An analysis of insensitivity

Ian Buckingham | 1 Mar 2010 | 10:58

Last week, when I was working at the HQ of a large company, an employee asked me to help her interpret her benefits statement. She’d worked there all her career and had taken every bonus in share options. She intended to gift the proceeds to her grandchildren as her legacy.

She was clearly puzzled by the latest figures and couldn’t understand the corporate double-speak in the accompanying literature that was supposed to explain them to her. It was left to me – someone she barely knew – to break the news to this loyal member of staff that her share portfolio, which had been worth £35,000 according to the previous year’s figures, was now worth £7,300. You can imagine the look on her face when reality dawned.

The arguments about dealers’ bonuses in big banks may be making the front pages, but they are very much the side issue here. How many people are out there right now receiving the same sort of message delivered in a similarly dispassionate way?

Bullying can be defined as an abuse of power. Information, it is often said, is power. How is it being used where you work? Bullying may not always be overt. It may not even be intentional at times. But failing to understand the importance of communication and the link between employee engagement and brand performance is tantamount to bullying when it has such devastating results as it did in this simple cameo.

Employee engagement should be a main focal point for anyone with responsibility for other people in an organisation. It can’t all be driven from the centre. Face-to-face communication, especially in tough times, should be given top priority. So how are line managers shaping up to the challenge where you work? Or is everything being left to faceless names at the centre to cascade the weekly news, whether or not it’s life-changing?

Want to develop an appropriate internal culture to promote change? Try singing the blues

Ian Buckingham | 15 Feb 2010 | 09:32

I really like Joss Stone. She has a voice and a style that seems to have been grafted onto her 20-something physique. I’m also willing to confess that I sometimes find myself humming along to Jamie Cullum or Katie Melua, very talented artists in their own right.

But after I’ve finally downloaded an album or two, I’ll inevitably turn on the radio and have a chance encounter with Billie Holiday or Sarah Vaughan and instantly regain a sense of perspective about my recently purchased sixth-form soul.

I really don’t want to sound like a grumpy old man. But for me, you really do have to have lived a little before you can authentically transmit the ebb and flow of love and life and all the other intricacies of relationships.

This may seem like a bizarre subject but my contentious pop v blues thesis does have some resonance (honest!) when reflecting on the importance of culture development as a driver of sustainable organisation change. Why? Because it frankly takes a mature attitude (true soul, if you like) from the leadership team to appreciate the importance and therefore the value of internal culture development.

In my experience, especially in these troubled times, true leaders who’ve experienced the power of cultural transformation won’t be the ones issuing popular sound-bites, or schmultzy metaphors. They most definitely won’t be promoting internal marketing to justify, post-rationalise or even sweep up after change.

They will be the ones who will be kicking off the change process by consulting people. They will be passionate about engaging employees with the big picture, goals, the desired culture and the honest change process. Furthermore they will be role modelling the change they want to see, not just talking about or delegating it. These leaders know that effective culture development is critical to achieving change. They appreciate that it isn’t a reactive tool to be used to post-rationalise the new world experienced by the survivors.

So the moral of this tale is, if you’ve got to engage your employees with change (and in this environment, who hasn’t?), better make sure you look beyond the trendy purveyors of pop. It’s worth consulting your leadership back catalogue. There will be plenty of material available - and the tunes are classics for a reason.

Traits that brought down the City are a symptom of wider business world

Ian Buckingham | 21 Dec 2009 | 12:03

I was in the City, London’s financial district, for a meeting the other day and found myself in Pudding Lane, infamous for being the source of the Great Fire of London. This was previously heralded by historians as both the most tragic event to have befallen London and, ironically, its saviour.

“A paradox”, I hear you cry. Well, London had been in the grip of another epic threat at the time of the fire, namely the plague or Black Death. Many believe this cataclysmic malaise was caused by rats. In truth, it wasn’t the rats but the fleas that lived on the rats that caused the spread of the infection. Ironically, it wasn’t until the catastrophic great fire that the City was purged of the disease.

Understandably, the financial districts have been targeted by the worldwide press as the source of the economic plague that has infected world markets. Indeed the directors of a select number of organisations within those financial districts have been demonised for seemingly single-handedly bringing about the collapse of their institutions and spreading this economic disease to related markets and economies.

This is where history and imagination collide. If we allow ourselves to obsess about tabloid caricatures of “Fred the shred” and his peer group we’re in danger of missing the point. The iniquity of the directors themselves and problems the City faces are merely the symptoms of a much more invidious infection. The disease of selfishness, short termism and winning at all costs has become an epidemic which has arguably spread throughout the world of commerce.

The risk we currently face is that if we focus exclusively on the senior leaders, we forget that the malaise has already spread and infected the culture of the kingdoms they once ruled.

Regardless of short-term actions, the epidemic will surface again unless we can start to:
- reinvent HR and get a grip on current versus required culture;
- proactively manage employer brands;
- professionalise internal communications;
- respect and prioritise organisation development;
- forge more effective relationships between the external manifestation of brand and the link to the organisation’s values and the employees who keep the promises.

