The newly enlarged business will offer both specialised, senior-level search and interim services. The search practice will continue to follow Archer Mathieson’s ‘multi-specialist’ approach, covering finance, human resources and supply-chain/logistics. Rob Walker says the merger supports Cornhill’s long term strategy:

“This is in line with our Group strategy to operate in a ‘multi-specialist’ model, exploiting market synergies through cross-selling and the use of shared, central services. We think the time is right for this move and that clients will welcome the development. Markets are never static and, as two organisations that help clients achieve their own change and transformation agendas, we too must adapt and change.

“The merger decision was driven by numerous factors. We wanted to end the overlap from a client perspective. And as one combined company, clients gain access to more services under one roof and a wider, deeper, higher-quality talent pool than before. In a single organisation we can better concentrate our marketing and focus our consultants as one, mutually-supportive team. It also gives us greater scale; the critical mass to grow and to do that faster than we could separately.”

Two industry observers familiar with both companies and the market they operate in have welcomed the news. Richard Smelt, non-executive director at Hays Plc and former group HR director at Northern Rock Plc said:

“I don’t think this move will surprise anyone and I completely see the logic. The gap between search and interim has narrowed over recent years; organisations see interim increasingly as a very credible way of resourcing. It makes complete sense to bring these two offerings together within one brand.”

Leo McKee, chief executive officer of nationwide retail chain BrightHouse adds:

“BIE and Archer Mathieson are two excellent businesses. The combination makes complete sense as the single-stop option for hiring executives.”

Commenting on Richard Wright’s departure, Rob Walker said:

“Richard Wright has done a tremendous job over the last two years. His final task is to see us through this merger before he takes up his next role.”

Less sick days

Those who are physically fit are less likely to pick up the dreaded office bug that goes around. Absenteeism costs companies millions of pounds every year and while it is reasonable to expect anyone to fall ill from time to time, when a leader takes unplanned time off work it not only affects their own work but is also likely to have an impact on their team as well.

Increased energy

Are you ever surprised at how much energy you have straight after exercising? That’s because regular exercise gives you increased and sustained energy levels throughout the day. This is particularly important for leaders who need to remain focused, on the ball and pro-active all day, every day.

Confidence

The fitter you are, the more self-confidence you’re going to have. You look better, feel better and feel that you can accomplish the goals that you have set for yourself. As a leader, confidence is vital. If you don’t believe in yourself, how is your team going to?

Achieve targets

With those who exercise, whether they try a new gym regime or sign up to a race of some kind, goals are regularly set and strived for. Achieving these goals outside of the office can boost an individual’s leadership skills in the workplace, as they better understand the challenge of the next milestone or goal.

Attitude

Fit employees tend to feel much better than inactive staff because they are doing physical exercise and often eating healthier as well. This physical and mental balance promotes a more positive attitude in the workplace. As well as this, studies have shown that exercise has the potential to increase brainpower and reduce anxiety. Vigorous exercise has the biggest impact because it requires physical and mental stamina that leaders need in order to push themselves both personally and professionally.

Stress

Anyone in a leadership position will be all too familiar with stress. Strict deadlines to meet, difficult employees to manage, budgets to stick to and long hours can be extremely demanding. Some leaders seem to take this all in their stride. Chances are that they are the ones who regularly hit the gym or find ways of keeping themselves active. Exercise releases the physical and emotional tensions that are experienced on a daily basis, which means that fit leaders have lower stress levels.

What is your experience of any correlation between exercise and leadership? Does your boss run marathons as well as the office? We’d love to hear from you.

Constructive feedback is the act of providing information to an individual that lets them know how others perceive them in terms of what they are saying, doing and the actions they have carried out. When given properly, many argue that it can be a useful tool that provides opportunities for workers to communicate more openly, improve their performance and work in a manner that benefits both themselves and their employer. It can also be used as a form of appreciation for members of staff who are performing well.

Receiving constructive feedback as an employee can also be helpful if a manager gives an insightful perspective on your work, helping eradicate mistakes or be more efficient. It can also improve the bond between the two parties if the employee feels that their manager cares about their work and their improvement.

Other people believe that constructive feedback is simply a way of disguising negative criticism. Using a “feedback” forum to judge an employee’s work challenges their sense of value and can affect their self-esteem and ability to perform well, as well as foster feelings of resentment towards the employer that can only have negative consequences.

