Last night I was at a business networking event and thoroughly enjoying myself when an old contact approached me and started to moan about “how slow business is”. His main misfortune was that companies weren’t buying his product and his pitches seemed to fall on stony ground.

He was downbeat, defeatist and depressed and after spending five minutes trying to motivate him to think more positively suggested that he was not going to improve his situation by spending time me. I was, after all, a friend who was never going to buy from him because I’m not his market and that he needed to be making new contacts, working the room, and not sticking with the familiar.

“Well thank you for being sympathetic!” He said with a growl
I ignored the veiled criticism, smiled and introduced him to the people I had been talking to earlier and who I thought might be in a position to need his expertise. Within a few minutes I saw that he was on his own again.

This morning I hear that retail sales had their worst ever December and thought of my friend. Could we in the UK be, unnecessarily, talking ourselves into another downturn, worried about inflation, afraid of the future, terrified of Government spending cuts and generally making ourselves depressed?

Probably!

I was facinated by Management Today’s article: “Directors seem to have a very different view to the hoi polloi on how business is going…“ and that most senior executives feel secure in their current job and even if they were to be made redundant that finding a new job would be easy.

However, what caught my eye was almost the final line of the article that said, 74% of directors reported a strong collective sense of purpose, compared to a mere 47% of those below them. Not because I disbelieve the statistic but because, in my experience, almost all Directors feel a greater sense of purpose than subordinates.

Most subordinates, on the other hand, have to wade through encouraging and often meaningless “visions, goals and objectives” to determine what’s happening. This was reinforced by a friend who told me last week “There’s no point in being too upbeat and enthusiastic about the company’s prospects, it saves time, tears and disappointment in the long run!”

Perhaps it’s why so many Directors will sigh, run their brow and ask “Why is my team so difficult to motivate?”

Yesterday I was talking to four university students majoring in Engineering. An essential skill if the UK is to pull itself out of the downturn we are entering. No, I did say entering because I believe that with future bank and national failures things are going to get worse for students finding a job after gaining their degree rather than better. But that’s another discussion!

The four comoplained to me that their three-year degree course could be reduced to two because the first year was so basic that they had covered most topics during their last year as secondary school. They also questioned the value of having just two lectures a week available to attend and no tutorials. They were obviously unhappy about the quality of the course.

I can understand that if education is free then one might be reluctant to complain about the frequency of lectures and tutorials but if I were paying £9000 a year then I would battering the doors down for better quality lecturers, more frequency of attention to my future. I might make myself unpopular but then I would hope that “he who pays the piper…”

How in future will students demonstrate their financial power to make their courses more effective to source the best jobs? And how long will it take univerities to listen?

The UK Government announces it’s long awaited budget cuts next week. The result is that over the next few years thousands of civil service teams will be restructured. This will inevitably be felt by private sector companies that supply the Civil Service and companies that supply them. The domino effect of the budget cuts is likely to mean that most business teams in the UK will need restructuring over the next two years.

The problem is that every time a team is restructures three scarce business resources are put at risk. There are time, money and opportunities. Put at risk because statistics show that 40% of restructured teams fail to deliver what is expected.

Risks of Team Restrucure

This is an answer I made to a question on Linkedin today about the failure of leaders to sack under- performing people. I thought it worthwhile also posting my answer onto my blog so that more of my network could read it.

I believer that business is going through a revolution.

In past credit squeezes firms and Governments would shed talent to reduce costs (the UK Government is about to do this again by reducing civil service personnel by up to 25%). The result was that essential knowledge and skills were lost and recovery took longer as a result.
So, this time round, firms have attempted to retain their talent, even those less productive, as leaders hope for a quick upturn. The problem is that the upturn is slow in the west.

Further problems are that with coming food inflation and possible grain shortages, extended insecurity as the credit crunch continues and Government policy that increases tax whilst reduces spending businesses are now being forced to start to look to their staff costs. This means that some of the “good” people will be shed as well as the “bad” and that the trend is to hire part-time employees.

I suspect that the result is that the “business revolution” will generate a significant percentage of the working population having a number of part-time jobs as opposed to a single full time position. (including professional firms such as lawyers, accountants and financiers)

There is security in this position for employees who may be “shed or fired” in that income is not reliant on one employer and totally and immediately lost on redundancy whilst the employer has a capability of expanding and contracting a workforce more easily.

So, in my opinion, it’s not “under-performers being hired or fired” it’s that we may be witnessing a change in the way employment may work in the future.

If you’ve been listening to the news on the BBC today you will have heard that there are 27 Graduates after every job available. It’s daunting to think that almost whatever job we apply for there will be people just as qualified, sometimes better, going for the same job.

So how do we make ourselves stand out from the crowd at an interview and particularly if we don’t have much employment experience behind us?

