So, the RFU have appointed Stuart Lancaster as the new permanent head coach for the England rugby team. Given what he achieved in his interim (honeymoon) period, it is not totally surprising, but is something of a gamble.
lancaster's pedigree is not proven, unlike Nick Mallett, who coincidentally is actually English having beennborn not far from me in Hertfordshire. The new RFU CEO has been given plenty of advice in this matter by some very learned people, so o e hopes that all angles have been considered.
I think that the tour to South Africa and next year's Six Nations will give us a better measure of the man and his capabilities, but the unashamed truth is that the real target is the Rugby World Cup in 2015 and that is still a long way off.
As a long time England fan I want to see them lift the Webb Ellis Trophy again. I sincerely hope this is the first step, but I suspect there are more issues to be faced and sorted in e RFU.
One small swallow and all that!
Thursday 29 March 2012
Wednesday 28 March 2012
What connects Roman Polanski, Sharon Tate and Lord Digby Jones?
The clue is Oracle and BAFTA, because today I attended an event run by Oracle to showcase their new CRM product, Fusion. This was held at BAFTA in Picadilly and was my first visit there. It was here the three caught my attention.
In the auditorium many of the seats are "endowed" and the one in front of me had a small plaque, readings "Endowed by Roman Polanksi in memory of Sharon Tate". This had me smiling during the main product speeches, but then Lord Digby Jones got up as the guest speaker.
Wow! He spoke irreverently about all the political parties and about Europe, but boy did he speak sense! Not only is he a great platform speaker, he "gets it" and is not afraid to call a spade a spade.
If he had a party I think I would sign up. His ideas about leadership and the malaise with the UK were spot on. His view that the 21st century belongs to Asia (with a honoury membership for Brazil) was compelling. I heard more sense spoke in less than a hour than for years of rhetoric from our politicians.
I just wish the talk had been recorded so I could have shared it with my daughter, a sixth former. I did ask him how he thought we could prepare our children for the future; his answer was to help them find time to think in a world that is focussed in immediate gratification and instant response.
If you get a chance to hear him then I wholeheartedly recommend the experience.
In the auditorium many of the seats are "endowed" and the one in front of me had a small plaque, readings "Endowed by Roman Polanksi in memory of Sharon Tate". This had me smiling during the main product speeches, but then Lord Digby Jones got up as the guest speaker.
Wow! He spoke irreverently about all the political parties and about Europe, but boy did he speak sense! Not only is he a great platform speaker, he "gets it" and is not afraid to call a spade a spade.
If he had a party I think I would sign up. His ideas about leadership and the malaise with the UK were spot on. His view that the 21st century belongs to Asia (with a honoury membership for Brazil) was compelling. I heard more sense spoke in less than a hour than for years of rhetoric from our politicians.
I just wish the talk had been recorded so I could have shared it with my daughter, a sixth former. I did ask him how he thought we could prepare our children for the future; his answer was to help them find time to think in a world that is focussed in immediate gratification and instant response.
If you get a chance to hear him then I wholeheartedly recommend the experience.
Friday 23 March 2012
As legends die.......
Earlier in this blog I wrote about the sad death of Andy Ripley, and England, Lions and Barbarian legend so it was with additional sadness I spotted the death of Mervyn Davies, the Wales, Lions and Barbarian legend.
The two were at their peak when I was a schoolboy learning the game and their style and enjoyment of the sport was very influential on me. Mervyn, unfortunately, collapsed on the field with a brain haemorrhage and while he recovered it seems he never came to terms with all the implications of his diminished capabilities.
That he died last week (I missed the initial announcement) reminded me that many of the legends of that era are ageing fast and may not be with us at all in a few years time.
On the brighter side I wonder if we are seeing the emergence of new legends, in Alex Corbisiero, the England tight head prop and in Dave Denton, the young Scottish No 8?
Corbisiero was, at least to me, pretty much an unknown a year or so ago. He was chewed up and spat out against Ireland last year, yet last Saturday he was the cornerstone of the English pack that demolished the Irish. He has always done a lot more than scrum and if the pundits are to be believed is one on the few Englishmen to have pretty well claimed their place in the Lions' test team next year. Something of a turnaround and injury permitting, I wonder how good he will become and for how long.
In that same team Ben Morgan has really announced his arrival, with bustling, barnstorming performances, but when you consider the youth of Dave Denton, his achievements this year his playing stands out further.
Scotland have proud iced some great players and Denton may be another.
These are two I will watch over the coming years and I think they should feature loudly in the next Rugby World Cup when they will have the experience to make the most of their skills.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
The two were at their peak when I was a schoolboy learning the game and their style and enjoyment of the sport was very influential on me. Mervyn, unfortunately, collapsed on the field with a brain haemorrhage and while he recovered it seems he never came to terms with all the implications of his diminished capabilities.
That he died last week (I missed the initial announcement) reminded me that many of the legends of that era are ageing fast and may not be with us at all in a few years time.
On the brighter side I wonder if we are seeing the emergence of new legends, in Alex Corbisiero, the England tight head prop and in Dave Denton, the young Scottish No 8?
Corbisiero was, at least to me, pretty much an unknown a year or so ago. He was chewed up and spat out against Ireland last year, yet last Saturday he was the cornerstone of the English pack that demolished the Irish. He has always done a lot more than scrum and if the pundits are to be believed is one on the few Englishmen to have pretty well claimed their place in the Lions' test team next year. Something of a turnaround and injury permitting, I wonder how good he will become and for how long.
In that same team Ben Morgan has really announced his arrival, with bustling, barnstorming performances, but when you consider the youth of Dave Denton, his achievements this year his playing stands out further.
Scotland have proud iced some great players and Denton may be another.
These are two I will watch over the coming years and I think they should feature loudly in the next Rugby World Cup when they will have the experience to make the most of their skills.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Thursday 22 March 2012
Competency Based Interviewing - Things I wish I had known beforehand
I have just been advised that I fluffed a competency based interview (CBI) yesterday and hope that this post will help others faced with a similar situation
It was part of a half-day assessment centre for an interesting role. Apparently I aced the first part which was a case study consisting of 40 minutes preparation and then another 40 minutes or so of grilling over your answers. This was something of a rush, in all senses of the word and looking back I was probably still coming down from the adrenaline and somewhat drained when I faced the competency based interview.
I am not making excuses about fatigue, but I recognise the possibility and will take that lesson forward into any similar situation in the future. I do wonder if I had had the CBI first if the result would have been different?
