organisational culture - Blogs - DPG Community2024-03-28T23:03:24Zhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/feed/tag/organisational+cultureWho Didn’t Voice Their Concerns?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/who-didn-t-voice-their-concerns2017-06-23T16:09:21.000Z2017-06-23T16:09:21.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217300?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>When you think about it, no organisational failure of any magnitude can come as a surprise. Someone, somewhere, was aware that things were not right. Yet those people either did not say anything or their concerns were ignored. </p><p>For instance, remember the Deepwater Horizon disaster? There concerns about the equipment had been raised, but simply ignored by management. Now we have another example.</p><p></p><p>For over a week now, Britain has been reeling in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire – the incineration of a 24 storey residential building in the early hours of the morning of 14 June. At present the death toll stands at 79 but no-one yet knows whether everyone who was in the building has been accounted for. Inevitably, people are questioning, “How could this happen in this day and age?”</p><p>Perhaps that is inevitable after a disaster of this nature. Yet there are numerous other questions are being asked as well. Questions like:</p><ul><li>Why had the building been refurbished with flammable cladding?</li><li>Why did the alarms not work?</li><li>Why did the fire extinguisher not work?</li><li>What safety precautions had been ignored that enabled the fire to spread so quickly?</li><li>Why had residents’ concerns not been heeded?</li></ul><p>These all reveal the really shocking fact that this is entirely a man-made tragedy. Like the Titanic and Deepwater Horizon, it appears to have been avoidable. That is why inquiries have been set up and criminal investigations are underway.</p><p>Until the results are known, it is futile to speculate about the specifics of what went wrong. Nevertheless, one thing is abundantly clear: either <strong><em>no-one spoke up who should have spoken up</em></strong> or <em><strong>people spoke up but were ignored</strong></em><strong>.</strong> If the inquiry is serious about preventing future disasters, this is undoubtedly a line of enquiry that needs to be thoroughly investigated. </p><p>Indeed it is imperative that it is. According to a report in Management Today (May 2016) <em>“Of 40,000 employees at a technology company, half felt it was not safe to voice dissenting opinions at work. In consulting, financial services, media, pharmaceutical and advertising companies, 85% admitted to keeping quiet about an important concern.”</em> How frightening is that? The ramifications of such failures in any of those industries could be catastrophic, as my examples show.</p><p>The pervasiveness of such attitudes suggest it is the norm and make it likely that this line of enquiry may well be overlooked. Yet, that very fact makes it even more important that it isn’t. Examples like these – and even the corporate collapses that led to the 2008 financial crisis – clearly indicate the inadequacy of corporate risk assessments, and the need to incorporate such issues in these processes.</p><p>Perhaps you think it is pointless to do so, until you identify a more effective method to reverse the problem. I would argue, however, that this is readily done by creating a more organic structure for your organisation. And, the way to do that, is to adopt the ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model. This transforms your organisational culture and creates the strategic alignment you need to secure, safeguard and sustain your ongoing success. Why? Because it makes your business their business and thus ensures all your employees are fully engaged. </p></div>Good Leadership: It’s All about Valuehttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/good-leadership-it-s-all-about-value2017-02-23T12:33:34.000Z2017-02-23T12:33:34.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217190?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Continuing with the <a href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2017/02/pursuing-good-business-leadership.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Business leadership">recent theme</a> of leadership and the question of whether or not you are a good leader, here is something else you can do to find out. Ask yourself, “Do I focus on value?” </p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8d93a1c970b-pi" target="_blank"><img src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8d93a1c970b-320wi" class="align-left"></a></p>
<p>That might seem like a very strange question. Your instinctive reaction may be to shrug it off and say “Of course!” But I urge you to probe a little deeper. You may recall Oscar Wilde’s line that, “<em>A cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing!</em>” Unfortunately cynicism seems to be a trap that many business leaders can fall into all too easily. So it may be useful to take a good, honest look at yourself, your behaviour and your thinking, to be sure that you haven’t inadvertently fallen into that trap.</p>
<p><img class="mce-pagebreak">A good way to ensure that you haven’t is to re-evaluate your long term focus. An insidious danger in today’s fast-paced, highly competitive business environment is that it demands an ever greater focus on the short-term. According to a recent <a href="https://hbr.org/2017/02/finally-proof-that-managing-for-the-long-term-pays-off" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Harvard Business Review article</a>, DCLT surveys indicate that, “<em>Most executives feel the balance between short-term accountability and long-term success has fallen out of whack: 65% say the pressure they face has increased in the past five years</em>.” </p>
<p>This is a cause for concern. The report claims that “<em>61% of executives and directors say that they would cut discretionary spending to avoid risking an earnings miss, and a further 47% would delay starting a new project, <strong>even if doing so led to a potential sacrifice in value.</strong></em><strong>”</strong> (My emphasis.) This supports my long-held view that performance management is the tail that is wagging the dog, resulting in too great a focus on management at the expense of leadership. If you want to be a good leader, you need to focus on value.</p>
<p>In fact, the article “<a href="https://hbr.org/2017/02/finally-proof-that-managing-for-the-long-term-pays-off" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Managing for the long term pays off">Finally, Evidence that Managing for the Long Term Pays Off</a>” provides the evidence that I have been seeking for years. According to McKinsey’s research, firms that were identified as focused on the long term significantly outperformed the market as follows:</p>
<ul>
<li>Average revenue +47%</li>
<li>Average earnings +36%</li>
<li>Market capitalisation +58%</li>
<li>Economic profit (i.e. profit after deducting a charge for invested capital) +81%</li>
</ul>
<p>So, I ask again, “Now do you think you are a good leader?” I suspect that, once again, you are less likely to answer positively than you might have done earlier.</p>
<p>Yet, encouraging though this report is, there is more to value than just these traditional measures. It is certainly a step in the right direction that they include “economic profit” but the definition is definitely open to debate. If you truly want to measure value you would need to take account of two other elements that are generally excluded when looking at organisational performance:</p>
<ul>
<li>The value of the human contribution</li>
<li>The environmental cost</li>
</ul>
<p>As I am not qualified to talk about the latter, which is in any case being addressed in more august circles, let’s focus only on the former.</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357878?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357878?profile=original" width="450" class="align-right"></a>Do you, as a leader, have any idea of the value of your people? If my experience is anything to go by, I will wager you do not. Early in my career I worked for a leading financial services company that decided to close down its private banking operation. This entailed making everyone who worked in the division redundant. Nothing unusual there and a valid commercial decision if it wasn’t making money, you might say. The issue, however, is that when setting up the function only two or three years earlier they had recruited their top 10% performers. This decision effectively meant that the company laid off some of its best people!</p>