As the year draws to a close, if you’re considering your own firestorm of change, pause for a second before you reach for the axe or the ad agency. Consider your existing employees once again:

• Who epitomises the culture you need to deliver on your brand promise – and who doesn’t?
• What more can you do to reconnect your core culture with your brand?
• How can you refocus employees on the next phase in the evolution of the company, to understand and re-energise them?

You may think you know who the rats are, but don’t forget the power of the fleas.

Wanted: truly sustainable 'performance cultures'

Ian Buckingham | 14 Dec 2009 | 10:08

I’m fascinated by what has become the widespread abuse of the term “performance culture”. For me this phrase has become inextricably linked with the drive for delivering shareholder value in quarterly increments and the “up or out” mentality that has spilled over from investment banking.

But where does this leave the zealots now that a number of the investment banking supertankers have holed themselves on the reefs of greed, selfishness, arrogance and some fairly suspect practice? Surely it’s time for a fundamental rethink.

I would go so far as to suggest that the culture problem is a widespread issue every bit as serious as the accusations of systemic racism levelled at the police force back in the 1990s. Arguably, this crisis will have even more far-reaching consequences.

The time has come for comprehensive internal reviews followed by an energetic repositioning of the vision, mission and values and associated people processes within many of our leading brand names. This should be the first step towards a reframing of the definition of performance.

This is a complex issue, but consider for a second the long-established theory that an individual is at their most effective within a role some 2.5 years into the job. Or reflect on the equally established best practice that leaders should spend most of their first 100 days listening and gathering information. Contrast this with the notion of “hitting the ground running” and the obsession with quarterly shareholder reporting and year-on-year incremental targeting regardless of conditions. Mixed messages?

It seems a little old fashioned in these high-octane times but there’s sound logic underpinning leadership best practices that call for considered, well-paced decision-making based upon an understanding that the decision-makers will still be around when the impact of their choices come to fruition.

Bankers, for example, used to be remunerated on the basis of loyalty bonuses and benefits packages at preferential rates. Not so long ago, any posting on a CV revealing tenure in a role of under three years was viewed with suspicion. Lift the drains on the recent recruitment drive among the retail banking sector and you will be greeted by whole teams made up of job-hopping former investment bankers.

Don’t get me wrong. I very much believe in the notion of a culture of performance. That’s why we’re all in business after all. I simply don’t believe in the notion of winning at all costs.

When staff strike, it’s the least of your problems

Ian Buckingham | 4 Nov 2009 | 15:20

Brands are built from within. They’re not about promises made by the marketing department. They’re about promises met by employees.

When staff choose industrial action, it signals a fundamental disconnection between your employees and your brand. Employee engagement has broken down. It’s rebuildable, but only if everyone involved remembers that communication is more about listening than it is about pushing messages.

Strikes are usually simplified in the media as clashes of intransigent polar extremes: management versus workers; greed versus survival. But they’re a lot more complicated than the caricatures of greasy pinstripes versus blue-collar table-bashers suggest.

Consider the Royal Mail dispute. On the face of it, this can be seen as the once irresistible force of new Labour’s spin-doctors meeting the once immovable object of trade unionism. But talk to the ordinary postie or even the customer in the street (or behind the letterbox) and you’ll find that this dispute is about so much more. It’s about a fight for identity by employees who are emotionally connected with a brand that they and their customers see as a national institution (see Buckingham; Brand Engagement).

It’s about culture, “the way things get done around here” and workers resisting the march of automation, which experience tells us may improve the bottom line but does not guarantee better customer service or an improved quality of life (anyone remember the days of the second post?). In short, it’s a brand battleground that reflects a range of hot social topics, including culture, values and identity.

As someone who specialises in helping organisations to manage brands, I’ve been asked to help avert three strikes in the past five years. Two were in the retail sector in the run-up to Christmas and the most recent one was at a college where the staff were actively dissuading students from enrolling.

In each case the core issue was not about pay and rations but about fundamental communication. Disengaged staff felt their managers were no longer connected with the values that they believed their brand represented. In all three cases, catastrophe was averted by re-opening communication channels, fostering respect and implementing active listening.

People care more than you might think about the brands they work for. Culture – the way people do things in the organisations that support those brands – is probably the most important determinant of brand performance.

It’s worth spending some time understanding the true DNA of your brand. If you don’t know what brand engagement is worth, especially in these lean times, can you risk employees deserting their posts – or, even worse, disengaged staff continuing to represent your brand?

Let’s look to our legacy

Ian Buckingham | 17 Sep 2009 | 15:10

“Legacy” is a loaded word. If you’re the glass-half-empty type, the term smacks of something old-fashioned, out-of-date, redundant. If you favour the glass-half-full approach, you make associations such as firm foundation, proven track record and relationship equity.

