I was not surprised to recently read that graduates aged around 29 feel unappreciated, unrewarded and unless it changes are about to leave the games field (their current employers) and take their ball with them.

As we know generation Y refers to people born between 1985 and 2000 and if one believes the Great Expectations Report published by ILM and Ashridge Business School their expectations of employment aren’t being met.

They had better get used to it
When I told a friend of this his reply was “Well, they had better get used to it. Who’s expectations are being met in this current business climate” and then went on to talk about the “poor products” that come out of universities and business schools that I thought a bit harsh.

However, the research in the report states that 45% of the group believe their salaries are below expectations. 38% think their career opportunities disappointing and that over one third (40%) will be thinking of leaving their current job within twelve months.

Talent pipeline
Whilst this report shouldn’t be a surprise, as far as my experience goes if you ask any group of employees if they are happy a large proportion won’t be and will be looking for employment elsewhere. However, for businesses trying to create a pipeline of talent able to be the managers of the future the thing I would suggest is not to panic. Some turnover is good and if you’re hanging onto the majority of the employees you find most useful through targeted actions then it’s as good as one can hope for.

Then again there was the useful piece of advice from the ILM Chairman Peter Cheese, “How employee groups are managed is integral to holding onto them.”
Now there’s something new!

Quite a stir was caused this morning on Twitter when I suggested that Lack of talent is the biggest obstacle to growth but many businesses don’t have tools to find and keep talent in place.

A couple of people suggested that this Tweet was bull**t and that “Tools don’t find and keep talent; you need good managers for that”. A sentiment, by the way, that I wholly agree with! However, good management rarely operates on its own and often needs to use techniques, models, processes and past experience to guide actions and decisions and these I call “Tools”. In fact I would add that utilising tools in this way is a sign of “Good management”. Trying to manage without tools is often identified as “poor management”.

Now I enjoy having my thoughts and articles challenged and contradicted, it’s what makes for good debate and learning and I’ve got used to my “pearls of wisdom” being dismissed by those unable to understand the subtleties of what I’m saying, but I do wish that they would do so using logic and experience. “Bull**t” is so difficult to reply to! 

One of my best friends popped in for dinner last night. Over drinks we talked about how his business was managing with the financial downturn. Increases in unemployment, London riots and business difficulties were all discussed but I was delighted when he told me that his business was “Doing better than expected”. I heard about the new business plan that I expect will generate a healthy growth for the next year.

“What keeps me awake at night”
He’s managed to avoid laying people off work and whilst he wasn’t hiring people he was intending to restructure his team. The thing that was keeping him awake at night was that the restructure might cause some of his good people to leave. “I know jobs are hard to find right now but good people are still able to move quite easily” he explained.

5 Point Plan solution
After discussing much of the content of an article I wrote some months ago HERE for IQPC we talked about strategies for retaining his good people. In the end we settled on a five point plan. It would be specific to detail in this blog post but if you’d like to hear how we arrived at the solution then email me at stephen@assimilating-talent.com and we can arrange a SKYPE call and I can fill you in. 

Over the past few weeks I’ve been talking to some managers responsible for teams of sales assistants in large retail shops. The task was to show them how they could restructure their team’s approach to customers that would generate an increase in sales.

In this videoclip I tackle two main problems.
The first is the problem with asking “Can I help you?” that too often destroys a sale.
Secondly, how to generate multiple sales

Contact Stephen by email: stephen@assimilating-talent.com

Yesterday I had a great time with some business friends discussing the scandal of the NOTW and Rupert Murdock’s business empire. We all agreed that there have been lots of occasions when businesspeople believe their created image that they then become paralysed when things start to go pear shaped.

“You’re brilliant”
Director paralysis isn’t new. This often comes from having people around you that always tell you how brilliant you are. The more a business leader hears it the more they come to believe it. Murdock’s thousands telling him how brilliant he is seemed, at the start of the scandal, to create a paralysis of understanding of the seriousness of the situation. This, as is so often the case, was translated by the UK public as being arrogance.

Then again I’ve observed Directors of much smaller companies believe their own image and create similar problems for themselves. Like the Sales Director who joined an insurance company saying he had come to “save the company” when most people didn’t know, or believe, that it needed saving.

Or the Managing Director who told me that in twenty eight years at the head of his business he’d not made a “New hire mistake ever”. In fact he told me that he could identify a success when “they walked through the door“. His staff turnover was very high and continually created problems for his sales.

“Remember you are mortal”
As generals drove through the ancient Rome after winning a war a slave at the back of the chariot would whisper in their ear “Remember you are mortal” in case they believed the crowd’s adulation. I wonder how many CEO’s would consider hiring someone to continually question their thinking, just in case they thought themselves infallible?  