<p></p>
<p>This would be bad in any organisation. But in a financial services company, where people are, fundamentally, the working capital of the organisation, it is inexcusable. The executives who made the decision clearly had no idea of the value they were destroying. This is unquestionably due to a deficiency in the way we account for people. The question you need to ask yourself is, “Would you do the same?” It is very likely you would if you have no idea of the value of your people. How then could you call yourself a good leader? </p></div>Good Leadership and Organisational Well-Beinghttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/good-leadership-and-organisational-well-being2017-02-16T13:49:21.000Z2017-02-16T13:49:21.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217184?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Continuing with the <a href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2017/02/pursuing-good-business-leadership.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">last week’s theme</a> and pursuing the subject of leadership and the question of whether or not you are a good leader, another area worth assessing is your organisational well-being. Is this a topic you ever consider and, if so, to what extent? Ideally you will regularly be asking yourself:</p><ol><li>What is the state of our organisational well-being?</li><li>Am I doing enough or could/should I being doing more to improve it?</li></ol><p>Yet you are perhaps unlikely to be doing so. Why? Because there does not even seem to be any generally accepted definition of organisational well-being!</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak"/>Possibly because it is abstract and thus difficult to empirically assess, even with a workable definition. This also makes it a dubious comparative measure. Globalization and more intense competition result in more weight being given to measures that can be used to assess relative performance. Thus spending time, effort and resources on purely internal measures holds little appeal. </p><p> </p><p>Yet it was Shakespeare who said, <em>“Comparisons are oderous.”</em> Just as individuals need to identify and adhere to personal values to validate their sense of self-worth, so does an organisation. Indeed, any organisation that does not do so, is just as likely “to come off the rails” as an individual. Therefore measuring well-being ought to be an imperative. So, let’s start to come up with a definition. </p><p>My Webster’s dictionary defines well-being as, “<em>Condition of being well, comfortable, happy etc</em>.” while the Google definition is “<em>The state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy</em>”. Organisational well-being thus literally means applying this to an organisation rather than a person. Thus, basically, you could describe organisational well-being as “The state when an organisation is operating comfortably, healthily and happily.”</p><p>But how do you apply such human, and subjective, terms to an organisation which is ultimately a collective of people? What do the terms comfort, health and happiness mean in such a context? Certainly they could do with some clarification. The following table perhaps provides a start.</p><p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d260f9bc970c-pi"><img alt="Determining the Nature of Organisational Well-Being" border="0" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d260f9bc970c image-full img-responsive align-center" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d260f9bc970c-800wi" title="Determining the Nature of Organisational Well-Being"/></a></p><p>Unfortunately, it makes no attempt to address the “etc.” of the definition which indicates the ambiguity of the subject. It does, however, provide a massive step forward in pointing to some of the measures you might use to measure well-being and which are not immediately apparent from the original terminology. In fact it offers a pretty good basis for a full definition of organisational well-being, as “<strong><em>The state of an organisation in which its people are committed and collaborating, without conflict, to meeting their obligations to ensure the health of the organisation and thus to sustain its ability to effectively and efficiently meet its objectives and fulfil its purpose.”</em></strong> </p><p>This certainly goes some way to filling the void. It also moves beyond the current tendency to depict organisational well-being more in terms of employee health and well-being. This is not to say these aspects are ignored: they are simply incorporated in the total people perspective. For, no matter what your starting point, it is clear that organisational well-being revolves around people. Your organisational well-being is ultimately entirely determined by the way your people perform.</p><p>Assuming we agree on that, this definition provides a reasonable starting point for addressing the subject. It also provides a measure of reassurance. After all, you already have a number of measures in pace to cover many of these points. It is likely that the only ones where you fall short are those dealing with your people. And, as I have said before, this is rooted in the fact that we persist in accounting for people as costs rather than as assets. </p><p>It may be an inconvenient truth, but the fact remains that unless your people enjoy working in your organisation you will never achieve the level of performance you are seeking. I was made aware just how elusive that can be earlier this week when I read a Forbes article “<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastianbailey/2016/01/26/can-you-catch-rudeness-like-a-cold/#4dc2920c1b64" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Consequences of negative behaviour">Can you catch rudeness like a cold?</a>” Apparently research shows that rude behaviour can be contagious. “<em>Repeated rudeness at work, whether from co-workers or customers, leads to employees associating the workplace with rudeness, thus ‘activating’ the concept of rudeness whenever they are at work: a never-ending cycle.</em>”</p><p>One obvious example missed from here (perhaps diplomatically) is management rudeness. Any unintended slight or lack of appreciation can be perceived as rudeness. And this malaise is just as likely to apply to any other negative behaviour. So you can see that organisational well-being is no easy task. Fortunately, if negatives are contagious there is no reason why positives should not have the opposite effect. This means it is not so much a matter of policing negative behaviour (although obviously it should be highlighted and steps taken to eliminate it) but reinforcing positive behaviour.</p><p>Repeating what I wrote last week, this demands a more humane approach to business. This means optimising your human capital, but doing so less from the point of the benefits to you and rather from the benefits to them. Thus it still means winning employee engagement but by creating a common purpose and providing a culture and environment that provides the autonomy, mastery and purpose that enables people to enjoy their work and creates a sense of satisfaction and self-fulfilment. I call this <em>love at work</em> and I am delighted that the need for this is being increasingly widely recognised, as another article <a href="https://rochellemoulton.com/mixing-love-and-business/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Love at Work">Mixing Love and Business</a> illustrated this week. </p></div>How do you view change?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/how-do-you-view-change2017-02-02T14:38:15.000Z2017-02-02T14:38:15.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217162?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Change is an integral part of life. So much so that we are often completely unaware of it. We simply wake up one day to the realization that something familiar isn’t quite the same as we thought it was.</p><p>We experienced a good example of this over the Christmas holidays, visiting our young grandchildren for almost a month. As you would expect, the children we met on the first day were very different from the young children we had last seen. More surprising, however, was how much they changed <em>during</em> our time with them. It wasn’t only that, even after a couple of weeks, they were so proficient at things they couldn’t do when we arrived. Nor was it just the delicious festive food that made them feel heavier. We were sure that they also grew physically!