I must admit to being fed up of attending a business meeting and to have to listen to a pimply faced executive that is out to impress colleagues whilst saying nothing that he can be blamed for.

For the most part the use of such phrases are pompous and meaningless. Examples that I’ve heard in this last week include: “Targeted cost initiatives”, “Client care identification programme” and “Positioned service excellence programme”.

Coupled with this is the language from the internet such as HMU (Hit me up) meaning text me or email me that Facebook has revealed is the most used terms alongside “World Cup” and the only person in the top ten list “Justin Beiber” (for the benefit of my older readers and those without young kids he’s a Canadian teen pop idol).

Actually I tend not to keep up with the language and just pretend to be stupid. At the end of the talk I raise my hand and ask for an explanation of how the “Service excellence programme” will work and how, exactly, it will be positioned” and what “data” was used to identify the need in the first place.

Generally the individual is so confused by the request that the information is repeated using clear, everyday language that everyone can understand.
 

Lucy Kellaway’s brilliant article in yesterday’s Financial Times on “The not so delicate art of firing people” where she analysed two emails giving staff bad news. Her conclusion that “using an upbeat tone is a cowardly attempt to hoodwink staff into thinking something good will happen”, was spot on!

It reminded me of an email that was given to me by a friend that was designed to be motivational, and I guess was in a funny sort of way as it had the effect of binding the team even harder against their team leader. This is what the IT team found in their email inbox when the team leader had just departed for a weeks holiday.

“I am sending you this email because whilst I’m away I don’t want you to feel leaderless. I view my job like being the leader of a flock of geese. I have the responsibility to guide the flock to new feeding pastures.

Generally I will take the lead so that weaker geese can fly in my slipstream but sometimes I will allow another goose to take the lead to provide experience of leading the flock. Whilst I’m away I hope that some of you will take the opportunity to take the lead until I return to guide you once more“

On receipt an email was sent to the rest of the team by someone who said ” I hadn’t realised that for the last six months I’ve been flying round in circles to God knows where whilst looking up a Ducks arse”

Yesterday I had a very interesting telephone call from a friend who outlined some changes he was making to his work team. After an hour of listening to his proposals and the reasons why he was changing people’s work objectives and targets I couldn’t fault his logic.

The research for the “need to change” had taken six months and loads of statistics analysed and, as a result, the proposed alterations in people’s jobs and deliverables were both logical and led by market expectations.

I then asked “So what’s the next step?”
I’ve called a meeting of the team at the start of January and I’m going to tell them”.
“And what do you think their reaction will be?” I asked
“Some will agree and some will hate it…but they’ll just have to do it!“

It took me some time to explain to my friend that whilst he had spent six months of research into generating his ideas he was proposing to give those affected just a few hours to understand the logic and accept it. In fact he was hoping for universal acclamation and presumably “thanks” for his hard work and his proposals.

Too often those that plan team restructure have lived with their thoughts for many months. Their thought have gone through the process of  rejecting some ideas and accepting others to create a logical outcome. When introducing change there needs to be an understanding that those affected will move through similar thought processes and need time to do so.

This is because resistance to change is built into the very structure of most companies.

Like so many people in the UK I watched the student riots over eduction fees with concern together with a sense of a feeling that this might be the start of a series of such demonstrations.

However, what has got me thinking is the number of people who so obviously caused damage, assaulted police or threw missiles whilst being recognised through photographs and TV coverage. The consequences of this are likely to be prosecution, possible loss of their place at university and their future career affected. It’s interesting that in the near future this is likely to become their “personal brand image” as far as future employers are concerned.

Yet this type of behaviour isn’t restricted to overexcited students. I’ve observed people with excellent jobs fall into periods of self-destruction. Such as the employee at a rewards dinner who publicly told a joke (story) with a punch line insinuating that the Managing Director couldn’t distinguish his rear end from his elbow. (Whilst the MD laughed at the time the employee in question left the company within three months!).

So the question is why aren’t people more aware of their actions at the time? Or is it that our storyteller and the demonstrating student become embroiled in the excitement of the situation and the consequences of actions become lost until reflection afterwards? That they have no feeling for a “personal and future brand image”? Or is it that a “personal brand image” is easily changed?

Stephen Fry went to prison for a time and still managed to find success and perhaps some students will be taking comfort from his example this morning

Most of my time, efforts and attention is taken up with working with restructured teams in larger companies and organisations.

However, so many smaller business owners and executives on my network list have contacted me for help that I want to make myself available to a select group of high quality business owners and senior executives  that I can mentor (all together) in a group consulting dynamic.

I’m proposing to identify a small group of high-performing, growth-minded, action-orientated small business owners and senior executives who ARE poised for AND deserve far greater success and prosperity. This invitation is for you to consider if joining this small group of dynamic individuals should be part of your business plan.

Once a month and every month for 12 months I would personally meet with what I’m calling the “Executive programme” – in London.

So what is the difference between this programme and others groups that hold similar meetings. The answer is the amount of individual attention your specific needs will be given. Together with the selected experts and associates  you’ll receive analysis, powerful recommendations and detailed implementation / execution recommendations – each month.