The feedback is that I did not convince them of my structured approach during the CBI and in reflection I can see that I was still answering about WHAT I had achieved in each situation rather than HOW and WHY. The sickening things is that I always have a process, even as it adapts to the situation.
I should have done more preparation on CBI style answers, and wish I had, as that would have helped considerably. I have since googled on the subject and found this resource . It is well worth looking at BEFOREHAND, if you are told you will face a competency based interview.
I will not lift it all here, but a couple of pieces are worth highlighting.
In terms of answer structure this a useful piece:
NB The "What" here does not refer to achievement!
I commend others to download the paper and refer to it before an interview. It would have helped me and I am sure it will help you.
It was part of a half-day assessment centre for an interesting role. Apparently I aced the first part which was a case study consisting of 40 minutes preparation and then another 40 minutes or so of grilling over your answers. This was something of a rush, in all senses of the word and looking back I was probably still coming down from the adrenaline and somewhat drained when I faced the competency based interview.
I am not making excuses about fatigue, but I recognise the possibility and will take that lesson forward into any similar situation in the future. I do wonder if I had had the CBI first if the result would have been different?
The feedback is that I did not convince them of my structured approach during the CBI and in reflection I can see that I was still answering about WHAT I had achieved in each situation rather than HOW and WHY. The sickening things is that I always have a process, even as it adapts to the situation.
I should have done more preparation on CBI style answers, and wish I had, as that would have helped considerably. I have since googled on the subject and found this resource . It is well worth looking at BEFOREHAND, if you are told you will face a competency based interview.
I will not lift it all here, but a couple of pieces are worth highlighting.
In terms of answer structure this a useful piece:
The STAR model provides a memorable and structured method to frame your answers:
- Situation – describe the situation or problem encountered
- Task – describe the task that the situation required of you
- Action – describe the action that you took to overcome the obstacle presented
- Result – describe outcomes including achievements, what was learned from any negative outcomes, and what you would do differently next time.
Competency-based answers are focused around real life examples, to validate these examples it is important to include as much specific detail as possible. For example, company names, colleagues and managers names and job titles, and dates (month and year). Once you have prepared a couple of answers, ask the following;
Who – was involved, manager, customer, colleague? What – was the situation, the issue, the outcome? When – did this happen, in the process? Where – were you working, were you in the process? Why – did you choose this course of action, was this objection raised? How – did you prioritise your tasks, action your plan, resolve the situation?
NB The "What" here does not refer to achievement!
I commend others to download the paper and refer to it before an interview. It would have helped me and I am sure it will help you.
Benefits Management
I have just published the outcome of a survey I carried out for the Enterprise Management Association. A free download copy can be obtained by clicking here.
Disappointingly the survey suggest that we have made liitle progress in improving performance in this area over the last 10 years, this is despite the rise in the "professional" development of those involved in change, but consistent with the continuing perception that much change fails to deliver.
I won't repeat it all here, but the three conclusions were:-
Disappointingly the survey suggest that we have made liitle progress in improving performance in this area over the last 10 years, this is despite the rise in the "professional" development of those involved in change, but consistent with the continuing perception that much change fails to deliver.
I won't repeat it all here, but the three conclusions were:-
- Respondents nearly unanimously (08%) consider that improving benefit management will significantly improve the real and perceived delivery of change.
- Clear, corporate/executive accountability and the consistency in the application of benefit management are key enablers to improving performance.
- Corporate awareness of the value and relevance of benefit management needs to be raised amongst senior management.
"Org complexity has increased dramatically so clean ring fenced programs are rare hence specific benefits almost impossible to track."
"It is not rocket science….(or) some black art!"
"Overall desire to manage benefits top down disintegrates and fragments as programs proceed"
"Most managers just want the results and are not interested in the full picture of change …”
Tuesday 20 March 2012
X-rated and not for the Squeamish - Did Spartacus jump the shark today?
I have decided to post this entry as I did say this blog would hold things that caught my attention or interest so this is entirely in keeping.
Scroll down if you wish to continue, but
I have been watching recorded episodes of the current TV adaptation of Spartacus. It is on air late in the evening, well past the recognised watershed for adult content.
It is quite an epic in the making and makes plenty of gratuitous use of nudity, sex (of all sorts), blood and gore. You would expect this being set in decadent Rome and with a focus on galdiators and the arena.
The special effects people must have had a heyday, with gallons of blood to spray around and horrendous wounds and mutilations to portray. Along with this they are pretty graphic in their illustration of the various sexual relationships, but stop short of explicit hard core pornography ....... just.
That said today I wonder if they went too far. Having become used to the usual cocktail of lust and horror, the following scene, shocked me, leaving me speechless. It felt that things had gone too far.
In essence Spartacus had a new bunch of freed slaves join his group. They were rowdy and one especially large and strong. During a evening round of rough and tumble amongst the men a fight ensued after one of the women was assaulted. It developed into a sword fight between this giant and Spartacus.
It was the usual stuff of clashing metal, grunting and glaring until Spartacus, standing to the side delivered and upward cut.
This literally sliced off the giant's face. What was left was a gaping, head-sized openning filled largely with a mass of red pulp pumping out spurts of blood. This was upon the shoulders of a still standing body that started to topple forward.
If this was not enough, as the body fell forward the brain slipped out and fell to its feet!
My daughter would have gone "OMG!", but fortuntately she was not there.
What can I say? Was there any need for this? Not that I can see. It was pure shock value and while it did grip my attention momentarily I am now left thinking has this gone too far or as they say in Hollywood (after Happy Days) has it jumped the shark?
I have no idea where this can go now, other than down.
Scroll down if you wish to continue, but
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED - DO NOT READ ON IF YOU HAVE A SENSITIVE DISPOSITION.
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
I have been watching recorded episodes of the current TV adaptation of Spartacus. It is on air late in the evening, well past the recognised watershed for adult content.
It is quite an epic in the making and makes plenty of gratuitous use of nudity, sex (of all sorts), blood and gore. You would expect this being set in decadent Rome and with a focus on galdiators and the arena.
The special effects people must have had a heyday, with gallons of blood to spray around and horrendous wounds and mutilations to portray. Along with this they are pretty graphic in their illustration of the various sexual relationships, but stop short of explicit hard core pornography ....... just.
That said today I wonder if they went too far. Having become used to the usual cocktail of lust and horror, the following scene, shocked me, leaving me speechless. It felt that things had gone too far.
In essence Spartacus had a new bunch of freed slaves join his group. They were rowdy and one especially large and strong. During a evening round of rough and tumble amongst the men a fight ensued after one of the women was assaulted. It developed into a sword fight between this giant and Spartacus.