</p><p>The fact is change is continuous. In the 21<sup>st</sup> Century, however, we are perhaps more aware of it than ever, and the fact that – due to the massive technological advances – the pace seems to be faster and the demands on us more urgent. So much so, that ‘change management’ has not only become part of the lexicon, but a recognized skill and much sought after competency. But are we being misguided?</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak"/>The term ‘change management’ suggests that change is specific and implies that it happens at a specific point in time and can therefore be manipulated. This doesn’t jell with the concept of change being ongoing. The ongoing nature of change makes it more evolutionary, and thus far more difficult to manage. It also reinforces the need to make your organisation more organic – as I described <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/business-leaders-step-up-your-role-pioneer-bay-jordan?trk=mp-author-card" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Business Leaders as Pioneers">last week</a>. </p><p>In his book Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari writes, <em>“Every point in history is a crossroad. A single travelled road leads from the past to the present, but myriad paths fork off into the future.” </em>In other words, history is actually the outcome of decisions made in the continuum that is time. This makes it less deterministic and more haphazard than you might think. After all, no one can control events for every moment of the day. And the same is true in business.</p><p>Substitute the word ‘business’ for ‘history’ and you can just as easily say “Every point in business is a crossroad.” This emphasises the point. Like history, business performance is an outcome. But it is the outcome of a myriad of possibilities. To be successful you need to be able to respond to any one of those. And managing change is more often than not a case of focussing on one in particular.</p><p>All too often, things only work until they don’t. By the time you realise that they are no longer working it is too late. You end up scrambling to identify a new solution and stuck on the change management treadmill trying to introduce it. Trying to manage change is a mug’s game, and success will always be less than you intended. You will do far better to create an organic culture that responds to change as it happens. You will be less likely to find yourself scrambling for a solution and trying to create and direct a change because it might have already evolved. </p><p>Recently popular management blogger Seth Godin wrote, <em>“Intentional action is the hallmark of a professional</em>.” The <a href="http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2017/02/but-when-will-you-abandon-it.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Not if, but when">context</a> of this statement is the need to replace conventional systems that he implies are already obsolete, but which still prevail. As such it may seem like another call for more effective change management. Hopefully, you won’t fall into that trap.</p><p>Of course it goes without saying that you need to think before you act. But your business depends on the way your people act. Your people are the ones who create that myriad of possibilities. Therefore every individual matters and your intention needs to be on creating an organic environment and a culture where actions are shaped by a common purpose that makes people more adaptable and responsive to change. That is how you ensure that change evolves naturally rather than as a top down – and often too late – requirement.</p></div>HR still hasn’t woken up to its pioneering rolehttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/hr-still-hasn-t-woken-up-to-its-pioneering-role2017-01-26T16:53:35.000Z2017-01-26T16:53:35.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217151?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=338"></div><div><p>We are all aware of the pace of change. But business leaders struggling to compete and survive in today’s global market are at the forefront. They face the challenges every working hour; perhaps every waking hour and possibly even in their sleep. And, while they thrive on challenge there must be times when they feel like an early explorer and question why they ever embarked on the journey.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357939?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357939?profile=RESIZE_480x480" width="320" class="align-left"></a>Those intrepid sailors must have had doubts in the face of severe storms miles away from anything familiar. A manager’s situation is not dissimilar. They may not have left the shore, but are just as much pioneers, trying to map out routes for others to follow. No-one has ever before had to meet their challenges, on the scale, or with the consequences they face. Arguably, the risks are no less significant now than they were then. </p>
<p>The problem is, they have never considered their role in this light. And, as specialist in dealing with people, it is incumbent on HR to make them aware of this and – even more importantly – to play the scouts’ role and help them through it. </p>
<p>The fact is that all the change we are experiencing is the unavoidable effect of the Information Revolution, which launched “The Knowledge Age.” Universally acknowledged, this can be readily identified by the increasingly common:</p>
<ul>
<li>Pursuit of continuous improvement;</li>
<li>Use of the term “Learning Organisation”;</li>
<li>Recognition of employees as “knowledge workers”; and, perhaps less obviously,</li>
<li>Use of the term “human capital”. </li>
</ul>
<p>All these, as I suggested previously, point to the fact that management theory and practice is <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/management-evolution-where-do-you-stand-bay-jordan?trk=hp-feed-article-title-comment">evolving</a>: something you would expect following a revolution. After all, any revolution results in a change in models, systems and behaviours. Managing this evolution is what makes a manager a pioneer. To be a successful pioneer and secure the future you have to shape those changes.</p>
<p>The key to doing so is implicit in the term “human capital.” More than anything else, this not only acknowledges the contribution of people, but builds on the concept of employees as knowledge workers and so recognises the value they add to the organisation. It moves employees beyond being “resources” and implicitly recognises them as the assets they are so frequently described as, but never managed as! </p>
<p>This gives the HR industry a golden opportunity to redress its historic failings. Recognising employees as human capital inevitably creates greater expectations. It means that you:</p>
<ul>
<li>Can no longer consider them as “hired hands” but rather as a vital cog in the running of the organisation. </li>
<li>Have to ensure they have the knowledge they need.</li>
<li>Have to enable them to use their intelligence and apply their knowledge for the ultimate good of the organisation.</li>
</ul>
<p>This is why you need to move away from the traditional (industrial age) hierarchical model and create a more organic model that allows people to interact more on an as-needed basis and thus be more responsive and adaptive.</p>
<p>With its predetermined lines of communication, the hierarchical model inevitably and unavoidably slows down or prevents proper communication, slowing service and stunting development. The hierarchical model not only fails to recognise the evolution of management, but also completely fails to recognise the constantly evolving nature of the organisation itself. Every change alters the dynamics of the organisation itself. </p>
<p>This inevitably brings you back to the three basic drivers of motivation identified by people like Daniel Pink – Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose – all of which are inextricably tied to the individual. All are also essential for an organisation to become more organic, simply because the focus on the people. Thus, to be an effective pioneer you have to find a way to bring these into play and make your business more organic.</p>
<p>All this should be bread and butter to the HR profession. So, how well you are doing? Only you can answer that question. I would, however, wager that you are not doing as well as you would like. If that is the case, then I can offer you some relief. My ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model offers you an ideal way to shape your environment so your managers can accelerate their progress, steal a march on the competition and ensure their success as pioneers. </p>
