Sitting Pretty

Additional long-term capital would be welcome. It would surely act as a ready buffer against future shocks and yet more trying times.

But some clients are beginning to feel left out of the party as the rate of economic growth slows. As the total of taxpayers’ money being gifted to banks and financial institutions grows day by day they are tempted to cast an envious eye in that direction.

While I can appreciate the sentiment I regard the prospect as a siren song leading to potential tragedy.

Once such a comfortable cushion is in place it is all too easy to regard that as the solution: nothing more need be done. The company can now sit safely on the, albeit diminishing, cushion and watch as events pass by.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Either the cushion will continue to diminish until it disappears completely, leaving the company worse off than before.

Or the crisis will end and your competitors will be stronger and better prepared than you, having benefited from the hard lessons imbibed while weathering the storm.

Liners may carry lifeboats, but your chances are improved by learning to swim.

Depending on the benevolence of others for your own survival is never a good idea. Those that ride to the rescue today will, unlike the good Samaritan, impose their own conditions tomorrow – as the bankers will shortly learn.

Any coaching I give is directed towards each client learning the rules of the changing markets conditions, as they apply to him or her, and then working out his or her own solution, whatever that may be.

That may not sound easy, but this is not economic Armageddon, despite what the newshounds will tell you.

There is still plenty of business out there – at least as much as there was 2-3 years ago.

If you were in business then, you were probably doing nicely.

You still can be.

Once upon a time a wise King, concerned about the unrest and discontent among his people, invited them all to bring their burdens to him. He promised to listen and to help, if he could.

They came from near and far, each carrying his own burden, which they laid at the feet of the King. Then one after the other, each rose and told his story.

When the tales of woe were finished, the King spoke: “You have heard your neighbour’s story. If anyone wishes he may now exchange his burden for another’s.”

Silently his subjects looked around, then silently picked up his own particular burden and quietly walked away.

Valuing People

What species of thinking produces an expression like ‘Human Capital Management & Measurement’ and then holds a conference that devotes a whole day to the subject? To me such terminology displays arrogance in those that use it and portrays disdain for those about whom it is used.

As professionals let us be clear: 'capital' is the money or other assets owned by a company. Judicious use of such assets helps to keep it in business. 'Capital Assets' are the plant and machinery owned by the company and used in producing goods. As much as some directors and senior managers may like to think otherwise a company does not own the people who choose to work for it.

In no sense can people be counted as capital!!

Some companies, perhaps the same companies, do have the habit of referring to people as ‘assets’ or ‘resources’. Again, assets are property; people are not. The staff may have certain qualities which yield benefits to the firm (why else would they be employed? Duh!), but the qualities belong to the people, not the firm. I await the day - not holding my breathe - when a firm says, “the people who work for us did a great job last year, but there is no guarantee they will stay with us and no certainty they will remain as capable when circumstances change.”

And where ‘Human…Management’ is concerned, the best response is Steven Covey's: “You cannot manage people - you can only manage tasks. People must be led.” Inevitably, I can only doubt the capacity to lead of anyone who refers to the people on whom they depend in terms more suited to inanimate, unfeeling objects.

The same conference boasted of "developing both a talent management strategy and… effective measures of [an] organisation's human talent." Good grief.

Even if talent could be measured (how talented was Mozart? Was that an 8.7 or a 9.3?) just what particular talent - note the singular - will your business need most tomorrow? Or in 12 months time?

Do two people with the same talent double your talent score, or leave it unchanged?

Is a talented pianist worth two talented footballers, or can I swap six talented accountants for one talented plumber? And, as Network Rail struggle to complete their west coast mainline engineering works, what price talented engineers? Several million pounds I would judge, based on the £2.4 million it had to pay in 2007 for failing to complete work on a project in Portsmouth on time.

The terms we use to refer to others shape our attitudes and influence our thinking. Words are not neutral. As a professional I hope I do not treat those I work with in such a callous and cavalier fashion. People respond better and feel more motivated when they are acknowledged and recognised for the all qualities they have, rather than being taken for granted, sucked dry and then carelessly discarded when no longer of use.

If we wish to get the most from our people we must treat them as people. On the other hand, should you happen to work for an organisation that subscribes to this stack ’em, rack ’em and sack ’em approach, please put on a pair of trainers…and run like hell.