Some research has shown that compulsory performance appraisals can cause huge amounts of stress in both employee and employer, particularly if they are few and far between. The reaction to an annual dose of criticism often results in a dramatic decrease in employee performance levels in the aftermath.

What is your opinion about constructive feedback? Are you a manager who finds them beneficial to your team’s performance or do you dread having to do it? Alternatively, as an employee do you find it helpful to know how others rate your performance or does this affect your confidence in your ability to perform at work? Let us know your thoughts below.

]]> http://www.bieinterim.co.uk/2012/02/does-constructive-feedback-really-improve-staff-performance/feed/ 0 http://www.bieinterim.co.uk/2012/02/motivating-without-money/ http://www.bieinterim.co.uk/2012/02/motivating-without-money/#comments Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:26:29 +0000 StevenY http://www.bieinterim.co.uk/?p=1983 Nick Diprose, executive director of BIE, talks to interim executive, bestselling author and consultant David Thompson about what he sees as the greatest management challenge of our time.

ND: Given the focus on cost containment we’re seeing in many sectors, this idea of Motivating without Money looks intriguing. Why do you think it’s so important?

DT: Because thousands of employees out there are being strong-armed into accepting below-inflation rises, pay freezes or worse still, actual pay cuts. The driver is the global economic situation and it’s had a phenomenal impact on employees: after seeing organisations fail, others implode, and friends and relatives being ‘let go’ with no thought to the loyalty they have shown when times were good; many people are beginning to rethink the part that work plays in their lives.

The result is a workforce that’s turning off, performance that’s dropping, and business leaders who are left scratching their heads looking for elusive solutions. And without money as the traditional, default motivator, many leaders are stuck as to exactly what they can do to get their people switched on, focused, and performing again. It’s certainly the management challenge of our time, and perhaps the greatest for generations.

ND: What do you believe has happened?

DT: For many years, businesses have set up their relationship with their people around one, implicit understanding: if you work hard, and give us your loyalty and best performance, we’ll look after you. And for a long while that arrangement worked well. But with the arrival of the sustained, global economic downturn, companies began to back off from this unspoken agreement, and the relationship between employee and employer began to crumble as layoffs grew, salary increases and bonuses became few and far between, career development opportunities were slashed. Yet, the same performance was expected. Whilst this made sense for organisations, many of whom were fighting for their very survival, it didn’t for employees – it encouraged them to ask what’s in this for me?

ND: And what do you think the average employee believes is the answer?

DT: As the years roll on since the eye of the storm in 2008, the answer is becoming more and more elusive. Many employees are coming to the realisation that these new expectations are neither sustainable or attractive. You want me to work harder, for longer, for less? I don’t think so.

ND: So you’re saying that just as employers are rewriting the rules, so are employees?

Yes, many are holding back on any discretionary effort, have a constant eye on the job market, are doing just enough to stay in the game, and many more still are taking the opportunity to redress the balance between work and home. They are focussing on themselves. And if organisations want to get their people and their performance back, to re-engage with them so that they can hang onto them when the economic dust settles – they need to change their focus too: from an internal focus on the needs of the organisation, to an external focus on the needs of their people.

ND: What’s the starting point for re-engagement then?

DT: It begins with recognising the fact that people work for different reasons. For some, it could be the challenge, others it’s the sense of being part of something, and for others still it may be that financial rewards are their greatest motivator. The knack in re-engaging with people during these turbulent times, the secret in motivating them without money is in truly understanding what drives them.

ND: You’re advocating a bespoke approach to each employee, because everyone is an individual?

DT: Exactly. It’s about truly understanding what drives them as individual living, breathing humans with personal goals and aspirations: why they work, what they value, what they are working for. This intimate understanding will allow you to customise their career so that you create a work proposition that is personalised, not homogenised. A career proposition that lights the fire in their belly, and gives them what they want from their work. Do this, and they will be yours.

ND: It sounds like it could be hugely complex. How do you see this working?

DT: It’s actually more straightforward than you might think. It’s simply about understanding what I’ve termed Career Hotspots^TM. Do this for each of your people: be clear about what they value most about their work – what drives them?