<p></p></div>Management Evolution: Where are you at?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/management-evolution-where-are-you-at2017-01-20T10:26:46.000Z2017-01-20T10:26:46.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217144?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>You probably know that, if you put a frog in cold water and slowly heat it, it will eventually boil to death. This fact was popularised by management guru Charles Handy in his 1989 book, “The Age of Unreason.” But even though you know the parable, do you ever stop to think about it, its implications and its relevance? After all, Handy must have had a reason for telling it.</p><p>For me, the story is an analogy for evolution, where change is rarely immediately noticeable. In describing how a frog, normally averse to hot water and aware of the danger it poses, fails to act when the change is incremental, Handy illustrates the danger of gradual change and the way we can be totally oblivious to it. This is a constant danger and particularly pertinent today in the way we run our organisations and institutions: even though we acknowledge change as one of our biggest management challenges. </p><p>The fact is, despite acknowledging this and scrambling to adapt, we persist in using past approaches which are neither appropriate nor effective. If you doubt this, just compare the way you are managing today with the way you managed ten or twenty years ago. Despite claims that “command and control” management is dead and demands for “Management 2.0”, you very likely rely on traditional structures, tools and performance measures. </p><p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/flat-hierarchies-just-another-step-wrong-direction-niels-pflaeging">Flatter hierarchies: Just another step in the wrong direction</a>: an article that I came across recently, illustrates the challenge you face perfectly. It effectively highlights “flatter hierarchies” – the strategic objective of so many organisations today – as an oxymoron, depicting them as a relic of the Industrial Age and therefore passé, and describes the need for “inside out” value creation. Unfortunately, however, it also identifies “decentralization” as the solution. This shows how hard it is to move from old ideas and why management change seems more evolutionary than we would like to think. It raises the possible spectres of:</p><ul><li>Perpetuating the historic centralization/decentralization cycle that provides so much work for management consultants; and </li><li>Leaving the door open for restoring hierarchy in the future. </li></ul><p>The author makes a valid point when he says, <i>“Value creation from the inside-out and towards the market is a key principle for any kind of organization.”</i> This implies the constant interaction between “the outside” or external environment, and “the inside” with the latter responding readily, rapidly and reasonably to the intelligence it receives. For me that is effectively a call for a more organic approach to management, rather than the mechanical one that underpins hierarchy and remains the lasting legacy of the industrial age. I just wish the author had identified it in this way rather than reactionary “decentralization.”</p><p>An organic approach demands:</p><ul><li>A clear sense of purpose;</li><li>A clear understanding of the operational values;</li><li>The autonomy to act independently in response to “non-standard” or unexpected situations.</li></ul><p>Apart from anything else, that is the only way to ensure the organisation is not side-swiped by change and is able to identify, adapt and respond to changing needs, demands or circumstances. </p><p>This effectively entails remembering Andrew Carnegie’s words, “<i>The only irreplaceable capital an organization possesses is the knowledge and ability of its people. The productivity of that capital depends on how effectively people share their competence with those who can use it.”</i> (I don’t know when he said that, but the fact he died 98 years ago shows how slow the pace of management evolution has been.) Understanding this is to recognise that every individual matters, and is the key to ensuring a sustainable and successful organisation. It will not only ensure you evolve but accelerate the process and secure your place at the top of the food chain.</p></div>Cats, Caterpillars and Businesshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/cats-caterpillars-and-business2016-12-08T11:36:43.000Z2016-12-08T11:36:43.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217132?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Have you ever noticed how sensitive a cat’s fur is? Barely touch a sleeping cat and it will twitch where you touch it. It’s purely reflex, I know, but it is something I love doing and always makes me smile. But it provides a useful lesson.</p>
<p><img class="mce-pagebreak">Perhaps I have been watching too much Planet Earth, but when it happened this week while our cat slept on my lap, I couldn’t help thinking about the role of hair in nature. My balding pate suggests hair is not an essential but, on these cold autumn mornings, I certainly wish I still had all mine! Slightly envious, I began to think about all the different types of hair and the other non-insulation purposes they serve. </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357865?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357865?profile=original" width="450" class="align-left"></a>For instance, in the case of cats, they seem to act as an early-warning indicator, alerting the animal to potential danger. Yet you can safely stoke a cat and even find it a pleasurable experience. But it’s not the same with a caterpillar, as you know if you have ever tried to stroke one. Here the hairs act like miniscule porcupine quills and make life pretty uncomfortable. They also serve to deter potential predators from making a meal of them.</p>
<p>Nor is it just creatures. The wise gardener wears gloves because so many plants adopt the same strategy and tactics. Yet you also find hairs on the roots of plants and trees, where they serve a completely different purpose. Here the hairs act as a storage device or a capillary tube to collect and store moisture to nourish the plant and ensure its survival.</p>
<p>And there may well be other uses that I have missed. Most, however, play an essential role in safeguarding and sustaining life. Thus, while apparently insignificant, hairs are an integral part of the nervous system. So they provide a pretty good “for-the-want-of-a-nail” analogy for the role of people in business, and for considering your organisation as an organism. Just as the survival of an animal or plant depends on hairs fulfilling their function, so too the success of your organisation depends on your people.</p>
<p>Imagine a grand slam tennis tournament without the ball boys and ball girls. Or a football match where the groundsman had failed to mow the grass. It may not be appropriate to call your organisation a team, because it is simply too big and too complex and people may work without any knowledge of a huge number of their colleagues. But it can only operate effectively if everyone does their job properly. Every individual who fails to do the best they are capable of under the circumstances diminishes the performance of the whole organisation.</p>
<p>That is why you need to start thinking of your organisation as an organism too. A traditional hierarchical model is inherently inefficient. The diagram below gives an insight into why this is. It shows the effect of hierarchy on headcount assuming that each level has 7 direct reports.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8ba14dd970b-pi"><img alt="Hierarchy and headcount" border="0" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8ba14dd970b image-full img-responsive align-center" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8ba14dd970b-800wi" title="Hierarchy and headcount"></a></p>
<p>It is no wonder that executing strategy becomes such a difficult proposition in larger organisations! But is isn’t just strategy that is made more difficult. Day-to-day management is also harder! This is because each level has accountability for <strong><em>all</em></strong> the levels below. This increases concern and the desire for control. In turn this increases both the amount of regulation and interference in how subordinates are allowed to do their work. Demotivating in the extreme, this negatively impacts on performance, productivity and engagement. It also increases the risk of poor decision making either because employees are likely to become more risk averse and pass the decision back up the line, slowing procedures down, or else make the <em>expected </em>rather than the <em>appropriate </em>decision for the situation.</p>
