This blog will fill you with ideas and help answer many of the questions you have about how Business Coaching can help to grow your business and how getting your HR right can add positive value.

I want to achieve this by letting you into my world of coaching and HR; sharing with you my experience and – without breaking their confidentiality – some of the fantastic things I have learned from my clients.

No tags for this post.

Related posts

• No related posts.

On the face of it, this looked like an opportunist theft conducted by an amateur. However, when I looked around the building, there were ‘sexier’ and more valuable things they could have taken, rather than just two screens.

From my previous police career I learned that things are not always what they seem and I couldn’t help thinking that this was a ‘survey’. Often criminals will attack a commercial premises, after they have watched it for some time, to see what (if any) CCTV cameras there are and what (if any) security lights come on when you approach the premises; as “lights, camera, action” does not appeal to them.

The burglars then enter the premises, setting off any audible alarm, and make it look like an opportunist crime. In reality, they make an analysis of the value of your goods and how easy they are to steal. They are quick and efficient and then ‘make off’ – but don’t! Instead, the burglars find an appropriate place to watch the premises they’ve just burgled, to find out the following:

• If no audible alarm went off, do the police or a security company attend; revealing the presence of a silent alarm?
• If an audible alarm was activated, how long does it sound for?
• What is the reaction of the neighbours?  This can be guaged, at night, by how many lights go on – if any!
• How long does it take for the police to turn up? If there is an audible alarm and no reaction from the neighbours, the police may not turn up at all!
• Does a key-holder attend? If so, how long does it take them to get there?

Based on this information, the burglar conducts a risk-assessment. Do they go back in, do they decide it’s not worth chancing or do they come back another day. This decision will be influenced by how many people conduct the ‘survey’ as opposed to how many are needed to maximise their effectiveness. Often, to avoid unwanted attention, the vehicle for the ‘survey‘ may be inappropriate for the full task.

If they decide your premises are vulnerable and contain goods worthy of stealing, they will come back at a time when they feel as safe as possible. If an audible alarm went off during the first burglary they will do the minimum necessary to activate the alarm and will make off to their observation point. This is to see whether the same things happen as before, or whether you have increased your security. Once they feel confident that they will not be detected, they will re-enter your premises and clear you out.

Fortunately, my client increased their security, so when the burglars returned the next evening they found a different set of circumstances and decided the risks were too great. Unfortunately, my client had the stress of being burgled; lost work time dealing with the police and clearing up; had to spend time filling out insurance forms and had to spend a lot of time and money increasing their security.

The lessons from this?

• Burglars see what they do as their ‘business’ – they don’t care about yours!
• Some burglars are good at what they do -  don’t under-estimate them.
• If you are unfortunate enough to be the victim of a burglary, please do not take it at face value. Ask yourself whether this was a ‘survey’?
• To keep your company safe, think like the burglar. How would you break in to your building, minimising the risk of being seen or caught?
• Get a survey of your premises conducted by a reputable security firm, before you get a ‘survey’ done by burglars.

Although the fear of crime is greater than the reality, in times of austerity crime increases. If you allow burglars to be successful in their ‘business’ you could lose yours!

Related posts

• No related posts.

The majority I read is about how to manage change and peoples’ reaction to change. One area that is not covered sufficiently is what I refer to as ‘Wingrove’s first principle of change’; what is imperative to keep?

Like all decisions, change has consequences; some of which may not have thought through. For example, a small family company may value how their staff are empowered to help individual customers. If they choose to grow, they may introduce a structure that stops this happening.

Therefore, when coaching leaders through change I always start with Wingrove’s first principle, by asking what key things they wish to keep, if any. This can actually make the process harder, as with the above example, where the company is now faced with the challenge of how to grow in size and keep their family business values. There is every possibility that their customers also value how they are looked after, so it would be a negative consequence of any change if this was damaged.

So, please don’t dive into a change process without taking time to think about the consequences; some of which may not be obvious or desirable.

Related posts

• No related posts.

Unfortunately, I am witnessing an increasing propensity of dissatisfied employees who immediately focus on financial recompense as opposed to resolving grievances at work. It may be because of the litigious age in which we live, together with the prevailing ‘we know our rights’ attitude, that is causing the increasing number of solicitors‘ letters received by employers.

Many of these letters result from the employee being advised by family or friends to move straight to the ultimate option of seeking legal advice. There is an equally increasing trend towards the employment solicitor readily accepting the version of events of their client and, in some cases, expanding on the potential claims their client could bring, rather than taking a step back and asking what other actions to resolve the conflict could have been undertaken.

There could, at this point, be various ways of resolving this dispute and yet these solicitors letters invariably conclude with something to the effect of, ‘my client does not wish to enter into a protracted dispute with you, their employer, and would look to resolve this issue by way of a compromise agreement of ‘X’ thousands of pounds, together with you paying their costs to us, which currently run to ‘X’ thousands of pounds’.

