How Robust is Your Recovery Plan?
Some may be aware of the fire that closed Heathrow Airport in March 2025.
The result: thousands of stranded passengers and questions about how resilient Britain’s infrastructure was.
The problem that caused the fire was in a transformer to the North of the airport. What happened was that moisture entered the “high voltage bushings” in a transformer, sparking an electrical fault and causing it to catch fire.
The potential problem was reported in 2018 but nothing was done about it by the National Grid, who owned the transformer.
So, the problem arose because of a third party’s failure to maintain its equipment. The question for all of us as business leaders is: “How reliant are we on third parties to ensure that our contingency and recovery plans work as they should?”
The problem with an event such as the fire in question is that some might consider it a “Black Swan Event” - an event considered “highly unlikely” to occur (as is the incidence of black swans). What made this event less of a black swan however was that, although the reporting process for the problem worked, the process for addressing it broke down. The event wouldn’t have occurred if the National Grid had addressed the problem when it was reported.
Think back to the COVID pandemic – countries had plans, bit they relied on other countries being able to produce the PPE, etc needed. Problem: everyone closed down because of “social distancing” requirements preventing workers going to work.
This could happen to anyone at any time. If our recovery plans rely on another party to provide a vital service and that organisation finds itself unable to, then we’re back to square one.
We can plan, make contingency plans, and contingency plans for contingency plans. There comes a point, however, when it’s no longer realistic to have plans covering plans covering plans covering plans.
In many cases our only solutions are:
- Run regular tests with the third parties concerned OR…
- Have a contract with a service provider that stipulates that penalties and litigation will follow should that provider fail to maintain their goods and services in a state fit to perform as intended OR...
- Hope that things will work out...
I know which one I’d rather adopt.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Crisis Management, Leadership, Productivity, Strategy, Teamwork
Are We Forgetting How to Plan?
Modern communications and business practices mean that, generally, we can communicate faster than we did before and respond likewise.
Pressure of competition has led more and more businesses to respond at ever increasing speed to client needs. After all, if you don’t reply in what your client considers a “timely manner”, they can go somewhere else. The only exception to this are government services and monopolies who don’t have to worry about competition.
When I first started studying the art of time management, one of the first lessons was that we have no control over other people or external events (although we may be able to influence them). This meant we had to allow for delays, being on leave, and all other factors. Nowadays it seems that no one understands this concept and expects an answer almost as soon as they’ve sent their text or email message.
An added challenge is that things can change so fast these days, that plans made last month may be rendered irrelevant this month (remember COVID?). How do we plan for an increasingly uncertain world?
It does suggest that the art of planning is disappearing. Our counter parties have other things on their minds apart from us and we need to take that into account and, indeed, respect it. The exception is when we hold the “upper hand” over the other and can demand action. However, demanding turnaround of one’s request within 24 hours is just as likely to result in a botch job due to lack of time to give it full consideration.
Time management is a skill that every individual needs. The ability to plan comes not only with understanding time management but also as one gains in experience.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email
Labels: Career, Crisis Management, Leadership, Productivity, Strategy, Teamwork
Mastery: The Ultimate Status?
I recently came across a quote ascribed to Derek Sivers: “Mastery is the best goal because rich can’t buy it, the impatient can’t rush it, the privileged can’t inherit it, and nobody can steal it. You can only earn it through hard work. Mastery is the ultimate status.”
In our modern world of instant gratification through the internet, how true is this? In the past, young people used to study as “apprentices” of plumbers, electricians, carpenters, stonemasons and other trades people. After a number of years and showing that they had truly learnt their skill, they in turn became “masters”.
Many now complain that it’s very difficult to find a “good” electrician or plumber. The concept of apprenticeships is disappearing, although in some professions one can still see this process. I’m thinking of engineering, medicine, accountancy, law where aspiring practitioners still need to gain hands on experience. These professions, usually, are well-remunerated.
Is there a “social” problem as well in that “tradespeople” are somehow seen as “lower” in the pecking order? No one thinks that when they need a new gas boiler installed urgently! The plumber then assumes the status of a saviour in the middle of winter.
What you realise is that (certainly in Europe), masters, artisans and similar can be equally well remunerated. I remember the story of a university professor who retrained as a plumber (and presumably underwent some kind of apprenticeship) to find he was not only earning more than he used to as a professor but also could set his own work hours and was not beholden to the arcane rules and regulations that govern many large institutions (although he probably swapped university rules and regulations for government ones).
Back to the point: do apprenticeships still have a place in modern society? Answer is an unqualified yes. Despite the advances of technology, artificial intelligence and other tools of instant gratification, you can’t replace a plumber with a smart phone when a pipe bursts in the middle of winter and needs to be fixed.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Should We Ditch “Traditional” Performance Reviews?
Performance reviews can turn into the bane of one’s life either as an appraisee or appraiser.
As leaders, part of our job is to encourage our team to be the “best they can”. Equally, anyone with ambition wants to improve their performance and make themselves more valuable. Yes, there are people who are “happy where they are” but others want to see how far they can push their personal boundaries.
The problem with performance reviews was that they’ve been through a cycle of being:
- Annual events to…
- Quarterly events to…
- One-on-one periodic sessions
To make things more complex, there’s a feeling that the more complex the performance review process is, the more “scientific” it must be. From performance metrics to behavioural trait assessments to 360° peer reviews, everything is thrown into the proverbial pot. This makes them an ordeal for both appraisers and appraisees.
What finally seems to matter in most cases is whether the appraisee “gets on” with their peers, their juniors, their bosses and their bosses’ bosses. The risk here is that competence becomes less important as people spend more time “fudging” their results and playing politics.