<p>Formulaic or shirked decision making will ultimately always harm your organisation in the long run. You need people who deal with issues on a daily basis, to be able to make the appropriate decision on the spot. That means you need to eliminate hierarchy and make your organisation more organic. As you can see from the diagram, eliminating hierarchy could, potentially, reduce your headcount from the total headcount to the incremental headcount. That, however, doesn’t mean simply making your organisation flatter. That’s still hierarchy. Rather it entails giving your people the ability to be the best they can be. That is essential for creating an organic business and is ultimately what ‘Every Individual Matters’ means.</p>
<p>So, if you want your organisation to be “the cat’s whiskers”, you need to understand that ‘Every Individual Matters’.</p></div>When will we learn?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/when-will-we-learn2016-12-01T13:22:10.000Z2016-12-01T13:22:10.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217123?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=378"></div><div><p>When will we learn, or, as Bob Dylan put it, “When will we <em>ever</em> learn?” That is the question I found myself pondering after reading two very different articles this week.</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak"/>The first was actually a very constructive piece, “<a href="http://www.catalystconsulting.co.uk/cultivating-continuous-improvement/?utm_source=Training+Enquiries&utm_campaign=51b7a88a93-November+2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c1436fc43-51b7a88a93-315665213" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Cultivating Continuous Improvement</a>”. The word “cultivating” in the headline suggests that Continuous Improvement (CI) is an ongoing process, and what follows reinforces that idea. Several points worth highlighting are:</p><ul><li>CI is not just another programme. Making it about tools and techniques has that effect and ultimately leads to failure.</li><li>CI is a culture. Seeing it as such, as being about “principles and behaviours”, links naturally to the idea of its being something to cultivate. </li><li>CI is about achieving better outcomes through people.</li></ul><p>This last point is critical and worth repeating. <strong><em>“CI is about achieving better outcomes through people.”</em></strong> That means, as the article also points out, <em>“Sustainable continuous improvement is enabled by a culture of setting standards (for all processes), exposing problems, raising issues to management, being curious, learning through failure and empowering front-line staff. … </em><em> </em><em>It is built on the foundations of respect, humility and trust.”</em> So why does business generally consider people last?</p><p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb0959dba7970d-pi"><img alt="When 123rf.com_50995252_s" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb0959dba7970d img-responsive align-right" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb0959dba7970d-320wi" title="When 123rf.com_50995252_s"/></a>If you doubt that last point, the the second article ought to convince you. The headline, "<a href="http://chiefexecutive.net/business-hails-1-billion-victory-judge-blocks-obama-overtime-rule/?utm_source=ecn5.com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=11/28/16&utm_campaign=ceobriefing&eid=330684274&bid=1598196" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Overtime ruling">A Win for CEOs as Judge Blocks Obama's Overtime Rule</a>" alone gives an inkling. But, it is this response from the US Chamber of Commerce spokesperson that rams the point home. <em>"If the overtime rule had taken effect, it would have resulted in significant new costs - more than $1 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office - and it would have caused many disruptions in how work gets done."</em></p><p>Now, of course, I understand the need for businesses to keep their costs down. Nevertheless that assessment seems to be a reflex reaction that highlights management’s attitude towards employees. You can have no clearer evidence of what I have previously described as “<a href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2016/01/the-paradox-of-management-and-how-to-remedy-it.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Great Management Paradox</a>” – referring to people as assets but regarding them exclusively as costs. </p><p>In a workforce where an increasingly large proportion is described as “Just About Managing” and has not seen real income rises for decades, this is inhumane. Especially when – by definition – overtime is employees’ own, personal time. It also clearly illustrates the divide between economics and commerce, and management’s lack of understanding of the connection. The Chamber of Commerce (or at the very least its spokesperson) appears to have forgotten the lessons of Henry Ford.</p><p>When such attitudes prevail it is hardly surprising that employee engagement is such an issue. In fact it seems absurd that businesses should spend so much time and effort on employee engagement initiatives when built on such foundations. They are likely to be as effective as a chocolate teapot. Changing “how work gets done” is <em>precisely</em> what is needed. So here you have an enormous missed opportunity. </p><p>For many roles, time-based employment contracts are an anachronism: an agricultural era relic. Dig deeper and you will see it is rooted in the divide between organisation and individual. This is the root of all industrial conflict and is corrosive and counter-productive. And redressing this demands fresh thinking.</p><p>The mutual self-interest around overtime means no solution can ever be found without a totally different approach. And, one that aligns the interests of both parties. For the organisation this means employees who regard the business as <em>their</em> business, while for the individual, it means the employer recognising that employees are investing their lives in the business, and acknowledging the value of that investment. This is what I call understanding that ‘Every Individual Matters.’</p><p>This can only happen when there is work-life integrity. And the catalyst for this is to adopt a system where people earn according to the value of their contribution to the efforts of the organisation. This would enable people to manage themselves and take greater pride in – and responsibility for – their work. They will find ways to be more efficient and effective rather than fitting the work to the allotted time; ultimately to the benefit of both. That’s why ‘Every Individual Matters’.</p><p>When will we learn? </p></div>The New Case for Building a Better Business Modelhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/the-new-case-for-building-a-better-business-model2016-11-17T10:28:03.000Z2016-11-17T10:28:03.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217101?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>You couldn’t have made it up! In a world where the excesses of business have fuelled strong – sometimes violent – protests against capitalism and corporate malfeasance, Donald Trump won the US election because he was perceived as a businessman! Despite the onslaught of attacks on his personal character and his suitability for the role, he became the first man in history to become US President without any military or political experience whatsoever, because of his business credentials and the hope that this would enable him to bring about change.</p><p>This is like giving your most vociferous, disgruntled customer, who knows nothing about the ins and outs of your operations, control over your entire organisation, albeit on a far grander scale. You can imagine how concerned your other stakeholders would be if you were to do that. So it is hardly surprising that Trump’s election is causing consternation and creating a backlash. Inevitably people are taking stock of the implications and wondering how it is going to affect them.</p><p>Yet, in all the post-election reflection, there is one aspect that does not appear to have been considered in any great depth. And it is one that, perhaps, warrants the greatest thought: “What are the implications for business?” Without any doubt they are significant.</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak"/>Voting for a businessman is a tacit recognition of the significant role of business in the economy. As such, it makes sense. But, for those concerned about the political and economic clout of big business, it is tantamount to putting the poacher in charge of the game, and means, metaphorically, holding their noses to do so. As such it is an indication of how extremely disgruntled they are. Consequently, if changes aren’t forthcoming, or if there is no improvement in living standards, the next step may well be revolution. That would be bad for business and puts pressure on business to change – and quickly.