or happiness, we can relate abstract thoughts as well. Since the emergence of internet the world has become a small place. While the beginning of our on-line activities was fairly limited, nowadays we have - not surprisingly - social platforms; where we can interact with people we have in reality never met, yet the interaction is direct enough, though virtual.

In school we are being encouraged to give well founded presentations, to give input in order to improve the strength of the group (team) and social networks and blogs have provided a provoking tool to express our thoughts. Seems to be a wonderful world. Until you enter world of professionals...

In many encounters with HR, I have noticed an alarming trend, where companies seem to have lost touch with human beings; respectively their workforce. When I come to a job interview, I must be able to recite correctly answers (many times to predictable standard questions). One flaw, and I will be labelled insecure. When interviewed, I am expected to dress a certain way, sit a certain way, gesture a certain way, answer a certain way, and so on. In short - the candidate must become a uniform mass produced servile product, which easily fits into the categories.

Recently, I have encountered a company, despite the fact that they were desperately in search of a certain candidate, they have rejected half the city population, but not being able to indicate their exact requirements. 95% of the candidates were perfectly fit for the job, yet for misty reasons, the HR person was not capable to make a choice (in the meantime, the vacancy was not filled, and logically this is not advantageous to the operational ability of the company... ). 

One cannot be but profoundly amazed and wonder, what is it that companies are indeed looking for? Merely cheap workforce, without the slightest imagination, submissive enough to be moulded according to the company's mindset? Then where is the potential strength that we are so encouraged during our education years?

Perhaps the market is still bad(ish) but there will come a point, where the companies could suddenly be faced with a crisis of a different kind; flexible and creative thinkers, who can make the vital difference whether the company will survive or not. We are social beings, but in our HR-world the workforce is sadly enough treated as an expense, not as an asset, and all our human treats that are in fact added value are becoming rather liabilities.

About time to take a step backwards and rethink which way we have chosen to go...

Part timers?

A few months ago, I was watching a programme on Dutch television. One of the guests was a sociologist, who made a survey on gender diversity; to be more specific - the state of women in top management positions. She presented her new book and some of the conclusions were discussed. My very own experiences in a Dutch environment has given me some materials for comparison - especially in the setting of Central Europe - but suddenly it made me realise one typically Dutch specific.

Unlike in many other countries, there are relatively more women at management positions. So has Sweden, you could argue. Right, but with a slight difference - which even never occurred to me: Dutch women seemed more content in management positions than their Swedish counterparts and the reason was; Dutch businesses offer the opportunity to work part-time. Not referring to the receptionist, working only in the afternoon. Indeed part-time for management functions. 

I shall not elaborate the gender topic per sé but what I found more striking is the given that the deadly myth, that part-time working kills one's career, seems not to be completely true and perhaps should be reconsidered as a whole. Worthwhile to think, why we have so many cases of burn-out? - managers having worked (more than) full-time seem to have landed at a limit only around their forties - even though they should still be able to perform another twenty more years... 

We focus too much time on short-term profits, which is proving frequently as failure; getting maximum yields, squeezing out all possible resources, but hardly have a feeling for the long-term strategic stability, which is the only assurance for business continuation. A more comfortable work-environment creates an additional loyalty of employees, which is another valuable asset, if not vital.

Part-time work could be rather a healthier concept to a more effective career than we have assumed till now.

Home office

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do" a song by Billy Joel, based on a popular saying. The meaning of the proverb is quite clear, I think. Yet, as having lived in various countries, my activities in the CEE region give me a certain culture shock. Even though, modern technology has brought the whole globe closer together, and business practices either from California, Hong-Kong or Malta are not so distant any longer, some differences in practices are still apparent. 

