I must admit to being concerned that people are being pressed to gain “work experience” by working for free for companies. I’m not against the project to enable young people to gain work experience, just that the work is unpaid!

A Panicked multi-millionaire
The label given by David Cameron describing those that oppose the programme as “Trotskyites”, as reported by the BBC, is untrue and shows how panicked the multi millionaire happens to be about getting the peasants back to work!

I agree when Mr Cameron told MPs: “The whole country wants young people given the opportunity that work experience provides.” . It’s essential that young people gain work experience but one aspect of that experience is the individual being given a sense of achievement that’s been appreciated with a reward. In this instance some sort of payment. Even the boy Scouts understood the relationship between reward and service with their “Bob a Job” scheme.

Concern from Business
Concern about the project comes from Supermarket Tesco who changed its policy within days of a protest
at one of its stores, saying it would start to pay those on work
experience and guarantee a job when placements went well.

Baker Greggs has offered 40 placements since June, with 14 of the participants going on to secure permanent jobs. Its chief executive Ken McMeikan said his firm still believed in the scheme but the benefits penalties for those that dropped out had created concern.

Workcamps
In the depression of the 1930s the Government at the time created “Work-camps” for the unemployed where they were centrally housed and “did unpaid work” and these work-camps were in operation up to the start of the Second World War…..
Do I detect the Government doing something similar today but without the camp?

What do you think?

“Is there a world leadership crisis?” was the question posed to me yesterday by someone in the group I was speaking to yesterday.

Lack of political leadership
I had been talking about business team leadership and the question opened up a flood of thoughts that I’d had myself about leadership. In the recent past the world seems to have been led by rather uncharismatic political leaders. A few years ago we had great hopes for President Obamah but due to his problems with Congress his light seems to have faded. The European Community seems to have few politicians who understand or even identify with the people they are leading and their handling of the current debt crisis is leaving many exasperated. Popular revolutions replace dictators with “much the same as before”.

Business leadership not much better
But is business also suffering from a leadership crisis?
Bankers, all over the world, are as popular as a bad smell in a confined space, Journalists, in the UK, are viewed by many people as having little or no moral scruples, business leaders of all shades seen as feathering their own nests with undeserved salary increases and bonuses whilst their workers are laid off and have their salaries cut.
Perhaps it’s not surprising that there seems to be a universal lack of leadership.

Influenced by headlines
In reality, however, it’s always easy to become influenced the “Headlines”. In doing so we can ignore the huge numbers of people beavering away and producing small successes that move a business team forward. In the past few weeks I’ve met dozens of small business leaders that are managing to keep their business teams motivated, enthusiastic for the future and actually growing their business results.

That’s not to say there aren’t difficulties. Youth unemployment is a huge problem, the value of retirement annuities a disaster for many and industries laid bare a tragedy. Yet walk up any street and you notice so many business start-ups. Open up any magazine and you can see new and innovative products. Go into millions of businesses and you can find great team leaders.
I wonder if we can persuade some of these leaders to run for government?

It’s tragic that at the start of the summer, nearly one million 16 to 24-year-olds in England were out of a job, not in education, nor in training. Known as Neets, this group seems to be growing and growing and doesn’t include school leavers this year, according to the latest official figures and reported by the BBC.

The BBC highlights Jordan Millward a 24 year old from Stoke-on-Trent who has two degrees, a 2:1 in politics, and a 2:2 in law, as well as a post-graduate law diploma.
He says “I’ve had no replies to more than 100 applications to different law firms looking for both jobs and work experience I’ve made over the last year, and only two interviews from the 90 plus applications I’ve made over the last two months”.

Little advice from Universities
Why is finding a job so difficult for this group? In discussions with students at my local University it seems that there is very little practical advice is given on how to find a job. I’m told that there is the “odd talk” about developing a CV (Resume) but very little else! Doesn’t this place too many in the area of “working it out for themselves”.

More practical help could and should be given! For instance, why is it that most students know how to use social media to find friends and entertainment at the weekend but they find it difficult to use when looking for a job? Why is it that so few place their details, qualifications and interests on the business pages of LinkedIn, Facebook or other SM sites?

Meet the employer
Perhaps organisations such as the IOD (Institute of Directors), Chambers of Commerce, FSB (Federation of Small business) could help more by regularly offering FREE places at their events for graduates or students to meet people in business and thus potential employers.

A small contribution of my own is given below:

Questions you should ask the interviewer

I do hate it when business use phrases to hide actions in order to reduce the potential impact and effects and one that I find increasingly annoying is “Rightsizing”. This is partly because it’s so often used to replace more accurate descriptions such as Redundancy.