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 was at a meeting today at the IOD (Institute of Directors) and the discussion included a reference to the “Evil Twin Syndrome” which is the fact that one sees the best in a person at the interview. As my old boss used to say “They will always be at their smartest at the interview”

During the probationary period they will be perfect. Work hard and even do overtime. Then the day after a satisfactory probationary period there arrives “The Evil Twin”. The individual who is argumentative, difficult to manage and screams “unfair” at every opportunity.

However, having identified that most managers have suffered from the syndrome it’s also  true to say that at some time in one’s career one has probably also been “the evil twin” and caused some manager to go prematurely grey!

A number of friends are having a debate over the different emphasis that employers should place on qualifications and experience when looking for top talent employees.

Some place greater emphasis on a paper qualification such as an MBA and Degree and suggest that they prove capability and a level of knowledge to do a job. This group acknowledges the importance of experience but would automatically disqualify a job applicant without a qualification.

Those that support experience suggest that paper qualifications, whilst necessary, don’t demonstrate essential entrepreneurial skills such as imagination and drive. These can only be demonstrated by “past success in previous positions” and “related experience”. In addition, they point out, a twenty-year old degree is of little value in the current workplace!

The questions I have are these:

• When would it be appropriate or sensible to hire a person without a qualification?
• At what point do qualifications become less relevant than experience?

The report showing serious concerns raised by the NHS care regulator about the way some hospitals in England look after elderly patients highlights a problem in the management of health care for the elderly. But is this a general problem of management in the UK?

The Care Quality Commission said three had failed to meet
legal standards for giving patients enough food and drink and treating
them in a dignified way. Not surprising then that people are puffing out their cheeks and saying that it’s disgusting and that things must change.

Rules, rules  and Regulations
The problem is, how? The UK and much of Europe is weighed down and being murdered with regulations on this and directives on that. Indeed one of the explanations we all understand for people prevented from doing something quickly is “Health and Safety mate”. We shrug our shoulders and accept the inconvenience.

This was demonstrated to me twice yesterday when, funnily enough, I was visiting a hospital to talk to some executives and offered a cup of tea. I picked up the pot from the counter to pour the cup for myself to be told that I had to allow my host to pour it in case I spilt hot water over myself, “Health and Safety”. After being handed the cup of hot liquid to hold I marvelled that I was allowed to drink the dangerous liquid on my own!

The second situation I came across was the location of a lead free electric kettle. “Which shouldn’t be too close a sink in case the water from the sink caused an electric shock”. Again Health and Safety was quoted!

Statistics before customers
I agree that business needs to record information, particularly for those in hospital that will aid recovery but this shouldn’t be at the expense of providing the service that the customer or patient expects? Would it not be possible to design a system that allowed nurses more time to administer care as opposed to filling out forms?

But hospitals aren’t the only area where this question could be applicable. Too often in business we record statistics, create and follow procedures and are constrained from giving a good service because the rules don’t allow the time to allocate towards giving the customer what the customer wants.

Sign above the door
It reminds me of the time when a company wanted to increase customer handling and I asked a Director about the policy for making customers feel welcome. The answer was, “We have a sign above the door “Welcome to the store” and every receipt has “Thank You” printed on it”.

A couple of days ago I was telephoned by Barclays Bank call-centre. The caller was enquiring if the business was “happy with the service I was receiving from the bank”.

Happy with my bank?
Now moving bank is a tedious and time consuming operation and something only done if one is very upset with the level of service or to make substantial savings. I will say that I’m not unhappy with my bank, HSBC, and I told her this. Nevertheless, after discussing the business history and some of our future plans she persuaded me that a visit to the branch of Barclays could highlight some useful benefits. A convenient appointment with the branch Business Manager was made.

When I sat down with the “Business Manager” to discuss how Barclays could help my business it became apparent that he thought I was to “open a new account”. He didn’t “sell” Barclays as an alternative banking possibility and was confused as I sat there expecting to hear some “good news” that would encourage me to move my account.

Intrigued by the lack of awareness of my visit I questioned him and he confirmed that he had not spoken to the person who generated the appointment. As a result he knew nothing about me nor my business other than my name and the time of my appointment.

We agreed that by arranging the appointment for me the operator had simply fulfilled her objective of getting appointments with him. So, despite being told to the contrary, it was now obvious that the Bank’s staff were no more interested in me or my business…simply fulfilling their quota and meeting targets.

A costly lost opportunity?
The problem was that in fulfilling their individual targets the bank’s team had completely missed the larger target, which was to persuade me to to move my money to their bank.
As a possible customer my resulting view of Barclays is that it’s inefficient and doesn’t even to communicate between cross functional teams. Good for my business?…probably not!

It was a wasted opportunity for the bank, wasted time and money in contacting me and via this blog some avoidable adverse publicity.
Was it a waste of time to me… absolutely not…I had the topic for another blog post!