ND: Tell us more about this idea of Career Hotspots^TM then.

DT: There are 5 Career Hotspots^TM: Job, Money, People, Lifestyle, and Environment. Supporting these are 15 definable factors which hold the key to understanding the Career Hotspots^TM of each of your people. For some, the 3Bs of Base, Bonus, and Benefits will hold the key. But, increasingly, it’s not financial reward at all that’s the key driver for people.

The secret to unlocking their commitment, performance and retention may be found in the Job: interesting and challenging work, development for growth, or being empowered to make decisions and get on and achieve. For others their Career Hotspot^TM might be around Environment: having job security, or a sense that they have a voice as an employee. Or, new parents often quote Lifestyle as their key driver: achieving greater flexibility between the demands of work and homelife.

By understanding these Career Hotspots^TM, organisations are able to customise careers so that they deliver for each individual what they value the most. And more often that not, the solutions will hold high value for the individual, but low cost for the organisation.

 ND: Can you give any examples of how this would work?

DT: Consider the Dad who only sees his children at the weekend because his commute prevents him from being at home whilst the children are awake. With a little career customisation, he could work flexibly, perhaps leaving work earlier on pre-agreed days, enabling him to spend time with the little ones. You think he’s going to step his performance up a gear in response to such a high value improvement in his work life? You betcha. Or the employee who is intrigued by the work going on in a different department. You respond to her Career Hotspot^TM by seconding her to that area to explore her interest and you create an unbreakable bond that will enable you to retain her once the economic dust settles.

ND: Well, you did say earlier that it was straightforward. It also sounds like common sense. So why don’t more companies already do this?

 DT: It is common sense, but unbelievably, it still isn’t common practice. I don’t really know why people haven’t latched onto the idea before now, especially since motivating without money can be done quickly and begins paying back almost immediately.

ND: I’m beginning to see why you think this is important.

DT: It is important; hugely so. In fact, I think it could hold the key to the beginning of a revolution in the employee/employer relationship. A revolution that is mutually beneficial, based on equality, and a commitment to higher performance and greater levels of engagement. And that’s quite a silver lining to a rather grey cloud isn’t it?

David Thompson is a BIE interim executive, a bestselling author and consultant. Learn more about Motivating without Money at www.beyondthedots.com/mwm

7. Resources get attracted, not allocated. In large organisations, resources get allocated top-down, in a politicized, Soviet-style budget wrangle. On the Web, human effort flows towards ideas and projects that are attractive (and fun), and away from those that aren’t. In this sense, the Web is a market economy where millions of individuals get to decide, moment by moment, how to allocate their precious currency of time and attention.

8. Power comes from sharing information, not hoarding it. The Web is also a gift economy. To gain influence and status, you have to give away your expertise and content. And you must do it quickly; if you don’t, someone else will beat you to the punch — and garner the credit that might have been yours. Online, there are a lot of incentives to share and few incentives to hoard.

 9. Opinions compound and decisions are peer-reviewed. On the Internet, truly smart ideas rapidly gain a following no matter how disruptive they may be. The Web is a near-perfect medium for aggregating the wisdom of the crowd — whether in formally organized opinion markets or in casual discussion groups. And once aggregated, the voice of the masses can be used as a battering ram to challenge the entrenched interests of institutions in the offline world.

10. Users can veto most policy decisions. As many Internet moguls have learned to their sorrow, online users are opinionated and vociferous and will quickly challenge any decision or policy change that seems contrary to the community’s interests. The only way to keep users loyal is to give them a substantial say in key decisions. You may have built the community, but the users really own it.

11. Intrinsic rewards matter most. The web is a testament to the power of intrinsic rewards. Think of all the articles contributed to Wikipedia, all the open source software created, all the advice freely given — add up the hours of volunteer time and it’s obvious that human beings will give generously of themselves when they’re given the chance to contribute to something they actually care about. Money’s great, but so is recognition and the satisfaction of accomplishment.

12. Hackers are heroes. Large organisations tend to make life uncomfortable for activists and rabble-rousers, however constructive they may be. In contrast, online communities frequently embrace those with strong anti-authoritarian views. On the Web, muckraking malcontents are frequently celebrated as champions of the Internet’s democratic values, particularly if they’ve managed to hack a piece of code that has been interfering with what others regard as their inalienable digital rights.