It was used in Management Today “UBS is far from being the only bank which has announced
job cuts recently – everyone from HSBC to Credit Suisse has been busy
‘rightsizing’ their workforces…The job cuts at UBS amount to over 5% of its total workforce “.

Now, I know that “Rightsizing” has been used for some years but surely it’s poor management to have “Wrongsized” in the first place (see Tony Miller descriptions below) but I doubt that it’s the management jobs that are about to be rightsized! You can imagine the  press release from UBS HR was at pains to seem to be “normalizing” the situation but is the term “Rightsizing” the correct one.
 
Thanks to Tony Miller  for giving a reasonable explanation so that we can all make up our own mind!:

Downsizing
Is simply reducing the number of reporting layers in the business to produce a better line of communication and efficiency…Downsizing is a stressful and risky business and should not be carried out by anyone who has not experienced this technique.

Rightsizing
Involves reducing the organisation by a small percentage. By doing this you can keep the organisation trim and in better condition. It can be achieved by a number of painless means such as:
Freezing recruitment
Releasing the long-term sick
Releasing poor performers

Reducing costs is a main focus for all business owners and Director these days. The most obvious cost to tackle are the “people costs” but these also happens to be the most problematical.

The problems
The first problem is that, even in difficult economic times, there’s an inbuilt process in most firms that increases people costs. Once a person is hired increases in pay to keep up with inflation, promotions, increases in employment taxes and so on all add to increased costs. If salaries are frozen or small then there will be increased pressure from staff who claim that they are “Unvalued” and continually justify increased bonuses and promotions. Then there is the hidden future pension costs, often not included in company accounts, but which increase staff cost significantly.

Reducing people costs is an issue that Directors talk to me about almost daily. The problem is that getting rid of staff is often a problem. In some countries it’s almost impossible and even in the UK and the USA the process takes time and substantial management time, which is all cost!

Reducing costs by shedding under-performers
Many Directors and firms find it difficult to reduce staffing levels until forced to do so. Concerns over company morale, culture and team spirit all cause delays in shedding staff. However, the fact is, that often reducing dead wood actually improves the morale of those that remain.

A main flaw
One of the most effective ways to manage staff costs is through a robust performance appraisal system. Yet I’m still surprised at the number of companies that have a poor system of staff appraisal. This is so costly, makes change and restructure difficult. Ideally a good performance review is held every six months, is focussed on targeted results and linked to time-framed development and which actually identifies the best talent as well as the costly talent.

The final stage is to ensure that action is taken to manage the bottom end of the talent pool effectively so that it is continuously pruned.

In announcing that Lloyds TSB are to shed 15,000 jobs over the next three years probably contained little surprise to most people. Indeed there will be many that will be quite pleased that some bankers are reaping what they sowed without realising that the middle management and back-room boys losing their jobs are not those who will be receiving big bonuses over the next three years.

Restructured teams have an increased chance of failure
My real concern is that five thousand job losses each year, for three years, will mean a vast number of teams being restructured. The problem with team restructure is that only 60% tend to deliver targets. That means that 40% of teams fail to deliver on expectations. That’s one big storm of disruption for Lloyds TSB to navigate.

Costs can be huge
The cost of such failure in lost opportunity terms can often amount to ten times the salary of the team and in banking circles that can be  huge! ( a team salary of £1million could produce a potential lost opportunity cost of £10m) However, when one’s focus on savings will be judged on salaries saved the actual costs of the restructure often get ignored.

That is until financial statistics reveal that further jobs have to be cut because the anticipated results haven’t been met!

I’m drawn to watching the apprentice because the producers of the show seem to have brought together the usual group that will inevitably make good television!
Billed as the “cream of UK’s entrepreneurial management” one can only cringe at how some behave and the delusions that they have of themselves. The best line of the night was when one of the men described himself as “good looking too”.

Sympathy for the contestants
However, perhaps I have more sympathy with the contestants this time than in earlier contests. In the past the prize on offer was a job working for Alan, sorry Lord Sugar. Now the prize is £250,000 investment into a business partnership on a 50/50 basis. Thus ensuring Lord Sugar’s continual presence.

On the basis that one chooses ones business partner more carefully than one’s life partner the process seems very one sided when Lord Sugar does all the choosing and ends each edition with…”You’re fired!”