As a brand and engagement specialist, I’m acutely aware that one of the strongest but often most underappreciated assets many old-world brands have is their legacy. In times of crisis and change, it can be comforting to employees to know that this organisation has withstood worse in the past.

As individuals, we seem to be increasingly interested in notions of legacy and family heritage. The haka, the famous tribal dance of the feared New Zealand rugby team, literally attempts to summon up the spirits of ancestors to provide strength and courage as they face a new challenge. Perhaps this was what organisations like Wal-Mart have tried to replicate with their company songs?

Such overt attempts to conjure up corporate spirit aren’t to everyone’s taste, illustrating the point that employee engagement has to be fit for purpose within local employee markets. But what some may consider “naff” engagement initiatives are clearly powerful magic for others, begging the question: “What are you doing to engage your employees during the downturn?”

It comes as little surprise to me that I’ve seen a rise in the number of complaints from employees across sectors about the lack of availability of their line managers. There has also been a decline in face-to-face communication, eg, team briefings, and a rise in what I term “email management”.

In these dark days, leaders need to call upon all of their resources to speed up the recovery process. If your brand has a legacy, what initiatives are you undertaking to make the most of that heritage and provide confidence, assurance and a sense of stability? Most importantly, how are your most important communicators, your line managers, being recognised and used as the eyes, ears and voice of the business?

HR should do more than citing due process

Ian Buckingham | 28 Aug 2009 | 12:53

A client, let’s call him David, works for a multinational. This company’s core HR processes, post-SAP, were redesigned to maximise efficiencies and drive out non-conformances arising from human error. In short, HR has, in effect, been replaced by systems, standards, key performance indicators and managerial learning and development refocused on technical rather than soft skills.

David, by his own admission, is a relatively old-school line-and-customer-service-focused manager. He’s a believer in sustaining relationships and in resolving interpersonal differences before they become formal issues (often over a coffee or a beer). He has worked for his company for two decades and has received awards for his work on a number of occasions.

Recently David encountered issues in his personal life that compromised his 8am-9pm working routine. As pressure built, he started to struggle and turned to his recently appointed executive line managers for support. They responded by citing due process, changed his reporting line from 1:1 to 2:1 and offered him the option of submitting formal grievances and visiting occupational health if he had a problem. They also placed this loyal middle manager on a series of performance contracts when they believed his standards (loosely defined) started to slip. Unlike David, they documented every conversation.

Sleepless nights led to longer hours; stress led to psoriasis and eventually to depression and medication and now to extended absence on health grounds. He eventually submitted a grievance but the 2:1 and sometimes 3:1 micro-management has seen the organisation close ranks. He now faces the invidious choice of turning on his own company via tribunal or falling on his own sword.

David is passionate about the organisation and his job. He has the experience and people skills that customer and staff surveys suggest are needed to help turn the organisation around. Yet David, and many of his contemporaries as it turns out, has become the victim of “due process”.

The growing number of Davids remain voiceless despite the town hall meetings and surveys. The CEO may understand the need for culture change but what’s to become of these invisible FTEs in the meantime when the HR offices are empty and the day-to-day processes don’t have ears?

‘Back to the future’ for HR in the banks?

Ian Buckingham | 14 Aug 2009 | 11:59

These are complex corporate times, but as the finger of blame for the global economic downturn is pointed at various external stakeholders – such as the regulators and even the customers themselves – it’s interesting to hear the term “corporate culture” finally surfacing in banking postmortems.

The term “performance culture” has been increasingly abused in performance-management parlance. It has become inextricably linked with the drive for delivering shareholder value in quarterly increments, and with the “up or out” mentality that has spilled over from investment banking.

But now that almost every investment banking supertanker has holed itself on the reefs of greed, selfishness, arrogance and some suspect practice, it’s time to reclaim the phrase. This is why leaders such as the Royal Bank of Scotland’s Stephen Hester are now having to open internal moratoriums in an attempt to bridge the growing employee engagement gap in some of our high-profile financial-services names.

Ironically, despite this being an employer’s market, employee engagement, employer brand and corporate culture have never been so important. But it’s time for a fundamental rethink about how internal stakeholders (employees) are managed. The infrastructure underpinning many employment brands is clearly in need of a dramatic overhaul. And this is no job for the marketing function or advertising types.

Characteristics such as sustainability, network building and relationship development are the bedfellows of integrity, accountability, security and trust. But how can these values flourish when employees in financial services have seen HR functions replaced by processes and helplines, when average employee tenure (and loyalty) has fallen dramatically and when effective performance management and feedback loops have been replaced by grievance processes and whistleblowing – the corporate equivalent of ratting on your colleagues.

I’m certainly not calling for a complete return to the cosy old hierarchies, glass ceilings and command-and-control regimes. But it’s clear that there will have to be a large dose of mature, relationship-based thinking if an appropriate and authentic performance culture is ever going to be achieved by our most influential businesses and brands. And, if the last 18 months have taught us anything, it’s that none of us can afford for our financial-services brands to continue to fail their employees by making promises to customers and the market that they simply can’t keep.