• Consider the gap year (if you had one or are about to have one) and leverage learning points from that time. Employers are all to willing to listen to “gap year adventures”  as long as they bring to the job some enthusiasm, experience of overcoming problems and a wider focus on the world.
• If you find yourself with time to spare, how can you fill it doing something worthwhile that delivers leadership skills, care skills and so on. Running a youth football team or other charitable work could be something you would find interesting.
• Offering your services to a national or local politician as a researcher or office worker. Who knows, you might get a job out of it.

Make sure that these experiences are added onto your on-line resume (CV) as soon as you start so as to keep people in touch with what you are doing. 

As you can see from previous posts I’ve been investigating how people work on the internet.

The main surprise is just how sophisticated the medium is becoming in allowing people to trade and make money (or perhaps I’ve missed). The ability to have  a website designed in Thailand, upload one’s own or others products (by becoming an affiliate), take payment via Paypal or Clickbank and have a cheque for all that you sell sent to your bank and all within a few days has posed some interesting questions on the future of work.

Let’s first deal with the Hype! An awful lot of people are currently trading on the web and some of them are doing very well. Indeed at a seminar in London last month a parade of such people told an audience of over 800 how they were making anywhere between $2000 a month on Twitter to $20,000 in one week on Facebook. The audience were given titbits of information on “How it was done” and then offered to purchase whole programmes of products where they could do the same by following the speaker’s step-by-step fast cash formula!.

Now, before we go any further, let me say that I have the greatest regard for the organisers and what they are doing to inform people about the possibilities of making meoney on the web. I did, however, fiund the American way of selling through hype, the promise of easy riches and the buy NOW part of the sale because of product scarcity rather galling.

The problems for work and the individuals, as far as I see it, are these:

• I suspect, that it’s going to be a very few in his audience that actually succeed! This may bring depression, feelings of failure and loss of a lot of redundancy money. (More than a few in the audience were seeking to plough their redundancy money into web based sales)
• Trading on the internet is likely to become a “bubble”. Like any other bubble people are believing, being told, that having a product on-line is a path to instant and easy riches. The reality is that those who realise those riches will be the early adopters such as those on the stage at Mark’s seminar, whilst the majority will find the marketplace so saturated, with other traders as well as FREE items, that there are just cents rather than dollars to be earned.

• Another possibility is that Twitter, Facebook, Amazon and possibly governments will find a way of monetising the trade for themselves more effectively and thus reduce the potential for huge incomes.

I later attended another seminar on making money from the web where some in the audience had been selling products on the web for up to five years and barely scraped together a living wage. A few seemed depressed and disheartened and quite possibly were making themselves unemployable in the long run!

Perhaps working solely on the web should carry a health warning?
 

A couple of days ago I was talking to a friend of mine, Chrissie Lightfoot, who has written a great blog titled The end of Lawyers on the changes to how the legal profession will be changing. The article is very revealing and Chrissie has made some excellent observations.

Her blog has caused some discussion with  friends who use the internet for business. It’s been agreed that now we can offer experts in India, China, Thailand and all over the world work that would normally be done very expensively such as marketing, research, print design, professional advice and even pay someone to write our blogs,  monitor the results and only pay for what we have had satisfactorily delivered at a fraction of the price. Why would we want to hire expensive people of firms?

The result must be that professional firms in Europe and the USA must consider that to survive they must identify Micro-niche products that can’t be easily replicated.

Following the strategy paper that Maria and the Sales Director produced a few weeks ago Maria has seen the first team that is being restructured, The Marketing Department.

The post of Marketing Manager and his deputy are seen as being redundant. In future these roles will be done by the Sales Director, who sees himself as an expert on the topic.

This has come as a shock to many people in the company as the Marketing team have been credited with increasing company profile and being instrumental in the development of new product ideas that have kept the company at the forefront of their industry.

The gossip around the coffee machines would suggest that many see this move as the Sales Director “consolidating his position” as opposed to looking forward to the company’s future success.

Government ministers and even some parts of the media  seem to be upbeat about the positive economic prospects in the UK saying that “the worst is over”.

Yet the financial indicators seem to point towards a different scenario. I came across a man in St Albans yesterday who has been out of a job since January and the city is in one of the wealthiest areas of the UK and only thirty five minutes from London.

Then again perhaps a better indicator of what the future holds could be the number of companies re-locating their head offices outside the UK in order to save the costs of future taxes.

McDonalds the US company, which opened its first restaurant in London in 1974, joins
other large US corporations that have based their European operations in
Switzerland, including Kraft, Procter & Gamble, Colgate Palmolive and
Yahoo. Google also chose Zurich for its European headquarters, despite
having a large office London.

Even home-grown UK companies have moved to
more favourable tax regimes. The list includes Regus, the temporary office
supplier, advertising giant WPP and
pharmaceuticals company Shire which are both relocating their headquarters
to Ireland, and Brit Insurance, which plans to move to the Netherlands.
Investment company Henderson set up a new parent company in Ireland.

The one person I do know who won’t be moving to save money will be the poor guy made redundant last January that I met earlier.