</p><p>Unfortunately, Trump’s record as a businessman does not show him to be an innovator. Nor did his campaign do anything to suggest otherwise. Thus, miraculous though powers of persuasion seem to be, he is unlikely, even as President, to affect the necessary changes to avoid revolution. We are already close, with the protests, strikes and riots that are proliferating around the world. It therefore seems clear that business itself needs to step up to the plate urgently, take the lead and change its modus operandi.</p><p>Of course this is not a new cry. Leading thinkers like <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.garyhamel.com/author" target="_blank" title="Gary Hamel Leading Business Thinker">Gary Hamel</a> have been calling for a new approach to business for the past couple of decades. Yet there seems to have been remarkably little progress. Now, however, it is becoming urgent and self-interest demands it.</p><p>Fortunately, despite everything, it isn’t really as difficult as it seems. Ultimately, it boils down to recognising the humanity of people and the role they play in organisations. When organisations accept that ‘Every Individual Matters’ they will emancipate, empower and engage their employees more; creating a happier, more productive workplace with an environment that meets both the individual’s and the organisation’s needs and shapes a better society.</p><p>But it all begins with you recognising that ‘Every Individual Matters.’</p></div>Turbo-Charge Performance Improvement by Moving Beyond ESOPshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/turbo-charge-performance-improvement-by-moving-beyond-esops2016-11-03T11:25:38.000Z2016-11-03T11:25:38.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217074?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>It is encouraging to know that employee ownership is becoming increasingly popular and more widespread. According to <a rel="nofollow" href="http://chiefexecutive.net/%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8Bwhat-employee-centered-employee-owned-firms-can-offer-business-leaders/?utm_source=KnowledgeMarketing&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=10312016&utm_content=This%20Week%E2%80%99s%20CEO%20Briefing:%20Avoiding%20Bad%20Partnerships,%20Trends%20in%20R&D%20Spending,%20The%20Benefits%20of%20ESOPs,%20Protecting%20Your%20Intellectual%20Property%20and%20More&utm_campaign=CEOBriefing&eid=330684274&bid=1573086">Chief Executive Magazine</a> the number of worker-owned businesses in the US is growing around 6% per year and such businesses now account for 12% of the private sector workforce. Apparently, this is due to initiatives “<i>to empower their workforce employees by selling their stock to an ESOP or similar worker-owned arrangement</i>” and/or “<i>from founders wishing to reward employees while cashing out of their business.</i>” </p><p>Yet, notwithstanding such developments, difficulties remain. The article identifies 2 major dilemmas:</p><ol><li>Private companies lack the public trading capability that listed companies use to motivate employees;</li><li>Governance “challenges” if subsequent owners are unwilling to continue running the business.</li></ol><p>Then, presumably as solutions to these dilemmas, the article offers two case studies. The first describes the transformation effected by a shared compensation system at Johnsonville Sausages; and the second reveals how, over 30 years, Burns and McDonnell, grew from 600 to 5,500 employees (816%) and increased revenues from $40 million to $2.6 billion (6400%) as the result of an ESOP. Then, despite this example of extraordinary growth that most organisations can only dream about, the article simply concludes by identifying the upside and downside of ESOPs. So let me add to the subject.</p><p>The idea that greater ability to trade shares motivates employees is tenuous at best, especially at the lower levels. When I worked for a company that listed, we expected most of the staff would immediately sell or “stag” their shares and built this into the listing price and our forecasts proved to be correct. Only those well enough off to not regard shares or share options as a potential cash windfall will consider them as an investment and elect to hold on to them. Thus, if motivating employees means encouraging them to think like owners, giving them all shares is a busted flush – a dog that doesn’t hunt.</p><p>Equally, expecting employees to buy shares, is also unrealistically optimistic. Both approaches make it likely that the bulk of employee shares will end up in the hands of top management. This may well accentuate management focus on “increasing shareholder value.” And we all know how that pursuit, and the failure to recognise the other stakeholders, has been discredited by recent history.</p><p>ESOPs unquestionably offer a convenient exit strategy for entrepreneurs and small business owners. Yet introducing them solely for this purpose can make them seem expedient and cynical, and I suspect that is when “governance challenges” arise. Not least because it typifies the extent to which employee interests are otherwise generally ignored. Employee ownership does entail a different organisational culture and, consequently, trying to introduce it solely for such purposes will create issues. As the case study illustrates, the benefits from an ESOP are remarkable. It therefore seems ridiculous not to introduce them as a permanent feature and a better way to structure your organisation. </p><p>Yet there is an even better way. The thread running through both dilemmas is equity, and the assumption that everything revolves around share ownership. That doesn’t have to be the case. If, as the ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model does, you offer your employees “ownership” without shares, simply by virtue of employing them, you can offer any and all of the benefits of ESOPs without any of these dilemmas. Furthermore, the model is universal and offers:</p><ul><li>The same benefits to <i>all</i> your employees</li><li>The same benefits to <i>any</i> organisation– rather than just the private sector the article’s statistics highlight</li><li>A shared compensation model that matches – and could even exceed – the benefits of both case studies. </li></ul><p>So, if you are looking for transformation that will turbo-charge your organisational performance and deliver the scale of improvement described in the article, and without the degree of difficulty it cites, you need to explore how the ‘Every Individual Matters ‘ Model will help. </p></div>No Mas! It’s Time to Make an End!https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/no-mas-it-s-time-to-make-an-end2016-10-27T11:37:07.000Z2016-10-27T11:37:07.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217068?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>You could count all the words of Spanish I know on one hand, but “No Mas!” is a phrase I remember well (thanks to an historical boxing match last century.) But it took on a new relevance this past week.</p><p>This stemmed from a TED talk, “<a rel="nofollow" href="https://youtu.be/F6Qo8IDsVNg" target="_blank" title="Salvation from bad meetings">How to Save the World (or at Least Yourself) from Bad Meetings</a>” in which David Grady coins the phrase “Mindless Acceptance Syndrome” or “MAS.” As you might expect from the talk title, he is referring here to an unthinking acceptance of attendance at meetings, something he definitely sees as needing to stop. If, like most people, your life is plagued by meetings, you will find it worth the less than 7 minutes investment of your time. For me, though, it had a deeper significance than just meetings.</p><p>There were two primary, ultimately inextricably linked, reasons for this.</p><ol><li>MAS seems a clever synonym for conventional wisdom, and the blind deference we all too often give it.</li><li>The statement “<em>I wish I had those two hours back</em>” and the recognition that this unproductive time is actually “<em>stealing.</em>” </li></ol><p>Attendance at meetings is just one of any number of examples of both. Even if you have ever considered the organisational value of the time your people spend in meetings, you are unlikely to have ever considered the personal value of that time. That’s because the oversight is rooted in a classic MAS: that of seeing your people as just a resource. You can hardly be blamed for that, for management and accounting tradition compel you to treat your people as costs. Yet, ultimately this is innately counter-productive.