The move now seems to be more towards a more organic, practical process of on-the-spot feedback positive and negative), acknowledging success in team meetings and through company email or private check-in when needed. Some feel that this makes them faster, more honest and connects them more as a team whilst at the same time freeing them up for more actual work.
How the process described above operates, I don’t know. I suspect there still must be a degree of “getting on” with others but, at the very least, one doesn’t have to wait until the end of the year to receive a potentially “nasty surprise” when one thinks one has done well but it turns out that nobody else (for whatever reason) is of the same opinion.
Is the “traditional performance appraisal” a relic of the past? In some ways, perhaps yes. However, appraisal is still very much a live topic. My view? If the team enjoys working together and produces results, they’re effective and that deserves a good appraisal.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Career, Leadership, Strategy, Teamwork
Is "Ageism" Real?
“Ageism” can be defined as “bias or prejudice against people over a certain age who are treated unfairly as a result”.
The problem is that individual views on what constitutes and “older” person differ. Nowadays, people live longer, generally retain their physical and mental health longer and can be productive workers for longer than in the past thanks to advances in technology and medical science.
We’ve seen examples of ageism: “humorous” birthday cards mocking older people which impact others’ views come to mind in particular. The disparaging “OK Boomer!” response to anyone older giving advice is also common. This results in a number of consequences including job prospects for all the people
Examples people have experience include:
- Being patronised.
- Losing or not being hired for a job because of your age.
- Being refused credit, car insurance, travel insurance.
- Low quality of service in shops or restaurants.
- Being refused membership to clubs or associations because of age.
Some employers won’t hire people over a certain age on the grounds that they’re “too old” and may require more time off, more healthcare, more pay, may be slower and a variety of other reasons. In some cases, this may be true, but perhaps no truer than for younger counterparts with the new diagnosed medical conditions that require special consideration or allowances. These seem to have impacted less on their ability to find work.
The proliferating number of “conditions” requiring special care or conditions of work is increasing. The case for discriminating against older people however they’re defined, is at best, weak.
Let’s consider some of the advantages of hiring an “older” worker:
- They have life experience that their younger counterparts lack, enabling them to solve problems younger ones can’t.
- They have “human skills” that again many of their younger counterparts lack.
- They’re likely to be more patient when confronted with adverse situations.
In short, discriminating against older people because of their age is just as unacceptable as discriminating against people based on gender, race, religion, orientation, political views etc.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if “reverse ageism”, where people discriminated against younger people again because of their age, suddenly made an appearance?
As business leaders, it’s our job to ensure we hire only the best, no matter their age. "Inclusivity" starts with us!
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Career, Leadership, Productivity, Social, Strategy, Teamwork
Telephone Queues
A posting appeared in LinkedIn about the newly installed ATM on the island of Tuvalu. Whilst the author could imagine delighted bank customers no longer having to queue for cash at the bank’s counters, she highlighted one of the problems of technology’s impact on our society.
Her concern revolved around “customer service” and how, in an effort to save costs, companies are turning more and more to technology and Artificial Intelligence (AI) to provide for customer needs. I’ve been using ATMs for longer than I can remember; supermarkets now have self-service checkouts (which often seem to have a problem one way or the other, requiring a supervisor to still be in attendance) and other organisations are now "training up" AI to answer customer telephone queries.
The point? Face-to-face, human interaction is becoming less frequent. For some, their weekly trip to the supermarket may be the only chance they have to talk to a “real person” when they pay for their goods at checkout.
More frustrating however, were the author’s experiences of calling a “customer helpline” only to be faced with a myriad of button press choices in order to locate the service they wanted and then either waiting “on hold“ for ages, being cut off or forced to go back to stage one to repeat a menu which didn’t seem to cater for their particular issue.
Despite the hype, human interaction is still critical and AI is not the solution to a business’ financial woes.
Despite the efforts of technology companies, humans still need human interaction and the intuitive leaps that only a human can make to solve their problems.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Customer Care, Productivity, Social
“Cognitive Overhead”
I came across one of the most informative and clear explanations I’ve ever encountered about why customers may not always react the way we hope they will. It’s called “Cognitive Overhead”.
Simply put, it’s how much they have to think and/or do something to take action to get something. The easiest way to understand this is to think about two simple examples:
The words “click below to subscribe”.
The word “subscribe” used as a direct link (known as a “Uniform Resource Locator” or URL) to a page to fill in details.
In the first case, a customer reads the instruction and then must find a link somewhere below (maybe lower than the part of the screen they can see). In the second, they simply click on the word “Subscribe”. This may seem simple but the fact is that the first example requires two steps whilst the second only requires one.
If we imagine our processes in a similar way, how many steps do customers have to go through to obtain a product or service through our website? There will be a minimum number, but the question is how low will that be?
Sometimes customers have commented that they didn’t follow a process through because it was either:
- “Too long”
- “Too complicated”
- “Unintuitive” or
- All of the above.
If the third (let alone the last) answer comes back too often, our business has a serious problem. All it’ll take is one competitor with processes that are shorter, less complicated more “intuitive” or all three to take our customers from us.
As an example, my wife and I have both found that installing eSIMs from a certain provider comes under the “all three” category. We’ve given up using their eSIM.
As businesses, we need to minimise the “cognitive overhead” for our customers. As technology and complexity grow in our world, this is going to become harder. Developers need to understand how the customer works and how to blend this with how their business works.
The first question we should always be asking ourselves is, “Will this process benefit the customer?”. If the answer is “not much” then we shouldn’t institute it. People will try to justify complex processes for reasons like “legal requirements”, “regulations”, or similar. All businesses are subject to rules, but building processes around these rules or around what the business needs isn’t the way to go.
In short, “the simpler the better” is the way to go. Our problem is, how do we get there?
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Customer Care, Productivity, Selling, Strategy