Commuting to work is a bothersome part of your day. Perhaps in most cases inevitable, yet it depends, whether that is an absolute truth. The Dutch government, for examples, for years faced urgent problems regarding the overly crowded highways, causing every morning hundreds of miles of traffic jams. The problem is not merely an "annoying feeling" of being stuck and coming late to work by a couple of minutes. Economically, it is a drain of several billions of Euros on a yearly basis. Challenges of a crowded country, where space (for infrastructure) is relatively scarce.

One of incentives given to employers by the state was to encourage working from home. Not necessarily full time, but one or two days, would made a considerable difference. Not only diminishing traffic jams - and thus the fluency of the supply chain is less obstructed - but equally the CO2 emissions of exhaust fumes is reduced.

The Dutch have a widely accepted working from home concept. When discussing this in Slovakia e.g., this is still regarded very exceptional - only for the CEO, or suspecting the employee is lazily dodging his job. The contrary is true; in practice, the home-worker will be relieved from wasting his time and gasoline in a traffic jam, feeling less stressed, perhaps be even less disturbed by his colleagues - continuously barging into his office. Less stress and better focused (Sitting in the office a number of hours, is never a proof of being productive all the time).

My own experience with home-working is very positive and I can highly recommend to implement it. But as with everything, it takes time before society accepts a new trend. It certainly improves your work-life balance (another subject to write about).

Networking... or notworking

Business in the old days used to be a bit different - though the principles should have been, generally speaking, similar. Let us imagine an ancient Greek market-place, where local goods were traded (olives, sheep, cloth and the usual stuff). A merchant would sell his products, for which there was a certain demand, and accordingly he expected a price to be paid, such that he could subsist. Even in this most crudest form of business under the warm Mediterranean sun of those days, the main core of doing business was ... mutual trust. A buyer not trusting the quality of the olives would not buy them. Even if the merchant were to fake being trustworthy and the consumer found out later, the reputation of the merchant would put him out of business. Clear enough.

Nowadays, we send mailings, deal with online marketing, including blogging in order to present our merchandise to potential clients. But one of the intriguing tools for doing business are networking platforms like LinkedIn, MySpace, Facebook, Xing and the like. On a daily basis, I do wonder, what in fact people expect from them. I shall briefly describe my feelings regarding LinkedIn:

One can find one's potential contact either by group membership (e.g. belonging to European IT Consultants, of UK HR Professionals) or by regional searches (all CFOs within 15 miles of your residence). Up to the user... so it seems. 

While I have miraculously found ex-colleagues, whom I worked with ages ago, and it was nice to re-connect, I have gained some very interesting contacts of people, who have an added value either because they give essential contribution to discussions, some provide a lead. In some cases, I wonder, what the objective is.

Unfortunately, there is a whole host of users, who simply seem to acquire as many contacts as possible (prestige i.e. status?), but when sending a short message to actively communicate, there is no response. Most annoying are people, who 'portray' themselves as being open to business contacts, then suddenly turn your application down with "I don't know the person", giving the applicant a bad reputation of being a kind of a spammer.

This comes back then to the Greek market place. Perhaps as if because of all these hi-tech gadgets and tools, business (people) seem to have forgotten about the "trust-aspect". If users on social networks behave in such a way, which does hardly do any good to mutual trust, it gives not only a clear signal what kind of business people they are, it also pollutes the place. Communication is the only tool to create that trust. Without it I don't know what you want, they do not know what I want, so what's the use of linking? But are they really lacking true interest, or is the quantity of contacts simply an overkill of information, which they're no longer able to handle?

In my case, from time to time I filter my contacts - those who seem only link-collectors with no demonstrated interest for communication shall be eliminated. Simple as that. Never mind the 500+, 1000+, or more champions.
Meanwhile, when writing this article, I got a craving for Greek olives. Cheers!