It was the usual stuff of clashing metal, grunting and glaring until Spartacus, standing to the side delivered and upward cut.
This literally sliced off the giant's face. What was left was a gaping, head-sized openning filled largely with a mass of red pulp pumping out spurts of blood. This was upon the shoulders of a still standing body that started to topple forward.
If this was not enough, as the body fell forward the brain slipped out and fell to its feet!
My daughter would have gone "OMG!", but fortuntately she was not there.
What can I say? Was there any need for this? Not that I can see. It was pure shock value and while it did grip my attention momentarily I am now left thinking has this gone too far or as they say in Hollywood (after Happy Days) has it jumped the shark?
I have no idea where this can go now, other than down.
Words Are Wonderful! - Shoogle
I tend to think that I have a good vocabulary, but still enjoy discovering new words. I don't count the scientific ones my daughter, who is studying psychology, catches me with. They are clinical and not at full of interest and meaning.
With this in mind I discovered a new word as I was reading a crime novel based in Aberdeen. The word is
With this in mind I discovered a new word as I was reading a crime novel based in Aberdeen. The word is
SHOOGLE
It was used twice in a few pages so I just had to look it up. It seems it is a Scottish word meaning to shake, wobble or move from side to side, as in "(he) schoogle his chair in, closer to the table".
I now feel challenged to bring this word into some part of my daily use......so stay tuned.
Monday 19 March 2012
The truth is not your friend!
This was one of the messages I received in Saturday while attending the Raindance Film Making School. I should caveat the statement slightly with the prefix, "When you are directing for the screen (Film or TV).....", but still there were some interesting lessons to be gleaned from the event.
Overall the day was very interesting. I went looking to see what I could take from it and bring into my working world of leading business change. I wasn't disappointed. The day was four 90 minute sessions covering, story development and script writing, production, directing and how to break in to the industry.
The last session was not my main interest, but the preceding one about directing, by Patrick Turner, was very good. Before I go onto that there was something out of the story development that might have applications in my world. This related to the setting of the story.
We covered the four typical characters, hero, villian and their sidekicks who change allegience at some point. What was then said was that there were different settings, described as "wilderness", "village", "town", "city" and "oppressive city". In each the hero is a different. For example in a "village", where the buildings are all similar, everyone knows everyone else and if you stand at one end of the street you can see the other end, the hero is usually a stranger appearing out of nowhere or someone invited to come and fight some dragon/injustice/etc. In these situations the hero remains unchanged by the story and often rides out at the end to do it again somewhere else. Sounds like a professional, journeyman project manager, eh? And the "village" sounds like a small to medium business?
In an "oppressive city", where the rules have changed, the hero is often some lowly person who spots someone "higher"(?) doing something wrong and sets out to right matters. Along the way they usually realise some of their own limitations and find themselves improved/elevated as a result of the experience. I think there are some parallels with very large corporates, but I need to work on that more.
I guess the real message was not all heroes are the same and each hero needs to be matched to its setting....as do project and programme managers!
In terms of the directing, the theme was that in order to look right on screen, the director often needs to cheat.
Here are two pictures of Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh from "Gone with the Wind". Clark was 6'1/2" and Vivien was 5' 3 1/2" (without heels). I would suggest that neither of these pictures is "real" although the second is closest. The first, through staging, makes Vivien look taller and the second she looks shorter than her reported height, considering in life she would be wearing heels.
In each case the director thought they looked good and they do. If you watched the film, would you have spotted the difference if you had not been told?
There was much talk about compressing space and actors having to work really close in order to make head shots for two or more people work (nose to nose distances of two inches or less so that they couldn't even focus on each other!), really invading personal space and making it feel very uncomfortable, yet look good. There was also talk about need to change the actors sight lines in that often to see the two faces in a conversation the actors will not be looking at each other, but it will look good on screen. Watch good scenes now and check if the actors are actually looking at each other?
Avoiding eye contact and invading personal space are not good ideas in real life so let's leave those in the world of TV and cinema, but there was one other takeaway.
That was that good actors vary their volume depending on the size of a shot. They will almost whisper in close up, talk louder in mid shot and even louder in long shot and the best just adjust naturally. We saw examples of Tom Cruise and others doing this. The corollary was with George Lazenby, James Bond for one film, who is often thought of as the worst Bond. Patrick Turner's view was that George Lazenby's acting was OK, but he was just too loud and that is what set the performance back.
Patrick also talked about this low volume, almost whisper, as a way of drawing the camera and the audience in. Talk quietly in an interview and the crew will get closer!
I think there is something there for my change world. I rarely work on screen, but often the topics I talk about have differing scale. Also at times I want to draw my listeners in. I will be more conscious about how loud I am talking in future and see if I can achieve better results? Maybe it pays to be softer on detail points and louder on more strategic pieces? Certainly I will be more aware when with stakeholders, in small or large groups.
All this is very different from the stage and helps expalin why some actors do more screen work than others. Patrick admitted that actors can become type cast, but that was for a reason; they can do what is needed and make the director's life easier - so they get used again and again.
There is no slack on most production budgets to train new actors - you either get it or you don't and that is often the differnce between working and "resting".
All in all this was worth a day of my time.
Overall the day was very interesting. I went looking to see what I could take from it and bring into my working world of leading business change. I wasn't disappointed. The day was four 90 minute sessions covering, story development and script writing, production, directing and how to break in to the industry.
The last session was not my main interest, but the preceding one about directing, by Patrick Turner, was very good. Before I go onto that there was something out of the story development that might have applications in my world. This related to the setting of the story.
We covered the four typical characters, hero, villian and their sidekicks who change allegience at some point. What was then said was that there were different settings, described as "wilderness", "village", "town", "city" and "oppressive city". In each the hero is a different. For example in a "village", where the buildings are all similar, everyone knows everyone else and if you stand at one end of the street you can see the other end, the hero is usually a stranger appearing out of nowhere or someone invited to come and fight some dragon/injustice/etc. In these situations the hero remains unchanged by the story and often rides out at the end to do it again somewhere else. Sounds like a professional, journeyman project manager, eh? And the "village" sounds like a small to medium business?
In an "oppressive city", where the rules have changed, the hero is often some lowly person who spots someone "higher"(?) doing something wrong and sets out to right matters. Along the way they usually realise some of their own limitations and find themselves improved/elevated as a result of the experience. I think there are some parallels with very large corporates, but I need to work on that more.
