Alan Wingrove's Blog

When conducting employee interviews have you ever considered the ‘brand’ of the person you’re looking for? Most companies have a particular kind of employee that they will look for, who will represent their organisation the way they want it portrayed.

Conversely,  when going for interviews, have you considered the ‘brand’ you’re selling. Your brand will determine how you dress and how you perform at interview. It may be subconscious, but you will have a brand and it helps if it matches the brand of the company you are applying to.

On Wednesday 22nd February, between 7:30 and 9:00p.m. I am running a FREE event for the CIPD Career Connect on your brand. It’s on the 5th floor at Guildford College, Surrey GU1 1EZ. So, whether you interview prospective employees, or you’re going for job interviews, please feel free to come along.

There are more new businesses popping up than ever before. Why? Because running your own business is a tempting choice for many people being made redundant or finding difficulty in finding employment in the first place.

However, before diving into setting up a business, it is worth asking, “What is it you want this business to do?” You may just want it to provide you with a living – in other words, you want it to be a job for you – or you may want your business to make a profit and, perhaps, provide employment for others.

Neither choice is right or wrong – it just makes a difference to your approach. Unfortunately, this is a thought process some do not engage with and yet it could make the difference between success and failure.

First off, consider why you are doing what you are doing. In many service industries people buy people. They get to know you and they become loyal based on how they experience the quality of what you deliver. This is often defined by your values, so it is essential you know what values you are driven by. In Simon Sinek’s words, people buy why you do things, rather than what you do. Once you’ve finished reading the rest of this post, watch his brilliant TED talk.

Your values will drive the values of your new business, which is easy if you want a ‘job’, as they will be the same. If you want a business that employs others, it helps if your employees buy into your values. If you want help to clarify yours – and to know yourself better as a leader – download my FREE book. 

As I have said, whilst either option is valid you have a better chance of success by making an informed choice.

I have just listened to an advert for company Christmas events on the radio, which went something like this….. “It’s that time of year again – time to let your hair down! Do you want to see more of Dawn from sales – more than you ever wanted to? Is it time to give fit Dave from HR the full on kiss you’ve been wanting to all year? Why not tell your boss what you really think?” etc.

Unfortunately, year after year people DO all of the above and I hate being viewed as ‘the aftermath of Christmas’; coming into your business to resolve a grievance – or worse – resulting from your Christmas party. I do not want to be a ‘bah-humbug’ and company Christmas parties can be fun, without creating what the Americans refer to as ‘collateral damage’.

However, it is well established in employment law that the office Christmas party is still a work-related activity, so make sure that you set the boundaries of acceptable behaviour while acknowledging that employees will want to let their hair down.

Discrimination law, recently consolidated into the new Equality Act 2010, is designed to ensure that employees’ dignity at work is preserved. For these purposes, the workplace will extend to a social event organised in connection with work or even drinks at the pub after work.

So, what do you need to think about?

First of all, think about protecting the reputation of your company. Your company name may be on reserved tables or in the foyer of the venue you’re using. It may be a one-off event for your company, but the staff at your venue see company after company, night after night. They only remember the bad ones – and they talk about them!

Think about a policy. Whilst a policy about parties may seem Scrooge-like, they are a valuable precaution for you, as the employer, to demonstrate that reasonable action has been taken to protect employees. Therefore, provide clear written guidance to all employees about acceptable standards of behaviour at work-related social events, as well as the disciplinary sanctions that could result from breaches of the rules.

Make it clear that ‘I was too drunk to remember…’ is not an excuse for inappropriate behaviour. Use examples of excessive alcohol consumption, the use of illegal drugs, inappropriate behaviour and harassment, sexist or racist remarks and comments about sexual orientation, disability, age or religion as types of things that will not be tolerated. It may also be worth including the use of social media, which can be easily used on your mobile.

Imagine the conversation between two of your employees the next day, “I cannot believe you posted that on Twitter last night!” and the other employee replying, “What did I post on Twitter? I was so drunk, I don’t remember using my phone….”

Overall, make it clear that you want your staff to have fun, whilst keeping their reputation and the reputation of your company in tact the next day. That way you won’t be spending money with me and I won’t be spoiling someone’s New Year. Strange as it may seem, for once, you not spending money in this way will please me and I will be able to wish you and all of your employees a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

In August I wrote a blog called ‘Information Technology or Information Toxicity?’ http://www.learning2achieve.com/blog/information-technology-or-information-toxicity and I have just read evidence of this toxicity. A survey of 1,300 employees by the Institute of Leadership & Management shows that British managers wish mobile phones and other communications devices had never been invented.