Business in the old days used to be a bit different - though the principles should have been, generally speaking, similar. Let us imagine an ancient Greek market-place, where local goods were traded (olives, sheep, cloth and the usual stuff). A merchant would sell his products, for which there was a certain demand, and accordingly he expected a price to be paid, such that he could subsist. Even in this most crudest form of business under the warm Mediterranean sun of those days, the main core of doing business was ... mutual trust. A buyer not trusting the quality of the olives would not buy them. Even if the merchant were to fake being trustworthy and the consumer found out later, the reputation of the merchant would put him out of business. Clear enough. Nowadays, we send mailings, deal with online marketing, including blogging in order to present our merchandise to potential clients. But one of the intriguing tools for doing business are networking platforms like LinkedIn, MySpace, Facebook, Xing and the like. On a daily basis, I do wonder, what in fact people expect from them. I shall briefly describe my feelings regarding LinkedIn: One can find one's potential contact either by group membership (e.g. belonging to European IT Consultants, of UK HR Professionals) or by regional searches (all CFOs within 15 miles of your residence). Up to the user... so it seems. While I have miraculously found ex-colleagues, whom I worked with ages ago, and it was nice to re-connect, I have gained some very interesting contacts of people, who have an added value either because they give essential contribution to discussions, some provide a lead. In some cases, I wonder, what the objective is. Unfortunately, there is a whole host of users, who simply seem to acquire as many contacts as possible (prestige i.e. status?), but when sending a short message to actively communicate, there is no response. Most annoying are people, who 'portray' themselves as being open to business contacts, then suddenly turn your application down with "I don't know the person", giving the applicant a bad reputation of being a kind of a spammer. This comes back then to the Greek market place. If users on social networks behave in such a way, which does hardly do any good to mutual trust, it gives a clear signal what kind of business people they are. But are they really lacking true interest, or is the quantity of contacts simply an overkill of information, which they're no longer able to handle. In my case, from time to time I filter my contacts - those who seem only link-collectors with no demonstrated interest for communication shall be eliminated. Simple as that. Never mind the 500+, 1000+, or more champions.

Business in the old days used to be a bit different - though the principles should have been, generally speaking, similar. Let us imagine an ancient Greek market-place, where local goods were traded (olives, sheep, cloth and the usual stuff). A merchant would sell his products, for which there was a certain demand, and accordingly he expected a price to be paid, such that he could subsist. Even in this most crudest form of business under the warm Mediterranean sun of those days, the main core of doing business was ... mutual trust. A buyer not trusting the quality of the olives would not buy them. Even if the merchant were to fake being trustworthy and the consumer found out later, the reputation of the merchant would put him out of business. Clear enough. Nowadays, we send mailings, deal with online marketing, including blogging in order to present our merchandise to potential clients. But one of the intriguing tools for doing business are networking platforms like LinkedIn, MySpace, Facebook, Xing and the like. On a daily basis, I do wonder, what in fact people expect from them. I shall briefly describe my feelings regarding LinkedIn: One can find one's potential contact either by group membership (e.g. belonging to European IT Consultants, of UK HR Professionals) or by regional searches (all CFOs within 15 miles of your residence). Up to the user... so it seems. While I have miraculously found ex-colleagues, whom I worked with ages ago, and it was nice to re-connect, I have gained some very interesting contacts of people, who have an added value either because they give essential contribution to discussions, some provide a lead. In some cases, I wonder, what the objective is. Unfortunately, there is a whole host of users, who simply seem to acquire as many contacts as possible (prestige i.e. status?), but when sending a short message to actively communicate, there is no response. Most annoying are people, who 'portray' themselves as being open to business contacts, then suddenly turn your application down with "I don't know the person", giving the applicant a bad reputation of being a kind of a spammer. This comes back then to the Greek market place. If users on social networks behave in such a way, which does hardly do any good to mutual trust, it gives a clear signal what kind of business people they are. But are they really lacking true interest, or is the quantity of contacts simply an overkill of information, which they're no longer able to handle. In my case, from time to time I filter my contacts - those who seem only link-collectors with no demonstrated interest for communication shall be eliminated. Simple as that. Never mind the 500+, 1000+, or more champions.