I guess the real message was not all heroes are the same and each hero needs to be matched to its setting....as do project and programme managers!
In terms of the directing, the theme was that in order to look right on screen, the director often needs to cheat.
Here are two pictures of Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh from "Gone with the Wind". Clark was 6'1/2" and Vivien was 5' 3 1/2" (without heels). I would suggest that neither of these pictures is "real" although the second is closest. The first, through staging, makes Vivien look taller and the second she looks shorter than her reported height, considering in life she would be wearing heels.In each case the director thought they looked good and they do. If you watched the film, would you have spotted the difference if you had not been told?
There was much talk about compressing space and actors having to work really close in order to make head shots for two or more people work (nose to nose distances of two inches or less so that they couldn't even focus on each other!), really invading personal space and making it feel very uncomfortable, yet look good. There was also talk about need to change the actors sight lines in that often to see the two faces in a conversation the actors will not be looking at each other, but it will look good on screen. Watch good scenes now and check if the actors are actually looking at each other?
Avoiding eye contact and invading personal space are not good ideas in real life so let's leave those in the world of TV and cinema, but there was one other takeaway.
That was that good actors vary their volume depending on the size of a shot. They will almost whisper in close up, talk louder in mid shot and even louder in long shot and the best just adjust naturally. We saw examples of Tom Cruise and others doing this. The corollary was with George Lazenby, James Bond for one film, who is often thought of as the worst Bond. Patrick Turner's view was that George Lazenby's acting was OK, but he was just too loud and that is what set the performance back.
Patrick also talked about this low volume, almost whisper, as a way of drawing the camera and the audience in. Talk quietly in an interview and the crew will get closer!
I think there is something there for my change world. I rarely work on screen, but often the topics I talk about have differing scale. Also at times I want to draw my listeners in. I will be more conscious about how loud I am talking in future and see if I can achieve better results? Maybe it pays to be softer on detail points and louder on more strategic pieces? Certainly I will be more aware when with stakeholders, in small or large groups.
All this is very different from the stage and helps expalin why some actors do more screen work than others. Patrick admitted that actors can become type cast, but that was for a reason; they can do what is needed and make the director's life easier - so they get used again and again.
There is no slack on most production budgets to train new actors - you either get it or you don't and that is often the differnce between working and "resting".
All in all this was worth a day of my time.
Friday 16 March 2012
Stepping out
Tomorrow I get to experience my 2011 Christmas present from my wife. She struggled to know what to buy....not that I have everything, but I have the things I want. In the end I saw a one-day event about film making and suggested that would be a good gift.
I have done some video editting over the years. We had a pretty early video camera (a big one!) and I did try using the old physical tape-to-tape and blending method; it frustrated the hell out of me and I didn't do much.
More recently I have had a digital camera and use Serif's MoviePlus. It works and works well. I have made a few DVDs of things for friends and even created and loaded a few Youtube pieces. I just wonder what more I could do.
Additionally in my work communication is an important element so I am always looking new ideas and ways to improve my ability to engage with others.
So.....
.....tomorrow I spend a day with who knows who being lectured about storytelling, script writing, production techniques, etc. In truth I have no idea what I will get from it and my expectations are low. In truth I am looking for an interesting day that takes me out of my normal routines or subject matters, let's me mix with new, different and hopefully interesting people. If I take away a couple of ideas or techniques that I can use at home or in work then that will be a real plus. And who knows it may inspire me to make the next 2001: A Space Odyssey - one of my first memories of an epic film.
I suspect I will be one of the oldest there, but we shall see. And even if that is so in physical years I intend to take a young mind with me and stay open to the possibilities that may appear.
Thursday 15 March 2012
Goldman Sach's and Pandora's Box - What (or should I say who?) next?
There has been a lot of debate about Greg Smiths's very open letter of resignation from Goldman Sachs. Some shocked that he should say such things, others shocked that it took him so long to realise. I share sympathy with both views.
My career in financial services has now spanned three decades and is into its fourth. I have been lucky to work for some great organisations and one or two not so great, or at least not the parts I was in. The world has undoubtedly become more joined up, faster and altogether more complicated. We know so much more about what is going on and have layer upon layer of rules applied in order make it "safer"(?). While I recognise the risk of having a rose-tinted rear view mirror, I do think that in terms of integrity and safety things were better when I started. All the effort that has been applied by regulators and governments and business schools has made it different, but not better.
The signs have been there for a while, maybe not endemic or should it be pandemic, but there and worrying all the same. Greg's comments about his colleagues only thinking of themselves and how much money they could make out of clients was portrayed vividly by Frank Partnoy in his book "F.I.A.S.C.O." (published in 1999) where Morgan Stanley derivatives teams were the living example of what Greg is now complaining about. I am sure Morgan Stanley were not alone. I would certainly question the ethics of a few derivatives guys I have worked with.
Now I am not saying that derivatives are bad as some are. Last night a radio host was deriding all derivatives and likening them to a garage taking your car for repair, selling it to another person without you knowing and letting them use it when you weren't. This went out over London! It is not only unfair it is wrong. Many, if not most, derivatives (I was in at the beginning of financial futures in London, worked with currency options and all sorts) have a real and genuine purpose to help business. The trouble comes with the "wetware" ie the people. If people want or need to speculate then they can use derivatives badly. If someone is unscrupulous they can create toxic derivatives (and some have). But it is the people creating and selling them that are bad, not derivatives as a collective product. And it is ill-equipped management that allows it!
Enough on that and back to Greg Smith vs Goldman Sachs (GSvsGS). It may be that the culture at Goldman Sachs held out longer than others? That it held clients in high esteem? I do agree with Greg that satisfying clients is a better strategy, but as the rewards for individuals grow, so does the temptation to relax certain behaviours. I saw changes in the DNA at Flemings while I was there, but nothing catastrophic and it sold to Chase before things went too far. The family had held a pretty strong hold on ethics and taking their name with them into a Family Office protected that.
For all the regulators attempts to strengthen boards and executive teams by bringing diversity in, I would question if things have improved. The price of diversity has been a lack of deep relevant experience that has been shown wanting in many of the recent crisis'. As industry is going back towards apprenticeships then so should financial services think of deepening it training and not just go for smart suits, patent shoes and a taste for fast cars and fancy liquor.
My take is that something has just broken the proverbial camel's back for Greg to come out with this. Goldman Sachs and Greg' awareness has not just happened overnight; indeed Greg's words suggest he has been seeing this for some time. Of course business exists to make money, but not at any price. I wonder how many others will break ranks and talk about their organisation? I suspect many are nodding in agreement, but will sit tight and say nothing, until the next thing breaks and then it will be "I told you so!"