Your job and your commitment to us both, as well as everyone else in the group, is to ACT on the ideas, advice and guidance you receive from me, the associates, as well as all the other mentoring participants. You’ll report back on your results and we’ll work through them or build on them each session.

The problem (in the past) has been that this kind of exclusiveand private, “one-on-one” dynamic made no economic sense to either side. Private mentoring costs a significant amount per day.

Similarly for you to allocate the time each month that draws you away from work without having identifiable and tangible actions that produces measurable results is a waste of your time and investment.

But my thinking now is that the world of business is going through a revolution. Those that will survive and prosper are those that can identify, understand, map and manage their pathway to achieving extraordinary results. 

So instead of charging you a huge fee per day – I only want to charge a modest monthly tuition / mentoring fee from each participant of £1,200 plus VAT (minimum 10 months) or alternatively by paying a one time fee of £10,400 + VAT at the start of the period you can save a massive £4,000 over the year.

However, you need to consider this: If your business or career isn’t capable of ahuge increase in profile and income or it’s not desirable – you probably shouldn’t apply.

 I want to engineer the highest possible results for each business and person I accept onto the programme. I’m looking to increase your business brand, personal profile as well as earnings in those 12 months.

By giving the participants  access to the best people, information and tools – the results that each member in the group achieves should be extraordinary – maybe even outrageous.

So I invite those of you small enough to qualify – but big enough for it to make sense – to submit an original application in writing in your own words. Tell me about you, your business, your goals, hopes, dreams, frustrations, challenges, opportunities – and clearly demonstrate that you ARE serious about joining and that I should let you into this elite group.

I also request two references, who will verify and confirm your ethics, industriousness, directability, past performance / achievement history and desirability to be part of the group.

If you’d like to apply, get your application, along with references, to me by 26th November 2010 to stephen@assimilating-talent.com . That’s examine and choose the most desirable and motivated candidates to accept.

Applicants will be contacted before the second week of December with notification when I will arrange a 1:1 meeting or conference call to fill in further details and answer any questions.

If you ARE accepted the first meeting will occur on or around 14 January 2011.

Over this past month or so a number of people in my network have approached me to discuss how they can manage a personal brand image.

I guess it’s because one of the first things I discuss with an executive that moves into a new job is the “image” that they want within their new workplace. We start out by developing a plan of action to construct and manage a positive image within the first few days and weeks.

However, it’s been long understood that head-hunters, future employers as well as future employees will search the internet for clues as to the reputation, management style and expertise of any future boss. This makes having a positive on-line reputation one that’s worth considering ahead of any change of job.

As for being self-employed, well the benefits of a strong on-line brand image is obvious.

In this first video I discuss how to create an plan for a personal brand image on-line as well as to discuss creating an “elevator pitch” that covers the three rules of “Credibility, Clarity and believability”

How to create a brand image

I have watched with some amusement the mess that the UK’s coalition Government have found themselves in over their announcements to “Housing benefit” changes. We’ve been told that this will be capped at £400 per week. It reminds me of the situation that many business leaders and executives in a new job find themselves when introducing a “Quick win”. The reason is that to often “Quick wins” fail to deliver the expected results.

Let’s consider the UK’s proposal to cap housing benefit to reflect average earnings. On the surface it would seem sensible and would certainly reduce costs. But the (hopefully exaggerated) image of hundreds of thousands of families and children, particularly in London, being made homeless and trudging up the the road with their belongings as they are forced out of their homes to find cheaper accommodation has generated claims of “Social cleansing” from Mayor Boris Johnson and concern from many MPs.

Too often  a new team leader or senior executive in a business will introduce a “quick win” because they understand that they have little time to prove themselves and want to demonstrate that they are “hitting the ground running”. It’s also seen as a useful tool to create a positive reputation for being a forward thinker or innovator.

The change that’s generally selected has often worked for the individual in the past. However, what the new leader fails to consider is the new team, new culture and new management style. In communicating the “quick win” great emphasis will be placed on instant results (saving money) without analysis of the long-term consequences in other departments of areas of the business.

This often causes a storm of protest, the executive is wrong footed and either has to revise their plans with the consequence of “loss of face” and reputation or stick to their guns and be accused of being unfeeling, autocratic or worse. The problem is that a “Reputation” has been made and it’s a negative one and that reputation is often difficult to change.

I judge that we can expect some “Good news” from the coalition Government within the next few days

In this current economic situation a huge number of teams are being restructured. This either means that the team will take on additional work, team membership will be changed or there may even be new leadership.

Each of these brings with it a risk of failure and after speaking to so many senior executives this last month I thought I would share some of the advice that I’ve been giving them.

How to avoid team failure

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

I was asked a question on LinkedIn and this is a brief outline of my answer that I thought those in my network might find interesting

For many people there is a direct relationship with management
capability and high staff turnover. In my opinion, however, there also needs to be other
considerations before one always blames team managers.

Too often, in my experience, blame is placed on “Salary” as a reason why talent leaves when in fact the real reasons are in the company’s power to prevent. A motivating statistic is that when a talented individual
leaves the RISK that further talent will follow increases by 50%.