It revealed that managers receive, on average, 40 more emails each day compared with ten years ago, with some receiving as many as 100 more! Mobile phones topped the list of inventions managers wish had never been created, closely followed by the BlackBerry.

Peter Cheese, chairman of the Institute of Leadership & Management, said, “Mobile technology brings with it a pressure to respond quickly and a temptation to work longer hours which is impacting on stress levels.”

Almost half of the managers surveyed were putting in longer hours than a decade ago and 51% felt more stressed. Two-thirds said they had a higher workload than 10 years ago, leading one in three to feel less happy in their job.

I was struck by the subheading of Baroness Prosser’s article, advocating, ‘developing the workforce with tailored education measures’; and this comes from a Labour peer who is strongly against greater autonomy for schools. In this response I will show why this is such a paradox.

She quite rightfully identifies the changing employment landscape and then, unfortunately, engages in the usual political rhetoric, espousing the ‘numerous legislative responses, such as the right to request flexible working, introduced by Labour’. She then questions the bias towards academia at the expense of vocational training, recognising the country needs people with practical skills, and goes on to blame the current coalition government for education spending being slashed by more than 13% and taking the education debate in completely the wrong direction.

I have no time for political rhetoric; as successive governments have evolved ridiculous education performance measures that favour education instead of learning – and I will explain the difference. Education can be measured by exam results to show academic achievement. Have you noticed how, year on year, more students achieve A grades in GCSEs and A levels? Yet, at the same time, the UK is seen as having a failing education system where levels of numeracy and literacy are falling; which is an obvious paradox that proves our education system has detached itself from students’ learning? The idea of every student leaving compulsory education with five A – C grade GCSEs has managed to disengage a swathe of students for whom this was never a realistic option. This is because we have an education system based on outputs, rather than outcomes; where we are more focused on the exam results achieved as opposed to the learning that has taken place.

At the same time there is report after report about our failing education system and various commentators have identified that we have a flawed compulsory education system; where the student needs to fit the system, as the system has no flexibility to fit varied learning styles. The most notable is Sir Ken Robinson and one of his most thought provoking speeches can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U. At this point, please let me emphasise that I am not being critical of teachers and I have coached Head Teachers who are immensely frustrated by the ‘tick-box’ performance culture that stifles their teaching. At the moment we have a government invoked performance system where education has no relationship to what a student learns. I have also experienced cases where young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs) are put on courses where there is no possibility of employment at the end of it, just so that the council or borough can meet their government targets. This frustrates the young people involved and reinforces their lack of hope.

This directly impacts on employers – let us not forget the Young Enterprise charity research published last month, that revealed 75% of bosses saying school leavers and graduates lack basic workforce skills. Vocational training, especially apprenticeships, was originally created to provide a route to employment for those students who had a practical, rather than academic, learning style and there are examples of real success in this area. Jamie Oliver often tells how he was ‘useless’ at school and was going nowhere until cooking revealed his latent learning ability. In the view of academics, he is probably not perceived as educated, but he has been exposed to a learning style that recognised his strengths and helped him to achieve his potential. Yet, there are NVQ qualifications that still require the student to obtain academic achievement, which rules out many of those they are intended for.

I would also like to challenge Baroness Prosser’s continuous call for more investment. Yes, we do need a long-term strategy, but “we need to invest” is definitely the wrong solution. She advocates we need investment in support for pupils to make the right choices for work experience; investment in vocational training and investment in research and innovation. No we do not. We need to realise that what we are doing isn’t working and follow the doctrine, ‘if what you’re doing isn’t working then do something else!’

The first sign of insanity is ‘doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results’ and yet successive Governments espouse about putting more and money into education. (As I’ve written that, I’ve realised there could be a clue there as to why our country is in its current mess!)

We do not need ‘investment’; we need to use the existing money more sensibly and rethink what we want as an outcome. Baroness Prosser correctly says that groups left behind will not tolerate being at the bottom of the heap forever and we need to re-engage with the group that she terms as ‘left behind’. These young people are not left behind; they are excluded by a rigid ‘system’ that needs destroying – and yet many of them have latent strengths.

Let teachers teach and let students learn. Remove the bureaucracy of employing apprentices that only medium and large companies can deal with. Let all businesses employ and train these young people to use their strengths and perhaps, in the future, we’ll all find it easier to find ‘trades-people’ such as plumbers, electricians and carpenters. If we do not take action now then don’t be surprised to see society deteriorating further.

Although, as an ardent rugby fan, I am disheartened by the current shambles in England’s Rugby Football Union (RFU), their current difficulties provide reinforcements of the need for good leadership and robust and timely management in dealing with poor performance; whether in sport or in business.