We know we still have institutions failing spectaularly, indeed we have countries doing so. We have "Bernie Madoff"s and "Alan Stansfords" out there hoping that their fraud will not collapse. All in all I suspect we are no safer or better off than we were, we just think we are. Every now and then it gets too much for someone, in this instance Greg Smith, and we get a juicy exposee. This one cost Goldmans a big chunk of their value (down US$2.2bn)!
I wonder if they will recover and indeed what the next one will be?
My career in financial services has now spanned three decades and is into its fourth. I have been lucky to work for some great organisations and one or two not so great, or at least not the parts I was in. The world has undoubtedly become more joined up, faster and altogether more complicated. We know so much more about what is going on and have layer upon layer of rules applied in order make it "safer"(?). While I recognise the risk of having a rose-tinted rear view mirror, I do think that in terms of integrity and safety things were better when I started. All the effort that has been applied by regulators and governments and business schools has made it different, but not better.
The signs have been there for a while, maybe not endemic or should it be pandemic, but there and worrying all the same. Greg's comments about his colleagues only thinking of themselves and how much money they could make out of clients was portrayed vividly by Frank Partnoy in his book "F.I.A.S.C.O." (published in 1999) where Morgan Stanley derivatives teams were the living example of what Greg is now complaining about. I am sure Morgan Stanley were not alone. I would certainly question the ethics of a few derivatives guys I have worked with.
Now I am not saying that derivatives are bad as some are. Last night a radio host was deriding all derivatives and likening them to a garage taking your car for repair, selling it to another person without you knowing and letting them use it when you weren't. This went out over London! It is not only unfair it is wrong. Many, if not most, derivatives (I was in at the beginning of financial futures in London, worked with currency options and all sorts) have a real and genuine purpose to help business. The trouble comes with the "wetware" ie the people. If people want or need to speculate then they can use derivatives badly. If someone is unscrupulous they can create toxic derivatives (and some have). But it is the people creating and selling them that are bad, not derivatives as a collective product. And it is ill-equipped management that allows it!
Enough on that and back to Greg Smith vs Goldman Sachs (GSvsGS). It may be that the culture at Goldman Sachs held out longer than others? That it held clients in high esteem? I do agree with Greg that satisfying clients is a better strategy, but as the rewards for individuals grow, so does the temptation to relax certain behaviours. I saw changes in the DNA at Flemings while I was there, but nothing catastrophic and it sold to Chase before things went too far. The family had held a pretty strong hold on ethics and taking their name with them into a Family Office protected that.
For all the regulators attempts to strengthen boards and executive teams by bringing diversity in, I would question if things have improved. The price of diversity has been a lack of deep relevant experience that has been shown wanting in many of the recent crisis'. As industry is going back towards apprenticeships then so should financial services think of deepening it training and not just go for smart suits, patent shoes and a taste for fast cars and fancy liquor.
My take is that something has just broken the proverbial camel's back for Greg to come out with this. Goldman Sachs and Greg' awareness has not just happened overnight; indeed Greg's words suggest he has been seeing this for some time. Of course business exists to make money, but not at any price. I wonder how many others will break ranks and talk about their organisation? I suspect many are nodding in agreement, but will sit tight and say nothing, until the next thing breaks and then it will be "I told you so!"
We know we still have institutions failing spectaularly, indeed we have countries doing so. We have "Bernie Madoff"s and "Alan Stansfords" out there hoping that their fraud will not collapse. All in all I suspect we are no safer or better off than we were, we just think we are. Every now and then it gets too much for someone, in this instance Greg Smith, and we get a juicy exposee. This one cost Goldmans a big chunk of their value (down US$2.2bn)!
I wonder if they will recover and indeed what the next one will be?
Waving my street cred (if I had any?) goodbye
Last night found me sitting amongst a near sell out crowd at the Watford Colleseum at a concert by a bank I never thought I would be at, and it wasn't bad. The group in question has been performing over 50 years and last night, after a stroke to one of the intended line-up, performed with only three.
They had an adoring, if ageing, crowd who stood from the start and barely sat down even when the slow songs came up. They play plenty of instruments and one is a drummer. He is no spring chicken, but had a drum duel followed by a sparkling solo (my wife tells me he was once on the world's list of top ten drummers - and I can believe that). It was as good as any I have heard and at the end after mopping his brow, he put his jacket back on and returned to join the other two, with no visible signs of fatigue.
Many of the songs were well known and the crowd knew the words, but a couple were new showing they are still writing and creative after all this time. Many of the group members along the years were not there, but as their picture flashed on screens the affection of the crowd was clear.
My wife had told me that there would be lots of men there, and on balance about 25% were male. A few were up dancing though, in the circle, where we werr, most seemed slightly reserved and disconnected - as if they were the driver for the night. They applauded rightly, but were not swept away with the greater enthusiasm of the female of the species.
My wife's signature whistle pierced the air at the end of most tracks and one woman in front probably has ragged arms today. When every one was appluading, she was always waving frantically, arms crossing over her head, hands flipping liked a cheerleaders pom-poms. This was not just once, but at every opportunity.
So who was it? Well it was the Osmonds. last night it was just Jimmy, Merril and Jay, backed by a very competent set of musicsians from Missouri. They harmonised well. They hit the high notes - well Jimmy did. And it was not apparent that they had had to change the songs to accomodate diminishing skills. The moves were still there, if a little energetic and so were the smiles.
They are on a 50 show sell out tour in the UK as the Osmonds Farewell tour. My wife had not intended to go until yesterday morning and then managed to get two tickets. Her sister (another Osmonds fan) was unwell so could not go and I stepped up.
My wife is very glad she did go and I will admit, though the Osmonds are not and have never been my taste in music (I might argue with their own claim that they play rock!), that they are accomplished musicians and performers who have outlasted most and seem to have the respect of many.
NB I guess that just asking the question in the title, means I had no street cred to begin with! :)
They had an adoring, if ageing, crowd who stood from the start and barely sat down even when the slow songs came up. They play plenty of instruments and one is a drummer. He is no spring chicken, but had a drum duel followed by a sparkling solo (my wife tells me he was once on the world's list of top ten drummers - and I can believe that). It was as good as any I have heard and at the end after mopping his brow, he put his jacket back on and returned to join the other two, with no visible signs of fatigue.
Many of the songs were well known and the crowd knew the words, but a couple were new showing they are still writing and creative after all this time. Many of the group members along the years were not there, but as their picture flashed on screens the affection of the crowd was clear.