These features of Web-based life are written into the DNA of Generation F — and are mostly missing from the managerial DNA of the average FTSE company. There are a lot of kids looking for jobs right now, but few of them will ever feel at home in cubicleland.

Let us know what you think in the comments below.

Although it’s a buyer’s market for talent right now, it won’t always be the case — and in the future, any company that lacks a vital core of Gen F employees will soon find itself stuck in the mud. If we hope to attract the most creative and energetic members of Gen F, we will need to understand these Web-derived expectations and then reinvent our management practices accordingly.

With that in mind, here is a list of work-relevant characteristics of online life generated by management thinker, Gary Hamel. In his words, these are the yardsticks tomorrow’s employees will use to determine whether your company is “with it” or “past it.”

The first 6 points are below, the final 6 will be in next week’s blog.

1. All ideas compete on an equal footing. On the Web, every idea can gain a following — or not, and no one has the power to stop a subversive idea or squelch an embarrassing debate. Ideas gain traction based on their perceived merits, rather than on the political power of their sponsors.

2. Contribution counts far more than credentials. When you post a video to YouTube, no one asks you if you went to film school. When you write a blog, no one cares whether you have a journalism degree. Position, title, and academic degrees — none of the usual status differentiators carry much weight online. On the Web, what counts is not your CV, but what you can contribute.

3. Hierarchies are natural, not prescribed. In any Web forum there are some individuals who command more respect and attention than others—and have more influence as a consequence. Critically, though, these individuals haven’t been appointed by some superior authority. Instead, their clout reflects the freely given approbation of their peers. On the Web, authority trickles up, not down.

 4. Leaders serve rather than preside. On the Web, every leader is a servant leader; no one has the power to command or sanction. Credible arguments, demonstrated expertise and selfless behaviour are the only levers for getting things done through other people. Forget this online, and your followers will soon abandon you.

 5. Tasks are chosen, not assigned. The Web is an opt-in economy. Whether contributing to a blog, working on an open source project, or sharing advice in a forum, people choose to work on the things that interest them. Everyone is an independent contractor, and everyone scratches their own itch.

6. Groups are self-defining and self-organising. On the Web, you get to choose your colleagues. In any online community, you have the freedom to link up with some individuals and ignore the rest, to share deeply with some folks and not at all with others. Just as no one can assign you a boring task, no can force you to work with dim-witted colleagues.

It might be worth considering how much of a shift it would be for your organisation to embrace some or all of these now. Another 6 points will be coming next week.

Investing in the right tools and technologies to implement flexi-time can result in increased performance, motivation, job satisfaction and a better work/life balance, resulting in companies having higher levels of staff retention and therefore saving money on recruitment and training. Studies have also shown that employees who take advantage of flexible working hours are more engaged than their colleagues who are bound to the office all the time. Employers agree that this method does in fact improve productivity among those staff.

However, recent research has shown that, despite the apparent benefits, flexible working is not commonplace in UK businesses and where it is available, not all employees are prepared to use it. 77% of organisations currently prevent staff from working flexibly. In those that do, aside from the fear of being branded lazy or a part-timer, 41% of office-based employees feel that due to the uncertainty of the current economic climate, they have to be present and visible in the office to guarantee the security of their job.

Furthermore, 31% of employees feel that the company they work for fails to make the most of the benefits to both sides of flexible working. Requests for flexible working are frowned upon as being “inconvenient”. On top of this, 27% of employees feel that their performance is primarily measured on the time they spend in the office rather than their output.

This negative association with flexible hours may seem ridiculous when a change in attitude could increase productivity, sales and customer satisfaction; or attract a more diverse workforce with a range of skills and knowledge. It is even stranger when you consider that 39% of managers say that allowing staff to work flexible hours makes their business more productive and 43% say it helps to retain employees.

Perhaps a change in how flexi-time is seen needs to come from the top. Perhaps more employers, directors and senior managers need to lead by example by readily teleconferencing with workers at home, or by leaving the office themselves to collect children from school. If more business leaders were seen to work flexible hours, perhaps their employees would be encouraged to do the same, which could be a win-win solution for all parties involved.

Do you work flexible hours? Let us know what you think below.

A busy executive — aren’t we all? — crafted an excellent email response to an important query posed by her subordinate. Thoughtful, useful, and personal, her answer cut to the heart of the issue while presenting an effective approach for managing it.

The only problem was the executive’s note was too personal and, as written, couldn’t be shared with anyone beyond the original recipient. And yet it offered a thoughtful response to a business issue that would impact the behaviour of literally hundreds of employees.

After another email exchange, the executive and her direct report recognised that, as useful as the message was, it could not be shared with other employees. They spent a quick half-hour editing the original note into a more formal directive. This revised communication had the desired organisational impact.

A happy result? Not exactly. Executives should (almost) always write emails as if they would be — and should be — forwarded to key players in their organisation. Rewriting and revising individual emails into more scalable missives is time-consuming and inefficient.

If you’re editing even only three emails a week into a forwardable focus — particularly in collaboration with a colleague — then you’re arguably wasting 10 hours a month on communications rework. Why not write it as forwardable in the first place? Every single significant response to a serious query should be written as if it can and should be forwarded.

This is the happier and healthier corollary to the “Never write anything you wouldn’t be comfortable seeing on the front page of the New York Times — or WikiLeaks”.

The downside of this approach is that when you write only in a style to be forwarded, you inherently throttle back some of the personal touches in your communication. Indeed, this approach insists that communicators be a little less intimate and individual. That is a loss.

On the other hand, many executives personalize their communications in ways that get in the way of information sharing and, in reality, blur the professional focus of the message. While efficiency shouldn’t always be prized above personalisation, personal flourishes that undermine efficiency waste time and attention. Those are resources that effective executives are reluctant to squander.

Do you take that extra 60 seconds necessary to think how to make your emails more forwardable? If you do, let us know in the comments below.

Recent research from Ipsos MORI on behalf of the Interim Management Association shows that demand for interims in Q3 2011 was 22% higher than the previous quarter. Unfortunately, it was also widely reported that it is only the weak economic outlook that is driving these impressive figures, as businesses hire experienced interims to come in and streamline their costs.

While demand for interims has undoubtedly improved in recent months, our experience is that this is not just driven by the negative aspects of the current economic uncertainty. A high proportion of recent interim placements are in response to businesses investing in the future rather than running away from it.

As well as a steady flow of UK roles, we have seen a high number of international requests from companies looking to accelerate away from recession by utilising appropriate interim skills, such as:

• A manufacturing sector joint-venture in South Africa
• Major IT systems implementations across Europe
• Improvements in engineering capabilities for a manufacturing company
• Rebuilding sales operations across Europe
• A fashion brand creating greater sales penetration
• Global acquisition support

These examples and others serve as a timely reminder that interims are still being used for positive, growth-focused assignments. Valuable as they are in ‘distress’ situations such as turnaround, cost-cutting or restructuring, it is important to balance the story of how interims are currently being used or we risk painting ourselves into a corner as the market upturns.

Despite many thinking it was not a realistic option, Arsenal this week turned to veteran ex-player Thierry Henry, a Premier League star of the last decade now playing in the USA, for some much needed experience and guidance at a time when injuries have hit their squad hard.

Henry duly delivered on his first appearance, making an immediate impact to settle their third-round FA Cup game against Leeds by scoring the winner.

In a sporting parallel to the interim executive market, an experienced head very often delivers when a crucial result is needed.

Arsenal are the company going through change and currently short-staffed in terms of senior level expertise. Thierry Henry is the interim expert.

Though Henry was keen not to tarnish his legacy, as were the Arsenal faithful, it is exactly this legacy and vast experience of victories and scars that he is clearly able to draw upon. Whether in sport or in business, it is the experience, year in and year out, of the wins and the losses, which counts when it really matters.

Arsenal have hired Henry for two months, to make a difference, to see them through a tricky period. Undoubtedly, the expert has not  lost his touch – he rose from the bench when needed and scored his 227th goal for Arsenal. His enthusiasm, backed up by experience, lifted the team and pointed them towards victory. Henry is clearly still passionate about it all, celebrating wildly.

As a fan, I hope Thierry Henry’s legacy will be a stronger, better, more confident team, with a set of good results. Once this is secure it could be that Mr. Henry has something to add in the boardroom…