It may not be the responsibility of the employment solicitor to make any attempt to find out whether the version of events given by their client is in any way accurate, but it does tend to negate the historic stance of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, as it is now for the employer to prove their innocence. At this point the employer’s only option is to engage the services of an employment solicitor themselves – and a terrible ‘game’ begins!

There is a theme to events that lead to these letters that the majority of HR professionals will relate to. It starts with a manager, often having just become the line-manager of the employee, identifying a lack of performance by the employee and deciding to challenge this poor performance. Challenging poor performance is a stressful task for any manager or HR adviser, as it involves a few of those ‘difficult conversations’ that are hard enough; now made worse because you are aware that every word you say may get twisted, misrepresented and taken out of context. When I coach managers and leaders on such HR issues, I always emphasise the need for them to follow ACAS guidelines. Unfortunately, even when they do, they often receive letters from solicitors representing their employee.

However, having had the difficult conversation, notes of the meeting are sent to the employee to sign, as a true representation of the meeting, and an action plan is agreed. The employee then starts challenging the need for them to be performance managed as ‘everyone’s been happy until now’ and this results in them raising a grievance against their line manager for picking on them.

They then go sick with ‘work related stress’ and when and if they return to work they anticipate that the performance management will cease. When it doesn’t they go sick again and at this point, often on the advice of a friend or family member, engage the services of an employment solicitor.

Even where the employer is adamant that the process they have followed is absolutely correct,  their own solicitor’s bill quickly reaches the point where they are advised that the cheapest option is to reach a settlement with their employee. This is where we have lost our moral compass as no longer is it a question of right or wrong or justice. It becomes a question of choosing the cheapest option; which is normally to reach a compromise agreement with the employee.

This cannot be right, as although in law the issue is resolved, the only winners of this ‘game’ are employment solicitors and, occasionally, the employee. The losers are the employer and, more specifically, the manager and the HR adviser.

These managers and HR advisers often feel that their skills and abilities have been brought into question and the psychological contract between them and their profession has been broken. They also feel damaged and the consequence is an increasing number of managers and HR professionals who tell me, “I am never challenging anyone’s poor performance again!”

And who can blame them? More importantly, what is the solution?

The government are intending to change the qualifying period for employment rights from one year to two. I cannot understand this, as it used to be two years and I would suggest this will be an opportunity to allow the poor management practices the reduction to one year was supposed to address to blossom again. Also, there has been an increase in the number of ET claims based on unfair dismissal which is not subject to the qualifying period, so the two year qualifying period will just increase these, instead of reducing Employment Tribunal cases, which this change is intended to achieve.

The long term solution is to develop a process whereby financial recompense is the final solution to workplace conflict, rather than the first. Only when all avenues to resolve the conflict have been exhausted, should a financial settlement be considered. Otherwise, what has a disgruntled employee got to lose by pursuing a claim?

The urgency for this moral compass to be repaired is simple. Until it is, there will be increasing numbers of managers, HR advisers and owners of SMEs damaged by a system that only benefits solicitors!

Related posts

• No related posts.

I admit to being passionate about the subject of strategy – and I know that makes me strange to most people. Yet, when I do presentations on strategy, I try not to use the word ‘strategy’. Why? Because it is such an overused and misused word that, over time, it has become the dread of employers and employees.

Beside my desk I have a small (literally) book called ‘The Little Book of Management Bollocks’, which is where many business people believe ‘strategy’ belongs! So much theory has been written about the subject that many see ‘strategy’ as a cure for insomnia, which is a shame, because the application of it is the different between unsuccessful and successful businesses.

Unfortunately, I believe there is a danger of the same thing happening with the word ‘coaching’. There has been so much put out about how a coach can ‘help you to become the best you can be’, whether in your personal or professional life, that I find many people are confused – and switched off by the rhetoric.

Those of us in the industry know the great benefits coaching can give. However, the way it’s put over is like an accountant explaining to me how they are going to deal with my company’s finances, in such detail that I would quickly lose the will to live.

The truth is that when business leaders experience coaching, they are intelligent enough to realise the benefits for themselves – in a similar way to how they recognise the benefits of having a clear and well communicated strategy, when they are doing it, rather than being told about all of the contradictory theories.

Plain speaking is what engages people and, unless we are careful, ‘coaching’ could also be consigned to The Little Book of Management Bollocks – which is, incidentally, written by Alistair Beaton, and still available.

Related posts

• No related posts.

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.

Related posts

• No related posts.

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.

Related posts

• No related posts.

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.

Related posts

• No related posts.

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.

Related posts

• No related posts.

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.

Related posts

• No related posts.