My wife had told me that there would be lots of men there, and on balance about 25% were male. A few were up dancing though, in the circle, where we werr, most seemed slightly reserved and disconnected - as if they were the driver for the night. They applauded rightly, but were not swept away with the greater enthusiasm of the female of the species.
My wife's signature whistle pierced the air at the end of most tracks and one woman in front probably has ragged arms today. When every one was appluading, she was always waving frantically, arms crossing over her head, hands flipping liked a cheerleaders pom-poms. This was not just once, but at every opportunity.
So who was it? Well it was the Osmonds. last night it was just Jimmy, Merril and Jay, backed by a very competent set of musicsians from Missouri. They harmonised well. They hit the high notes - well Jimmy did. And it was not apparent that they had had to change the songs to accomodate diminishing skills. The moves were still there, if a little energetic and so were the smiles.
They are on a 50 show sell out tour in the UK as the Osmonds Farewell tour. My wife had not intended to go until yesterday morning and then managed to get two tickets. Her sister (another Osmonds fan) was unwell so could not go and I stepped up.
My wife is very glad she did go and I will admit, though the Osmonds are not and have never been my taste in music (I might argue with their own claim that they play rock!), that they are accomplished musicians and performers who have outlasted most and seem to have the respect of many.
NB I guess that just asking the question in the title, means I had no street cred to begin with! :)
Tuesday 13 March 2012
I knew things were bad, but.......
I have just seen the first personal impact of negative interest. Last your I overpaid Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), the UK tax collector. The mistake was entirely mine and only minor, but it is worth recovering money when you can.
My accountants wrote to HMRC explaining the error and requesting repayment and yesterday I received advice that they had agreed to do so. But I had to read it twice!
They identified the principle amount and then DEDUCTED an interest charge. In essence they have had my money and held it for months, earning on it and then they want to make more by charging me for the privilege of them holding it.
I knew things were bad, and that HMRC are trying to collect as much tax revenue as possible, but I did not know we were in a negative interest situation?
In truth I hope it was a clerical mistake and that as they are usually collecting money owed that does attract an additional interest charge, they just put the interest amount in the wrong column. I will check with my accountant later and see what they think.
Still the story of negative interest is a better one and possibly comments on the level of financial understanding enjoyed by those at HMRC processing claims such as this.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday 9 March 2012
"The Beginning Of The End" Or "The End Of The Beginning"
This morning it is reported that the restructuring/swap of Greek Government debt has been received sufficient agreement to proceed and wipe over €100bn of the National debt.I won't go into the numbers other than the summary that this represents a loss of over 70% to holders.
So holders have accepted 100% of something, ie circa 25-30%' rather than 0% of anything. It was made clear that there would be no better offer and that without agreement the outcome would be imminent default. This was something of The best of two bad outcomes, yet was not certain. It will hit French and German banks/investors hardest.
This is technically a "voluntary" haircut, but I can think of no other situation where a government of bank would voluntarily accept that loss. I wonder what would happen should I try that with my mortgager or the tax authorities? The alternative must be as inconceivably bad as I have suspected and previously blogged.
There are some further developments to track. ISDA,the International Swaps and Derivatives Assocation meet this afternoon to "determine" whether this voluntary arrangement is a credit event that will trigger payments under existing CDS or Credit Default Swaps. These are essentially insurance against default provided by other banks. Should it be judged as an event it seems that the payout will be much lower than expected at €3.2bn.
In practice the amount is insignificant and I suspect will be lost in the noise of the main event.In itself I doubt it will trigger further failures.
Back to the topic of the post.acceptance of the swap was a condition of the overall European bailout. Another key piece is the cuts in Greek spending.
The markets have responded positively to this news, indicating that they saw a real risk of it not happening. So we have cleared this hurdle, but for sure there will be more. This still looks like beings bumpy ride so we had better keep our seat belts on and remain braced for a crash,at least for a little while longer.
So holders have accepted 100% of something, ie circa 25-30%' rather than 0% of anything. It was made clear that there would be no better offer and that without agreement the outcome would be imminent default. This was something of The best of two bad outcomes, yet was not certain. It will hit French and German banks/investors hardest.
This is technically a "voluntary" haircut, but I can think of no other situation where a government of bank would voluntarily accept that loss. I wonder what would happen should I try that with my mortgager or the tax authorities? The alternative must be as inconceivably bad as I have suspected and previously blogged.
There are some further developments to track. ISDA,the International Swaps and Derivatives Assocation meet this afternoon to "determine" whether this voluntary arrangement is a credit event that will trigger payments under existing CDS or Credit Default Swaps. These are essentially insurance against default provided by other banks. Should it be judged as an event it seems that the payout will be much lower than expected at €3.2bn.
In practice the amount is insignificant and I suspect will be lost in the noise of the main event.In itself I doubt it will trigger further failures.
Back to the topic of the post.acceptance of the swap was a condition of the overall European bailout. Another key piece is the cuts in Greek spending.
The markets have responded positively to this news, indicating that they saw a real risk of it not happening. So we have cleared this hurdle, but for sure there will be more. This still looks like beings bumpy ride so we had better keep our seat belts on and remain braced for a crash,at least for a little while longer.
Thursday 8 March 2012
The value of telephone interviews?
I have been the "candidate" on the end of a number of phone interviews recently. They seem to be more prevalent in my market, but are something I personally have rarely done as a recruiter. I understand that time and cost pressures make the practice appear attractive, at least, as an initial sift, but I wonder if that is the case?
It is an interesting experience being the candidate and is pretty tough in my opinion. This may just be because I am an extrovert communicator and a telephone interview really cuts down the channels for me to communicate and receive feedback.
A quick google will bring results that shows that the words alone constitute merely 7% of the content of usual human communication, that 60-70% is non-verbal and the rest is paralinguistic ie pitch, tone, pace, volumes etc. Thus a telephone conversation cuts out two thirds of the normal information available to the receiver.
There are other figures that could be quoted, but the messages are all similar.
As the candidate this means that there is a double whammy, not only do you only have a 1/3 of your usual communication capacity available, you only get a 1/3 of the feedback. Often you are talking into silence with no idea how your audience is receiving it or even listening.
They do say that in a face to face interview the decision is often made in the first couple of minutes of meeting, during which times the words that are spoken are less likely to be about a technical or work topic and more about building rapport and comfort.