Poor performance needs to be addressed as soon as it happens – waiting to see if there will be any adverse effects, whether internally or externally, to your business is folly. The longer these issues are allowed to fester, the worse they become and they can give the rest of your team the perception that:-

-   Certain members of the team can do what they like, almost with immunity, because of who they are

-   That, as management haven’t challenged it, this behaviour is acceptable

-   You are not a strong enough leader to deal with the situation

-   You have not got the backing or support of your managers to deal with it

Think about the adverse media coverage Mike Tindall’s behaviour attracted, followed by media coverage of various players engaged in heavy drinking sessions until the early hours of the morning and completed by Manu Tuilagi jumping off of a ferry in New Zealand.

Perhaps, because he had played in the 1999 and 2003 world cup squads Mike Tindall thought he could behave as he wanted, without reproach. However, as one media story put it, “When the vice-captain is doing as he chooses, what chance do you have with the rest of them?” There is no doubt that team manager, Martin Johnson, together with the team captain, Lewis Moody, should have put a clear marker down – one that would have set the standard expected from the rest of the team for the remainder of the tournament.

Letting poor performance fester can be detrimental – to the leader, the team and the goals of the organisation. A short time into the campaign Martin Johnson’s full attention was diverted away from the team’s performance on the pitch, as he was spending more and more time in front of television cameras defending the behaviour of his vice captain. As well as the strain it clearly put upon him, this kind of digression is not fair to the remainder of the team and it is unlikely that 100% of their attention is on achieving the goals of the organisation – in this case, winning the World Cup.

Lack of achievement can result in the ‘blame-game’ – where people start to surmise about the capabilities of their leaders, together with the relationship they have with their peers and their respective line managers. Some commentators are saying that Martin Johnson did not have the full support of either the RFU board or the players and that Mike Tindall had refused to apologise for his behaviour. It has also been said that Lewis Moody showed a lack of leadership both on and off the pitch. (I would agree with his lack of leadership on the pitch, but that’s another story!) There is not a good word being said about any of the other team members, which many of them, quite rightly, could consider to be unfair.

Attack is no defence – whether it is by the person who is alleged to have performed badly or by their leaders who failed to tackle the poor performance in a timely fashion. Recidivist players have complained of being treated unfairly and are appealing against subsequent punishments for their behaviour; Martin Johnson is standing down as manager and the acting RFU chief executive, Martyn Thomas, is leaving. The rugby director, Rob Andrew is being heavily criticised and the RFU Council is described as being in disarray.

Again, instead of dealing with the internal issues, members of the RFU leadership are busy blaming each other, the media and ‘greedy players’ – anyone as long as it doesn’t involve them looking in the mirror.

And it could be you … now look at your own organisation. Do you have an employee whose poor performance frustrates the rest of your team? Have you let the perception that they can do what they like evolve? Is the behaviour of other members of the team deteriorating to the same level as your poor performing employee? Finally, have you considered who is ‘to blame’ for your current situation?

Even if the answers to the above questions are leaving you feeling uncomfortable, rest assured that you are not dissimilar to the majority of leaders and managers. This is because we all like to be liked – in Martin Johnson’s case, it may be that they had difficulty in changing role from a teammate of Mike Tindall to leader – and we do not find it easy To have ‘difficult conversations’ with our staff.

Unfortunately, we are seeing the macro effect of this within the RFU and yet a micro version of it is happening in businesses around the country every day. Perhaps we can all learn from these bitter lessons and change our own leadership behaviours at work.

Today the unemployment figures are the highest for seventeen years, with youth unemployment being the highest ever. Yet, this comes the day after the Young Enterprise charity published research showing that 75% of bosses say school leavers and graduates lack basic workforce skills. They include such things as punctuality, commercial awareness, competent spoken and written English and ‘soft skills’ such as how to behave in a professional environment.

So what does that mean for you? When advertising posts you may get an inordinate number of applications, so you need to think about how you are going to sift through these. Please remember that each application needs objective consideration – the last thing you need is a complaint that your selection process has discriminated against an applicant in any way!

It also means you need to consider your interview and selection process, to make sure you get the person with the skills, abilities and attitude you are looking for. The good news is that you have the opportunity to select the best, so invest the time at the beginning of the process and you can make a long-term investment.

We all have a view about the recent riots in London and other UK cities, which resulted in 16,000 police being on the streets of the capital on Tuesday night (9th August).
The question that I would have been posing Tim Godwin (Acting Commissioner) is, “So, how will you reduce the number of officers and still keep control?”
This is a lesson for all businesses – if you react to any situation, is your reaction sustainable and how will you return to normality?

I have just written an article about the impact of ‘information overload’ caused by Information Technology. Read the full article at http://www.learning2achieve.com/blog