demandFor some years now you have been hearing that “Command and Control Management” is passé and that it no longer has a place it in a business that seeks to be competitive. Yet reports of its demise appear to be greatly exaggerated and premature

Certainly “Command and Control” is logically questionable in a democratic society. After all, how can you expect people who have been raised to believe that individual rights are paramount, and that all men should be treated as equal, to accept that someone else has the right to tell them what to do and how to do it? This question alone, paradoxically, goes a long way towards answering why there are unacceptably high levels of employee disengagement and there is a deteriorating employee engagement picture. It doesn’t matter what employment contracts say or what the terms of engagement actually are, your people will always be happier doing what is required without interference. So the books and management schools that have been telling us that there is no place for Command and Control management techniques are certainly on track.

Yet, despite these efforts, and their apparent acceptance by the business community at large, the style of management remains largely unchanged. You may well have introduced initiatives to create “work-life balance” and “empower” your people, but ultimately these are largely all within the framework of existing management structures. They still bear all the hall marks of top-down management and, while they theoretically loosen the reins, they actually do very little to alter the mindset and thus behaviours tend to always revert to a Command and Control style – particularly when there is a problem or crisis.

This state of affairs can only be changed and Command and Control Management truly killed off when a new framework is introduced that will shape new behaviours and break down the old, ingrained thought patterns with their consequential behaviours. This book offers the basis for developing just such a framework and thus is essential reading for any business leader looking to meet the challenges of the 21st century and build an organisation of “FAT People” where success can be sustained.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

coffin2

Prophetic or what? This cartoon, from page 3 of the book, could easily apply to the recent controversy about the remuneration excesses of executives of failed companies who earned excessive salaries, pensions and bonuses in spite of performance that would have seen lower level employees fired. However, while it would great to claim such prescient capabilities, it was simply intended to be a provocative way of pointing out that it is impossible for companies to sustain their competitive edge as long as they pursue unfair two-tier payment structures.

It was therefore prophetic only to the extent it recognised the need for a change in organisational remuneration. If people are truly an organisation’s greatest asset as is so often claimed, they have to be what provides its competitive advantage. Consequently, it is increasingly imperative to win and sustain their commitment. This is why employee engagement is an increasingly important topic. Yet, as declining employee engagement statistics clearly indicate, it will be impossible to ever engage employees to the extent necessary to secure the competitive advantage necessary for the long term sustainability of the organisation as long as people feel inferior or that they are part of a two-tier payment structure.

The collapse of the big financial services companies has precipitated a need to re-evaluate pay structures and created an ideal opportunity to redress such practices. Whatever the eventual outcome, the ideas expressed in this book offer a better way forward for those that are serious about rectifying such inequities and looking to make their businesses more sustainable, and without the great swings between good times and bad.

Tags: , , , , , ,

risk-managementRisk is inherent in any business or trading operation and as such business leaders are expected to identify and manage it. Their primary accountability to safeguard the organisation’s assets and act as an agent in looking after the shareholders’ interests, doing all they can to safeguard them, makes risk management a key responsibility for them. This becomes more and more onerous as the range of risks and the scale of the consequences both grow.

You will perhaps understand this more easily if I point out that business continuity planning (BCP) is only one element of risk management for any business. Yet, when I was doing my audit training this was actually known as ‘Disaster Recovery Planning’ and formed a significant proportion of risk management. Technology’s ever-growing integration into business operations makes disaster recovery even more important than ever, yet its proportion has decreased. This is because:

  1. Technology itself has made disaster recovery and the creation of back up sites so much easier;
  2. There is wider acceptance that businesses also have a responsibility to their people and the communities in which they operate, and thus can be liable if they do not honour those obligations. As a result there is more that can go wrong or more that needs to be guarded against;
  3. The consequences of something going wrong are far more significant;
  4. The potential sources of trouble are so much greater: the actions of any person at any level in the organisation could precipitate the end of the business.

I don’t know whether there is any historical connection but, in light of this, it seems entirely logical that scenario planning should become a means of developing alternative business plans. This allows to business to forecast a particular course of action under certain conditions and then to adjust accordingly if the assumptions change.

Yet, despite these advances, it would appear there are still major flaws in management thinking.

Firstly, the scope of scenario planning appears to be too narrow. In fact the speed with which the economy collapsed in 2008 and the overall consequences of that downturn, would suggest that the scenario planning completely excluded any possibility of such events. In other words they were all so optimistic that there appears to have been no concept whatsoever of risk.

Secondly, again despite the broadening scope of risk, there appears to be no recognition of the potential risks of key client failure and the consequences for business.

These two factors combined have, I am convinced, exacerbated the situation and made the whole recession more severe and long-lasting that it might otherwise have been.

The obvious solution then is to ensure that scenario planning includes optimistic best case scenarios and pessimistic worst case scenarios and that risk management incorporates planning for the loss of a significant chunk of business. For example, if your business is in the automotive industry, plan for the eventuality of one or even two of the major manufacturers failing.

However, I don’t believe that is enough on its own. As I wrote in my new book “A Feeling of Worth” a business inevitably goes through cycles with good years and bad years and over time these average out. Somehow, managers and business owners forget this and act as though bad times are a complete disaster. There has to be some mechanism to try to equalise things and that makes it second nature for managers to undertake more thorough assessments so that they don’t fall into this trap again. You won’t be surprised to learn that I think the solution here is the valuation of people as assets.

Valuing people as assets immediately puts a different complexion on the way they are treated. They have a value to the business that generally increases over time and all too often little or no account is taken of the past investment that has been made in them, and similarly no thought is given to the investment that will have to be made in new people when things improve. This is poor asset management and valuing and treating them as assets will at the very least engender better risk management. This with more effective scenario planning and better anticipation will allow management to apply people more strategically for the better long term interests of the business, and thereby better fulfil their own fiduciary relationship with the owners and shareholders.

It would make them more accountable for the way they manage their greatest asset, and that cannot be a bad thing.

The 3rd edition is now available, get it here: