Form Over Substance?
Box-ticking,
form-filling without paying attention to the real underlying performance of
service. We can be so busy documenting
that we forget to think (or don't have time to). Have we become too fixated on paper?
We use checklists to make sure that things are/have been
done, we write reports or fill in questionnaires. During my time with large organisations, our
appraisals were filled with documentary evidence of what we had done.
Often, it’s to ensure that, if something goes wrong, we can
prove that we “ticked the box”. Just
because we have doesn’t mean anything. Anti
Money-Laundering rules require banks to obtain and have certified copies of our
passports, marriage certificates, proof of address. If they don’t, our accounts can be closed as we might represent a threat to national security…
Thanks to more and more work being heaped onto fewer people
in the name of “productivity” or “shareholder value”, we’ve lost the ability to
do our jobs effectively. As a result, we
can’t trust each other (sometimes for good reason) unless there’s a “form” or
“certificate” stating that things are as they should be.
In the “Enron Scandal”, the eponymous company was brought
down through false accounting. Some of
its top management were (rightly) jailed.
The real result, though, was the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in the US,
which requires CEOs to take written accountability for their business’ accounts.
In turn, this meant a rash of documentation, certification
and attestation down through the ranks for everyone to say that they had done
their bit. If something went wrong, the
CEO could hold up the certificate that someone else signed. That way he/she might avoid fines/imprisonment/both…
Certification and documentation have increased the cost of doing business. Who pays? The customer.
And for what? Mainly, to enrich
legions of in-house and external legal advisors and compliance managers. It has certainly added to the number of
regulators out there. Who pays for them? The customer.
We do it all for “form’s sake”…
Has it actually meant that things are now done better and/or
more honestly/ethically? I strongly
doubt it. People have simply learnt to
“game the system” as far as documentation is concerned.
So what’s the answer?
I did my banking exams in the 90s and was finally
certified as an Associate of The Chartered Institute of Bankers in 1994. A recurrent theme in all my study texts was
the fiduciary duty that one had as a
banker to one’s customers: one was a guardian and trustee of their wealth. One had to act accordingly.
Nowadays, people have to be reminded of their duty not only as bankers, but as company
managers, directors, etc. They are asked
to sign certificates saying that
they:
- Will act honestly;
- Won't divulge secrets;
- Will let anyone know if they do something wrong (or see
someone else doing something wrong);
- Have checked that everything's in order ("to the best of their knowledge").
And so on.
If we sign on as customers to any retail website, we certify that we’ve read the Terms And Conditions as part of the process - and we’re
not allowed to sign on until we do. How
many of us actually read those Terms?
To me, this is a searing indictment of our society. Things have come to pass that nowadays almost
everyone takes what amounts to a presidential Oath of Office - and signs to say that they’ve read it!
I have spent more than half my life
delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to
“emerging” economies. With more than 20 years in international financial
services around the world running
different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to
offer 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 . My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of
services. For strategic questions that
you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610.
Labels: Customer Care, Financial, Regulation, Strategy
Are "Office Hours" Obsolete?
In an age of
smartphones, tablet computers, remote access, telecommuting and working
remotely, I’ve seen a number of articles asking whether “traditional office
hours” are a thing of the past.
There are arguments both for and against, and it really
boils down to what your organisation does, how it does it and its industry. People talk a lot about “knowledge workers”
as being unbound by time and office constraints which is, to an extent,
true. However, before deciding one way
or the other, here are what I see as the pros and cons for abandoning the
“office hours” concept.
PROS:
Studies have shown that “open plan” offices may not actually
be as conducive to productivity as people think. Whilst there are benefits to being able to
see/hear what’s going on around you, it’s almost impossible to produce work
that needs quiet concentration due to all the distractions and interruptions. Some tasks lend themselves well to remote
working (e.g. emails, report writing, planning, returning/making phone calls) and
output may actually be better thanks to the lack of distraction.
There’s no travel time during “rush hour” to get into work
by whatever time it is. You arrive more
relaxed and ready for the day.
You may feel more comfortable/relaxed/creative if you know
you're not constrained by office hours.
People can work when they want. This benefits single parents who have to put
children to bed but can work in the evening afterwards.
There could be cost benefits in the form of reduced space
required (rent and utility bills) if you need less space by not requiring
everyone to be in every day all day. You
just need to have “hot-desking” capability for when people do need to be in.
You may be able to attract better quality staff if you're
not seen as a “traditional office hours” employer.
Businesses where non-traditional office hours work well, or
which can offer flexi-time or remote working arrangements are often those in which
RESULTS count, rather than how long you spend warming a seat.
Independent consultants can work with a laptop and phone as
they’re meant to be looking after client businesses. This keeps their overheads down.
CONS:
Humans are (mostly) social animals and won’t get the opportunity
to “bounce ideas” off others if they're not in the office. In creative industries or R&D where you
need another point of view, this can mean the difference between success and
failure.
Security could be an issue.
Accessing sensitive data over open networks may not be what you want if
you have strict data privacy regulations governing your business.
“Hot-desking” - a
great idea in theory - has major disadvantages if not done well. I saw this in
one of the UK’s banks where people literally didn't know where they were
sitting from one day to the next. They
might spend up to an hour finding somewhere - imagine the lost revenue from
time wasted looking for a desk!
Some work simply requires that people be on site during
“office hours” (e.g. production work, certain types of training).
SO…
What should you do?
If you’re wondering whether to review your office hour policies, think about
the following:
- What does your organisation do?
- How does it do it?
- What industry is it in (and what’s the “norm”)?
- Which outside parties does it interact with?
- When do you really
need people around (face-to-face meetings, etc)?
- What can be done away
from the office (telesales, setting up meetings, etc)?
- Who really needs to be around from 9-5?
- What must be done “on
site” (e.g. checking inventory, manufacturing, client meetings)?
- What benefits you would want for the organisation, its
people and the “bottom line” by adopting flexible office hours?
- What costs might be reduced?
You can either trust people to behave like responsible
adults, or you can set up controls to ensure that they’re not taking advantage
of your enlightened policies. These
might include:
- Requiring people to advise when they will be working
remotely/flexibly;
- Checking when they sign into/out of the organisation’s
servers;
- Monitoring email traffic;
- Setting out which activities can be done from home/remotely
(e.g. report writing, preparing proposals) and evidence to show productivity;
- Setting out when people must
be in the office;
- Banning remote/flexible working on certain days, e.g. Monday
and Friday (to discourage “long weekenders”);
- Security rules;
- Penalties for abuse.
CONCLUSION:
Depending on the task and with the new breed of “knowledge
worker”, office hours may no longer be as relevant. If you're going to change, however, both
employee and organisation have to benefit.
Look at factors such as:
- Productivity
- Morale
- Retention rates/turnover
- Costs
- Rules
Even if costs stay the same, but you have noticeably higher
productivity, happier people and lower turnover, then you’ve won.
In sort, there may be times when “office hours” will
continue to be relevant, but equally there may be times when more flexibility
works. Why not try and see?
I have spent more than half my life delivering
change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging”
economies. With more than 20 years in international financial services around
the world running different operations
and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to offer 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 . My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of
services. For strategic questions that
you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610.
Teamwork Doesn’t Happen On Its Own
A well-functioning
team is something marvellous. Everyone
knows their job and works with their colleagues seamlessly. At times, it seems as if members can read
each other’s minds.
Teambuilding is hard work.
There’s no such thing as a team that “falls together” except
in very rare circumstances. Even where
this does happen, it’s usually because the “right” people have been recruited
at the right time for whatever reason. After
a period of time, however, as things naturally evolve and team needs change,
it’s not surprising to see that some team members become “surplus to
requirements”, or become bored with their current position and want fresh
challenges.
When putting together a team, you find two situations: starting
from scratch or joining an already-formed team.
In the former case, you have the advantage of being able to pick and
choose. This is rare, but does happen,
as in the case of newly formed societies, clubs or businesses. I’ve been in both situations.
When you join an existing team, whether as leader or member
(again, as I have done), you need to be sure of which role you’ve been
recruited for as well as the roles played by others. As leader, you’ll want to know who else plays
which role and their relative strengths and weaknesses. As member, you’ll also need to know this, as
well as how the leader likes to work.
How the leader likes to work is what I have often found to
be the cause of problems. Members have
both collective expectations (i.e. what
they all want as a group) as well as individual
ones. The same applies to the leader,
but their job is to ensure that the members’ needs are met in order to get the
job done. The leader, in other words, serves the team. This means they need to understand both
individual and group dynamics. Some
people are “naturals” at this. Others
(like me) have to work harder.
So how do you go about building an effective team? Firstly, remember that the tendency to choose
people who are “like you” may not be the right thing. You need people who will challenge each other
(and you) and explore all possibilities, whilst fulfilling the various team
roles defined by the likes of Belbin and Margerison & McAnn. The reason that many organisations fail is
that the management team becomes dysfunctional or dominated by one personality
with a misguided vision or perception.
Look at the current Rugby World Cup competition going on and
you’ll see a number of teams all striving to win the trophy. Look at the individual players in a rugby
team, and you’ll see they’re all different heights and shapes, depending on the
particular position in which they play. How
they have been trained, how they play as a team,
mixing their skills effectively and maintaining their focus and composure
in the face of adversity all dictate how well they do. There have been surprises, such as Japan (a
nation not known for its rugby prowess) beating South Africa (a well-experienced
team).
When recruiting, decide what you need, then hire the skills,
attitude and personality to fit into the team.
It may mean that you reject good people, but you can’t afford to have a
rugby team composed entirely of props.
Once you have your team, they still need to get used to each
other - you need to coach them. No rugby or football players get thrown
together and just told to “get on with it”, but that’s what some leaders think
happens, judging from their behaviour. You
need to get them on board with your vision of what’s going to happen, their
individual contribution and what they need to do to achieve that. They’ll need help at times. See that you
give it. Coaches know that all players
are subject to self-doubt, moments of weakness or panic and they stand behind
them. If they don't stand behind their
players, guess what? The players won’t do
their best for the coach.
Team management is more work than a lot of us realise, but
the rewards when you get it right are equally beyond expectations!
I have spent more than half my life delivering
change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging”
economies. With more than 20 years in international financial services around
the world running different operations
and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to offer 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 . My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of
services. For strategic questions that
you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610
Labels: Leadership, Productivity, Strategy, Teamwork
