A call for creativity... or not?

I am truly fascinated by the latest trends - perhaps call them hypes - about creative thinking, agile management and the like, which are highlighted, promoted and professed by top leaders and managers; albeit that a manager is not necessarily a leader and vice versa, but that aside.

Personally, I do profoundly believe in the fact that creativity is the only tool to increase your chance of survival. Mostly in dire needs, people often become more and more creative, which opens another question, why have we lost so much creativity.

Recently, a Dutch celebrity artist Youp van 't Hek, utterly frustrated by the incompetence - or be it the disinterest - of a mobile phone provider staff to help a customer, despite all acknowledgement that it was indeed their fault, nevertheless no solution was provided. The customer happened to be Mr van 't Hek's son, and when trying to intervene, unsuccessfully trying to contact eventually the managers above, the result was the same zero point zero. 

Upon being able to mobilise similar victims through Twitter - and the number was beyond any one's expectation - the big boss finally personally called the celebrity, fully apologising and accepting full responsibility. In other words, the lack of creativity ("the system does not allow this") has finally exposed the arrogance towards customers. And customers are, as we all know very well, the most important part of your business.

The ramification is not to be underestimated; for the sake of profits, much of the creativity is being squeezed out. When applying for a job, one must fit into a certain template, else one is not making it to the short list, resulting in a standard "thank you very much for your interest, but we have filled the position with a more suitable candidate".

True leaders do understand the need for creativity; it is unfortunately the majority of overly specialised managers, who seem not fully understanding the scope of this message. A recent experienced only highlighted this; where a finance person negatively communicated irrelevant information, resulting in a loss of talented candidates, which the company urgently needed, since they coped with a serious issue. The reason; unjustified and unverified bias.

Creativity in business is undergoing an unfortunate erosion; While being used as a fashionable hit, at the same time it is underlying bad interpretations, bad communication conventions, and poor true management skills.

Time to re-think what creativity really means, and if all candidates should be creative, why letting fairly inexperienced and incompetent HR assistants select experienced senior staff in the first place? Curbing creative and experienced people is going to damage your business in the long run. Many of my clients have finally admitted this mistake. Though, these are the few exceptions.

IT Nostalgia

Not only do we read various articles on IT solutions to keep informed on the latest development; cloud computing, handy tools to accommodate our complex project management projects - we simply function because of our hard- and software.

While typing this article on my cute and compact netbook, I often remember my first computer ever; an acorn electron, bought around 1985 I guess, that needed to be connected to a portable TV and a casette player. In order to load a programme, one needed to be patient for about 5 minutes, while the casette with the software in BASIC was slowly loaded. Every time again. By that time, there were portable wordprocessors (the size and weight of a small suitcase), but this was the first affordable home gadget. Just have a look:

The first PC followed a few years later - with a hard-disk of.... drum roll....... 20 MB! (Guess the RAM was 64 kB). Compared to our present day toys, now subject to much laughter.

But when we imagine what we are used to now, we've gone a long way. Even to the point, ... what happens when your internet connection is down, your laptop doesn't want to boot properly, you lost your excel sheet....

Just to add a bit of nostalgia to the cucumber season ;-)

Customers and Communication

A few days ago, I wrote an article on some observations how it feels being a restaurant visitor. Not that it was from a culinary point of view, but describing patterns how staff was dealing with customers - including myself. It is not my intention to repeat summing up deficiencies in the service - ignoring guests, poor communication, minimal willingness. The feeling, in short, was far from positive. 

What does this have to do with management if it is not a kind of Michelin restaurant guide? Well, the subject is not too far remote, as any business is constantly dealing with clients in its every day performance. The same way, as I can feel frustrated because the waiter/waitress gives me a look as if I am disrupting his/her peace or waiting in vain to get another order, a customer can feel in the event a company does not adequately respond to the customer needs. 

Moreover, I stumbled over another interesting article "People Prefer Incompetence to Rudeness". It illustrates a similar angle on the issue, how you are treated as a customer. The bottom line is, that basically customers like to have a pleasant feeling when dealing with a provider - even in the event, when the requested service or goods cannot be delivered. Better than getting what you want wrapped in rudeness.

It is therefore necessary to keep in mind when you offer services, not to hide behind SOPs or excuses of "too many mails" or blaming a sick colleague; moreover, if the excuse is in fact inexcusable being therefore a blunt lie. That's not what a customer wants to hear. Not providing the proper feedback - or in other words; not fulfilling your promise or expected response - is a big sin in communication. And radiating this image will in the end damage your reputation of the business.

Therefore, put communication high on your priority list. When promising to get back - even if the solution is not (yet) at hand - do get back. Not only is it polite, it is the customer's right - i.e. your obligation.

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...