Will the last contestant be brave enough?
When the last contestant is revealed will they, having considered the tedious selection process, Sugar’s knit picking and criticisms and the defence of their own ineptitude in the boardroom week after week, be brave enough to say something like, “Over the past weeks I’ve seen you in action and on reflection I think I’ll find someone else to invest in me”

Now if that were on the cards wouldn’t that make watching the series more fun?

I’m drawn to watching the apprentice because the producers of the show seem to have brought together the usual group that will inevitably make good television!
Billed as the “cream of UK’s entrepreneurial management” one can only cringe at how some behave and the delusions that they have of themselves. The best line of the night was when one of the men described himself as “good looking too”.

Sympathy for the contestants
However, perhaps I have more sympathy with the contestants this time than in earlier contests. In the past the prize on offer was a job working for Alan, sorry Lord Sugar. Now the prize is £250,000 investment into a business partnership on a 50/50 basis. Thus ensuring Lord Sugar’s continual presence.

On the basis that one chooses ones business partner more carefully than one’s life partner the process seems very one sided when Lord Sugar does all the choosing and ends each edition with…”You’re fired!”

Will the last contestant be brave enough?
When the last contestant is revealed will they, having considered the tedious selection process, Sugar’s knit picking and criticisms and the defence of their own ineptitude in the boardroom week after week, be brave enough to say something like, “Over the past weeks I’ve seen you in action and on reflection I think I’ll find someone else to invest in me”

Now if that were on the cards wouldn’t that make watching the series more fun?

The UK’s proposals for change in welfare reforms and the Armed Forces is underway but business change hasn’t been too noticeable for many. However that is about to change. Large companies have begun to implement significant structural change and much more is on the way, starting with HSBC on 11th May.

HSBC to reduce size of branch network

HSBC is announcing changes to its retail operations in the UK in order to lower their cost to income ratio. According to reports the options being considered include:

1. Sale of a significant number of branches.
2. Relocation of the UK retail Head Office from Canary Wharf to a less expensive location in London
3. Removal of layers of middle management
4. The creation of a new ethos where all sections of the bank must contribute profits or be restructured or sold

It’s likely that the changes will follow a similar pattern adopted by other banks and particularly by Bob Diamond at Barclays Bank where each individual business must contribute to profitability or risk being shut down.

Research determined strategy

A great deal of research has been undertaken by banks to determine the strategy that will be most beneficial. Interestingly TSB telephoned me last week to survey my attitude to service levels within my local bank in St Albans.

Too much change can be destructive

It would seem that wholesale change is likely to be implemented by Stuart Gulliver at HSBC. However, in my experience, too much change all at once can cause unforeseen problems. These include:

1. Change instability. Where one part of the organisation is unable to perform properly because of the change happening further upstream or downstream of the product flow.
2. Change fatigue. where individual teams suffer so much change that it stalls whilst they take a breather to collect their shared breath.
3. Time differences. This is where the people that have designed the change are impatient to implement the change and therefore find themselves in a future time frame where they have a vision of the desired results whilst those affected by the change are still firmly set in the past and will cling onto what they know best. To overcome this time difference there needs time for teams to express concerns without being considered disruptive or anti-sponsors of the change strategy.

Complex and all embracing change warrents Directors and managers to be meeting with teams, regularly and consistently with a similar message and reassurance, even when bad news is being delivered.  

I listened with interest a feature on BBC Radio over the Easter holiday talking about how tourism should, be the UK’s main focus and make the UK the world’s leading holiday destination. The Royal Wedding, The Queen’s Jubilee and of course the London Olympics all expect to generate huge revenue from foreign and domestic tourism.

But it was not just events such as the Olympics that are highlighted as the main draws of tourist pounds. London, country houses and castles, the lakes and all parts of the UK were also mentioned in plans to make the UK a primary holiday destination.

UK tourist industry can’t relocate
One of the comments I particularly liked was, “The UK tourist industry can’t threaten to relocate their Head office abroad”. I chuckled at a vision of tourist boss’s taking over the top floor of One Canada Square to look over the jewel in the tourist crown (London) whilst displaced bankers roam the poorer parts on London with their posessions in a black bin liners looking for cheaper office space. 

Business focus changes
I wonder if this represents the discussion, in some quarters, that perhaps the UK could cope with a less influential finance sector and that like past changes in the UK’s business such as the woolen industry, coal, steel, shipping and so on that, like nature, business abhors a vacuum and something would replace it, and why not tourism!

On the other hand instead on focussing on an either or solution perhaps the Banks and the Tourist Boards could share the top floor of Canada Square?