CNN reported that HSBC has announced that 3,000 people – roughly 10% of its
workforce – will be out of a job by 2013 and are part of the bank’s plans to eliminate 30,000 positions worldwide.

Other banks making huge numbers redundant include Bank of
America, the largest bank in the U.S., plans to shed between 25,000 and 30,000 jobs as reported in the Charlotte Observer . In Stockholm, Nordea, the largest bank in the Nordic region is to cut 2,000 workers. The Dutch bank ABN Amro has announced that it will cut 2,350 jobs. The Daily Telegraph has reported that Lloyds TSB will be cutting 15,000 jobs, Barclays 3000 and Goldman Sachs 1000.

A payroll cut is instant money
Banks are looking for ways to boost their
bottom lines – and as employees
represent around 60% of a bank’s expenses a payroll cut is instant
money.

Another reason is that as banks increase salaries and reduce bonuses they find that whilst bonuses could be easily adjusted to reflect the bank’s financial performance, salaries are a fixed cost. So rather than axe bonuses, banks are axing bankers.

A future problem
In my experience when team personnel are restructured there is the need to restructure work processes and determine new targets and work outcomes. In effect there is a NEW TEAM and new teams are likely to achieve their anticipated results only 60% of the time.

This failure rate (40%) can cause huge losses on the bottom line and delay mission critical outcomes unless clear management of the transition situation is carefully implemented. In my experience the more team change that’s implemented at the same time the more likely there is to be a failure. 

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!

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.