I do not have any figures but I suspect that the paucity of data exchanged in a telephone interview means that a) the analysis of words is more forensic and precise, and b) that the sub-conscious decision making probably takes longer, my guess from experience is 10-15 minutes.
The implications are that a candidate must prepare and perform differently for a telephone, voice-only interview. This means extra effort to build as much rapport as possible at the start, greater care and precision with the words used, heightened sensitivity for ANY feedback they can garner.
All this means super-focus and concentration. I will be rethinking my preparation and may well return to the subject again.
I wonder how recruiters who use this technique often find it, other than less demanding on them physically and timewise? I also wonder if it is really effective as a filter as the candidates who reach a face to face interview will have been selected on the basis of unusual/limited behaviour and better "real life" candidates may be missed.
Now usually
It is an interesting experience being the candidate and is pretty tough in my opinion. This may just be because I am an extrovert communicator and a telephone interview really cuts down the channels for me to communicate and receive feedback.
A quick google will bring results that shows that the words alone constitute merely 7% of the content of usual human communication, that 60-70% is non-verbal and the rest is paralinguistic ie pitch, tone, pace, volumes etc. Thus a telephone conversation cuts out two thirds of the normal information available to the receiver.
There are other figures that could be quoted, but the messages are all similar.
As the candidate this means that there is a double whammy, not only do you only have a 1/3 of your usual communication capacity available, you only get a 1/3 of the feedback. Often you are talking into silence with no idea how your audience is receiving it or even listening.
They do say that in a face to face interview the decision is often made in the first couple of minutes of meeting, during which times the words that are spoken are less likely to be about a technical or work topic and more about building rapport and comfort.
I do not have any figures but I suspect that the paucity of data exchanged in a telephone interview means that a) the analysis of words is more forensic and precise, and b) that the sub-conscious decision making probably takes longer, my guess from experience is 10-15 minutes.
The implications are that a candidate must prepare and perform differently for a telephone, voice-only interview. This means extra effort to build as much rapport as possible at the start, greater care and precision with the words used, heightened sensitivity for ANY feedback they can garner.
All this means super-focus and concentration. I will be rethinking my preparation and may well return to the subject again.
I wonder how recruiters who use this technique often find it, other than less demanding on them physically and timewise? I also wonder if it is really effective as a filter as the candidates who reach a face to face interview will have been selected on the basis of unusual/limited behaviour and better "real life" candidates may be missed.
Now usually
Wednesday 7 March 2012
A good dose of humility does you good!
I consider myself a fairly gregarious person who has led a rich life, in terms of experience, personal and professional, and travel. Through this I have met many interesting, talented and generous (in terms of their time and skills) people and learnt more about myself each day.
At the weekend I went to a charity music festival (ArcFest) in Hitchen, Hertfordshire. Cutting a long story short, the boyfriend of my oldest niece, Josh Kershaw, had agreed to perform there. As my niece was already committed on the day he was going to have to make a tortuous rail journey with two guitars. Instead my wife, her sister (my niece's mother) and I drove him over there. And stayed to watch him play.
He had invited us to previous events, but we had not been able to go so we had no real expectations. As it was he was very good. He provided two acoustic interludes between the afternoon sets. These were songs he had written himself when he was part of a band that seems to have been based in Hitchen. The band, called Royston Jones, has split up and he now performs for his own pleasure as he perues a career in video editting.
If anyone is interested I will provide some links to the band's Myspace site and also a rough recording I made at this festival, below. I think a couple of his songs are as good as many successful recordings; check "Good Days" and "Waste of Time".
The Royston Jones MySpace page and At ArcFest March 2012
On the way home we talked about his time with the band and music in general. I was more and more impressed as I learnt more about him. It sounds corny, but my respect grew as my appreciation of his skills grew.
As a rational, scientifically trained and analytical person, I have always seen my creative and artistic side as the weakest of my skills. I have explored more of them in recent years, probably made easier as the fear of failure reduces with my age. I understand and appreciate those who can make a living through their art, having reached a level of creativity and/or performance that sets them above the norm. What humbles me though are people who just have a level of artistic skill as well as or on top of their normal life.
There are others in this pool and the number increase every day.
My daugher won't take piano lessons, but can and does just sit at a keyboard and works out how to play some complicated pieces that she has just heard. We are now glad that we bought her a decent electronic piano for her birthday two years ago,
Another friend, Doug Shaw, who is building a business around client and staff engagement, bringing some novel approaches, plays a mean guitar and now seems to paint water colours well.
The point of this piece was not to list lots of talented people, but rather to reflect the thought I had about feeling humbled by these individuals and their skills and how it lifts me even if I cannot match them. It is good to feel humble from time to time. It increases the understanding and respect one has for others which must be a good thing. It can also remind one of the need to keep striving and indeed inspire one to try.
I have a totally disproportionate pride in a paltry attempt at water colour painting (see "Armed and Dangerous") but it is what it is and the lift it gives is invaluable.
At the weekend I went to a charity music festival (ArcFest) in Hitchen, Hertfordshire. Cutting a long story short, the boyfriend of my oldest niece, Josh Kershaw, had agreed to perform there. As my niece was already committed on the day he was going to have to make a tortuous rail journey with two guitars. Instead my wife, her sister (my niece's mother) and I drove him over there. And stayed to watch him play.
He had invited us to previous events, but we had not been able to go so we had no real expectations. As it was he was very good. He provided two acoustic interludes between the afternoon sets. These were songs he had written himself when he was part of a band that seems to have been based in Hitchen. The band, called Royston Jones, has split up and he now performs for his own pleasure as he perues a career in video editting.
If anyone is interested I will provide some links to the band's Myspace site and also a rough recording I made at this festival, below. I think a couple of his songs are as good as many successful recordings; check "Good Days" and "Waste of Time".
The Royston Jones MySpace page and At ArcFest March 2012
On the way home we talked about his time with the band and music in general. I was more and more impressed as I learnt more about him. It sounds corny, but my respect grew as my appreciation of his skills grew.
As a rational, scientifically trained and analytical person, I have always seen my creative and artistic side as the weakest of my skills. I have explored more of them in recent years, probably made easier as the fear of failure reduces with my age. I understand and appreciate those who can make a living through their art, having reached a level of creativity and/or performance that sets them above the norm. What humbles me though are people who just have a level of artistic skill as well as or on top of their normal life.
There are others in this pool and the number increase every day.
My daugher won't take piano lessons, but can and does just sit at a keyboard and works out how to play some complicated pieces that she has just heard. We are now glad that we bought her a decent electronic piano for her birthday two years ago,
Another friend, Doug Shaw, who is building a business around client and staff engagement, bringing some novel approaches, plays a mean guitar and now seems to paint water colours well.