</p><p>You need only consider the extent to which investment decisions are justified by reducing employee numbers, to see this. How dehumanising is that? People are the life-blood of your organisation: what keeps it functioning. Your employee engagement, continuous improvement and enhanced productivity initiatives all confirm you know this. They entail recognising and respecting the contribution of your people. So any actions which send a different message undermine those efforts and everything else you are striving for. Thus, while it’s undoubtedly true to say you cannot you expect your people to be more productive if you fail to recognise the negative personal impact that meetings can have, there is much more to it than that.</p><p>That is why it is time to pause and consider what this and other MAS are costing your organisation, and, like Roberto Duran, to say “No MAS!” But, for you, the consequences will be far more positive. You might start, as Grady suggests, by reviewing the nature of meetings in your organisation, but that is diving into the detail. I suggest, rather, that you start by recognising that your people are investing their lives in working for you.</p><p>When you do, you will understand that ‘Every Individual Matters.’ Perhaps then, you will be ready to explore how my ‘Every Individual Matters ‘ Model will help. </p></div>How The People Paradox Negates Employee Engagement Effortshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/how-the-people-paradox-negates-employee-engagement-efforts2016-09-22T11:27:42.000Z2016-09-22T11:27:42.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217028?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=395"></div><div><p>Have you ever heard of The People Paradox? I hadn’t either, although I was well aware of Lord Acton’s famous quote that, “<em>Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.</em>” Well, apparently that’s not just a bon mot: power does corrupt. Certainly according to research cited in the HBR.</p><p>In an October 2016 HBR article entitled <a rel="nofollow" href="https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-you%E2%80%A6" target="_blank">Don’t Let Power Corrupt You</a> Dacher Kilter describes how twenty years of research has shown him how, in all types of work environments, <em>“people rise on the basis of their good qualities, but their behaviour grows increasingly worse as they move up the ladder.</em>” That's 'The People Paradox.' I am sure you can think of instances in your own experience that support this. I still haven’t forgotten the CEO who completely ignored me when I was introduced to him by my Vice-President manager and added insult to injury by proceeding to question him about me as if I wasn’t there!</p><p>The fact that such behaviour seems objectionable makes the paradox credible. And, arguably, underpins the thinking behind employee engagement efforts. Yet, objectionable though it seems, one has to question why such “bad” behaviour is so pervasive and widespread. Is it possible that this behaviour is “built-into” our DNA as social animals? After all, it is not unique to humans: the consequences for any creature that strays from the clear pecking order of its group can be swift and severe. The fact is, any sort of community almost invariably necessitates some kind of hierarchy. And the hierarchy needs to be sustained.</p><p>The consequences of this are profound, because it would mean that the “paradox” is not in fact a paradox. Rather it is an entirely natural phenomenon, which means that this “corruption” is in fact anything but. This, in turn, makes it a lot harder to eliminate than one might envisage, and may well explain why, despite all the efforts to improve employee engagement, the results seem to be negligible.</p><p>Good as the remedies identified in <a rel="nofollow" href="https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-you%E2%80%A6" target="_blank">the article</a> may seem, because they appear to be looking at the problem the wrong way, they are highly unlikely to provide any meaningful, lasting solution. Finding this necessitates:</p><ol start="1"><li>Establishing whether this “corruption” is really a problem; and – if it is:</li><li>Finding a way to rewire our thinking to change our patterns of behaviour.</li></ol><p>On the face of it, the idea that power has a corrupting effect, suggests there is a problem. This is endorsed by the article’s remedies, which indicate that more considerate behaviour elicits improved performance and more positive results. And, if that is not enough, the prevalence of efforts to build employee engagement point to a widespread acknowledgement that all is not well.</p><p>If, however, the behaviour is innate, the remedy becomes more of a challenge, as the general failure of efforts to increase employee engagement substantiates. You need to ask yourself. “How do I address this and avoid the prevailing mistakes? Will the benefits justify the effort?” It’s your decision but one thing is for sure: if this behaviour is replicated at every level in your organisation, the potential benefits will be enormous, making the effort highly desirable. </p><p>The good news is that achieving those benefits does not have to be proportionally enormous. If the “corrupted” behaviour <em>is</em> hard-wired due to the need to survive in hierarchies, the best way to re-programme our thinking has to be to eliminate hierarchy in our organisations. Effectively this means shifting from an organisational structure to an organic structure. This makes the organisation more responsive, more adaptable and more change efficient. There are organisations that have done this and achieved – and sustained – significant success as a result. What's stopping you becoming one? </p></div>Achieving the Remarkablehttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/achieving-the-remarkable2016-08-18T14:12:34.000Z2016-08-18T14:12:34.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217016?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Like millions of people all around the world, I have been enjoying the spectacle of the Olympic Games. Watching top performers at the peak of their abilities is always good but the Olympics are special. They offer a unique combination of competition and camaraderie that creates a WOW! that uplifts athlete and spectator alike.</p><p>There can be no doubt about the intensity of the competition. Every athlete is striving to stretch beyond anything they have ever achieved before and prepared to endure massive physical discomfort in the process, which is what makes it such compelling viewing. Nevertheless, the competition somehow still, ultimately, seems to become secondary. Goodwill and good sportsmanship is manifested in a way it isn’t in any other sporting arena.</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak" alt=""/>Perhaps – and I can only surmise – this is due to the recognition that the Games have brought together people at the very top of their field. This, compounded by the fact that they only come around every four years creates a mutual respect and a unique bond that isn’t repeated in any other sports competition. This unites rather than divides and may be why just taking part is enough for all but the very elite.</p><p>For example, there were 9 or 10 heats just for the men’s 100 metre athletics. That is 80-90 sprinters. And there are only three medals (two if you exclude Usain Bolt!) Consequently for most athletes it ultimately comes down to competing against themselves – to doing their very best. So, for them the measure of success is simply achieving a “Personal Best” (PB). For them that is remarkable. However, their endeavour, and the chance of the unexpected, is what gives the Games their distinctive character and what makes them such a pleasure to watch.</p><p>There is an important lesson here for any business leader. To achieve the remarkable you need to create an enabling culture that promotes PBs. You need an environment that encourages, recognises and rewards PBs. Only when you create a distinctive employer brand that offers a superior customer experience and gives you a competitive edge, will you achieve the remarkable and make people want to do business with you. </p><p><span>If you doubt this, you just have to listen to the interviews of the medal-winning athletes. In so many cases the first thing they do is thank their others without whom, they acknowledge, their achievement would not have been possible. The fact is that great personal achievement is seldom, if ever, the result only of the individual’s own effort.