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

Maria has left and after the story it’s probably a good time to look at her journey before a full post-mortem is held.

a) On arrival she alienated her team
b) She developed relationships at work that were not prepared to support her when times got difficult at work
c) She restructured her team for effect as opposed to focussing on long-term results
d) She introduced Quick wins that did not include her boss’s sought after results
e) She introduced employees that she had worked with in the past

That is not to say that everything she did was bad, it wasn’t. During her time she had some success with the introductions on a new process for hiring employees, she helped the Sales Director restructure his area and she increased productivity.

The problem was that the positive aspects of her work were not sufficiently large enough to outweigh the negatives and as a result the “perception” of her work was seen to be negative. It’s worth considering that negative aspects often have a greater impact than positives where considerations of capability at work are concerned.

So Maria’s job lasted around six months before she decided that her career would be better served by finding another position to move to. The question that we might all have is “Has she learnt from her mistakes or will they be repeated again?

Further info on job transitions can be found at:
http://assimilating-talent.com