The point of this piece was not to list lots of talented people, but rather to reflect the thought I had about feeling humbled by these individuals and their skills and how it lifts me even if I cannot match them. It is good to feel humble from time to time. It increases the understanding and respect one has for others which must be a good thing. It can also remind one of the need to keep striving and indeed inspire one to try.
I have a totally disproportionate pride in a paltry attempt at water colour painting (see "Armed and Dangerous") but it is what it is and the lift it gives is invaluable.
Tuesday 6 March 2012
“Because they can!”, but is it the best answer for either party?
The following item appears today on the Morpheus-Group website, a recruitment agency that invited me to contribute a guest blog.
I wish I had a £1 for every time I have seen a role profile for a project/programme/PMO manager (my working area) , either permanent or contract, where along with a series of specific and defining skills and capabilities, it stipulates “must have X years experience in ‘Industry A’”, where the role is to work in ‘Industry A’. ‘X’ is usually at least 5. Currently, this is particularly true of insurance, but cuts across the whole of financial services. Of course the glut of candidates and paucity of roles is a major enabler in this.
If you have worked for 10 years or more you are sure to have seen it before, but as a candidate it is frustrating when you know you can deliver in the role and want to be considered, but fail the litmus test of industry years . “Because they can” is the answer most generally received when one asks why they need that experience.
Now we know the market is tight and that brings out defensive and opportunistic behaviours in many employers. They only want to make safe hires, ie not open to risk of criticism and that will not come back on them. If they can cherry pick from competitors they will. This makes a lot of sense in more product/sales roles, but does it carry the same weight in change?
In project management, there has long been a debate about whether domain expertise is more important than more generic project management skills and this seems to be an extension of this. It seems useful to use this blog to explore this further and consider the best response to future needs.
Successful change is broadly an effective blend of corporate strategy and politics (with both “P” and “p”), detailed subject matter knowledge and good planning, management, tracking and reporting. This may be a little simplistic, but is illustrative of the essentials.
Put simply the business sponsor should be the lead with the corporate strategy and politics, business staff and analysts lead on the detailed knowledge leaving the planning, management, tracking and reporting to the change professional.
So why is it so important that the change professional has deep industry specific experience?
I can think of a couple of possible reasons.
- There is not enough or relevant sponsorship capacity for the undertaking and they need to the change professional to double up
- The change is of a (small) scale or the cost pressures are such that they want the change professional to cover some or all of the business analysis responsibilities
- There is a belief that having successfully(?) filled the role in another member of the same industry, it increases the chance of success for this endeavour
- It is just more comfortable and easier to bond with someone who speaks the same language and share the similar experiences and scars.
There may well be more but these seem to be the main arguments.
Looking at sponsorship capacity first; the engagement of an effective sponsor is consistently identified as a critical factor in successful change. It really needs to come from the business as the relationship between that person and their peers and colleagues will be very different from a more transient change professional, especially one on a contract or interim assignment.
If one has a shortage in sponsorship capacity it would be nice to think one could “buy it in” and ,maybe some years (20?) ago when companies in the same industry had greater similarity there were opportunities for that. However now companies are much more complex and less comparable, just look at the difficulty many have in identifying their competing peer group. Business infrastructure, culture, organisational wellbeing, risk appetite and many other factors, some subtle, some not, make important differences.
Additionally, most competency frameworks would highlight important gaps between those required to be good business leader and those for a manager of change. It is rare that one person can excel at both, so at least one role will suffer.
If this is the reason for looking for deep specific industry experience in a project/programme/PMO manager then I suggest the problems are deeper and the chance of eventual success is impaired. This is no comment on the hired manager, but more on the necessity of the business to supply effective sponsorship.
The second reason is looking for a doubling up in analytical skills and detailed knowledge (sometimes call subject matter expertise – SME). This again blurs two skill sets that rarely co-exist at high levels in one individual.
It is a possible answer for a small undertaking, but even the removal of separation between the roles can create conflicts and loss of objectivity. Similarly any overload will have a magnified impact on both delivery and transparent reporting and reduce the effectiveness of problem solving.
Again if this is the rationale when hiring for a significant change of any scale, the portents of eventual success are not good.
The third reason is based on the question whether success is reliably repeatable. The short answer is in that there is evidence of this, but not for the reasons that are often put forward and previous industry experience is not the determinant.
Research a couple of years ago identified the characteristics of “alpha” project manager ie those with a track record of repeated success. I have blogged about this before so will just summarise here:-
- They have an inbuilt dashboard of what is important and deserves their attention
- They deal with unplanned activities better as the know to expect the unexpected
- They manage there diaries better to leave time for supporting and unplanned activities
- They know how to “get things done”.
The last point was recognised as being contextual ie ANY change of role in the same organisation or to different one will result in a significant drop in effectiveness. The key is that the “alpha” picks that up again quickly; other less able project managers struggle.
The reader can see from this that just because a candidate has worked in another company, which despite being in the same industry is likely to be very different in its support and receptiveness to change, it does not mean they can or will repeat previous success. Instead it is more personal capabilities that support the transfer of performance.
Just think how often a new “star” project or programme manager has failed to deliver to expectations? And then consider what their reputation was based upon?
Before I close we should look at reason #4. This is more understandable, but is unlikely to improve the quality of recruiting. Most coaches and trainers will say that it is easier to bond with someone who shares common views and experiences. Of course one has to be able to work with the project/programme/PMO manager, but you are hiring them for a purpose, as agents of change. Being comfortable with them is probably not the most important or most effective consideration. Other considerations such as trust, empathy, gravitas are more important for leading significant change.
So, where does this lead us?
I think that the fallback to looking for industry specific experience in change agents is very understandable and well intentioned, but does not serve anyone interested in driving effective change well.
As business leaders it is important to understand why one is placing that requirement on role profile and consider if it is masking other, more significant issues. The delivery of successful change is becoming more difficult as both the complexity of the business environment and the pace required increase and success will likely hang on fine distinctions.
As recruiters I want to offer comfort that “alphas” do exist, but caution that many others are project managers are “lucky” ie they got it right once or twice, but that does not mean they can reliably reproduce it. In identifying the alphas look at why they were previously successful and not just where. This may appear to introduce some additional perceived risk, but proper selection will in fact reduce it.
In short don’t lose your best candidates by applying inappropriate filters, consider why they have been successful and if that reflects personal capabilities that they can transfer effectively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)