</span></p><p>One of the most remarkable and inspiring examples of this was the Great Britain cycle team. It completely dominated the cycling events to such an extent that:</p><ul><li>It won most of the medals</li><li>Every single competing athlete won a medal</li><li>Almost all its members are looking forward to getting back to their training!</li></ul><p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d21224eb970c-pi"><img class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d21224eb970c img-responsive align-center" title="WOW 123rf 21532194_s" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d21224eb970c-320wi" alt="WOW 123rf 21532194_s"/></a></p><p>They were so successful that all the other teams are questioning how they did it, and even voicing suspicions of illegal tactics, which they cannot substantiate and which, in a sport recently ravaged by doping scandal, seems highly unlikely and, hopefully, totally unfounded. Rather than every single rider expressing their gratitude to their support team, most interesting here was the numbers of people and size and functions of those teams: family, coaches, personal trainers, nutritionists, mechanics, physiotherapists, etc. </p><p>Being awesome and achieving the remarkable is truly a team effort, for both an individual and an organisation. It depends on every member of the team doing their best, personally and collectively. You could say it is the result of a number of PBs. So if you want an organisation that achieves the remarkable and creates WOW! you need to recognise that ‘Every Individual Matters.’</p></div>Mindfulness,Well-being and Wellness: The Implicationshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/mindfulness-well-being-and-wellness-the-implications2016-03-03T13:39:55.000Z2016-03-03T13:39:55.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216856?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p><span>Wellness, well-being and mindfulness are all becoming hot topics in the HR and business fraternity. It seems that there is a growing awareness of the fact that people perform better when they are healthy and happy. This is certainly progress and cause for celebration.</span></p>
<p><span>Yet, while it is unquestionably good news, it is also something you need to approach cautiously, for it implies the need for greater awareness of the employee as a person. Ideally you should have this already. Yet the pervasive lack of employee engagement revealed by surveys, indicates that such awareness is rare. This suggests that formalising this aspect of the relationship between manager or supervisor and employee presents a massive challenge.</span></p>
<p><span>For starters there is a danger that the lack of trust between employees and their supervisors, implicit in the lack of employee engagement, means that employees will perceive such initiatives as encroaching on their personal lives. Thus they may not welcome them at all. Even worse, there is a strong possibility that this new approach could lead employers down a path of “increasing interference” in employees’ lives. Any hint of that is likely to meet strong resistance by employees, which will make them extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement these changes effectively.</span></p>
<p><span>You may think this is unduly pessimistic. Yet this <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/leadership/the-art-and-science-of-well-being-at-work?cid=other-eml-nsl-mip-mck-oth-1603" target="_blank">McKinsey article</a> hints at some of the difficulties you face as an employer. For instance, the research into sleep deprivation that shows your ability to function effectively is impacted when you don’t sleep properly and that missing a night’s sleep is equivalent to being legally drunk for you are basically at 0.1 percent blood-alcohol level, which is double the legal limit for driving in many countries.</span></p>
<p><span>So, “How many people do you have working in your organisation who are effectively working as if they were drunk?” And that’s only the beginning. Now ask yourself, “How are we going to identify such occurrences and what are we going to do to prevent it?” You can begin to see what a potentially tricky road this is.</span></p>
<p><span><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357744?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357744?profile=original" width="450" class="align-right"></a>Naturally, this is a road you will want to avoid. In order to do so, you have to approach it as a cultural challenge. You have to create a culture of mutual respect. You have to create an environment in which people recognise their obligations to the entity and themselves, take responsibility for their actions and are able to do so without fear of consequences. Only then will you create the mindfulness and well-being we are talking about, and reduce the stress that otherwise sabotages all your efforts, and undermines health and thus personal and organisational wellness. </span></p></div>The importance of Employee Engagement?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/the-importance-of-employee-engagement2015-03-18T08:39:45.000Z2015-03-18T08:39:45.000ZDeborah Sansomehttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/DeborahSansome<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216430?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p><b>`<i>Employee engagement</i>` - what do those words suggest to both an employer and employee?</b></p>
<p> <b>To an employer</b>, it could mean an inward sigh at the thought of trying to engage its employees, especially if this is a problem area within the organisation.  If this is the case, it could imply a lack of enthusiasm at the concept of trying to motivate its staff and the difficulty in maybe achieving this.</p>
<p><b>To an employee</b>, who, as well, inwardly sighs at these words, could mean they are not fully absorbed by and enthusiastic about their work or, simply, see these words as the new `buzz words` used by employers.</p>
<p><u>Is</u> employee engagement more than just a buzz word?</p>
<p>I did enjoy the speech from the ITV chairman and former head of Asda, Archie Norman, who told the story of bored checkout ladies from Asda and how disengaged they were because they were working on the checkout.  His speech summed it up “<i>people come to work to shine and it is <b>our</b> job to make them shine</i>”.  I think these words are phenomenal in their context to show that, regardless of an individual’s role within the organisation, they are valued and the organisation will do everything they can to make them “<i>shine</i>” and engage them.</p>
<p>Engagement is not about an employer spending lots of money or being extravagant; it is about engaging, recognising and rewarding staff.  Employees hear all the time that they are the organisation’s most important asset; however, everyone should be made to feel valued <b>in their own right</b> and <b>not just</b> as an `asset` for the organisation’s purposes. </p>
<p>Engagement could simply be having a quick weekly catch up with your employees, going out for team meals or a drink, a quiz night or simply asking employees how they are.  A shocking example of an employer not personally engaging with its staff was displayed in a conversation I was party to recently.  An employee was talking to his Line Manager (of 3 years) and was complaining that he didn’t think that he had bought the right present for his wife for their 2<sup>nd</sup> wedding anniversary and was thinking of returning it.  The employer looked at the employee puzzled and had replied “I didn’t even know you were married”. </p>
<p> Enough said I think!</p>
<p> On attending an employee engagement seminar thereafter, I liked the thought process behind a game we played.  It is easy and fun and is a good way for employers and employees to engage and get to know each other better.  It is better to do this in smaller groups, so, preferably, into each respective teams, as follows;</p>
<p>* Sit in a circle, facing the centre and ask everyone to take 5 minutes to come up with two truths and one lie about themselves and write it down.</p>
<p>* As Line Manager, ask each employee, in turn, to read out their two truths and a lie. This could relate to something in their personal life or at work.</p>
<p>*  Allow the rest of the group, including the Line Manager, to ascertain what is truth and what is lie about each employee.</p>
<p> This is a great way to get to know your staff better and engage with them and, hopefully, prevent any future employer being party to the extremely awkward conversation I had experienced!</p>
<p>Deborah Sansome</p>
</div>