Objectivity and Passion

Words: 163
Reading time: 33 secs

Martin Johnson would be a great coach for the England rugby team if he was less passionate and more objective. Objectivity allows us to stand back, coolly weigh up the facts presented to us and then make a value-free assessment of the situation before us.

Martin Johnson would also be a great rugby coach if he was less objective and more passionate. Objectivity is all very well, but to convince and inspire others you need to truly care about the team, their performance and their place in the world. Without passion all the objectivity in the world lacks the necessary spark of desire.

Both of these statements hold a kernel of truth. We have to care enough to use our time and our talents to improve the results we are getting and our efforts to improve will be better informed by a degree of objectivity.

Balancing detachment and commitment is the key to leadership enhancing any endeavour whether it be either rugby or business.

The truth about teams

Words: 447
Reading Time: 1 min. 29 sec.s

There is a lot of confused thinking about getting the best from teams. A good case in point is Duncan Brodie (http://goalsandachievements.com) who says:

“To get the best from a team you clearly have to bring out the best in each individual and get them all playing to their strengths.”

Only to say, just a few lines further on:

“The truth is that team success is largely down to a group of people who are committed to a common purpose and are willing to work collectively and support each other to get the result they desire.”

Setting aside whether you agree with either of these points, both cannot be true at the same time.

Bringing out the best in each individual is just a likely to give you a group of individuals, each pulling in a different direction, rather than a team.

Having a group of people committed to a common purpose and willing to work collectively to get the result they desire will give you a team, but will not necessarily bring out the best in each individual; that may need to be sacrificed to the common good.

Superior teams are most likely when the members share a common aspiration for the team rather than themselves and the team makes use of each individual’s strengths. That does not mean having the best individuals, since they may not place the team above themselves. It does involve each team member identifying moment to moment how the team as a whole can best deliver.

Sport is often chosen as an analogy for business, but business is rarely like that. Business is not about delivering at your peak for 48 minutes, 90 minutes, 20 overs or 5 days. It is about effective, appropriate effort delivered under all circumstances for months and years.

Business suggestions:
1) Be clear about the outcomes;
2) Be clear about how you will know if and when you have them;
3) Get buy-in from all members of the team;
4) No stigma should attach to not buying-in and being properly excluded;
5) No-one fails in a team, everyone takes responsibility;
6) Teams do not work automatically, they need work themselves;
7) Changing team members changes the whole team, earlier phases will need revisiting;
8) Ball-carriers and supporters change over time; make sure everyone knows who is who;
9) You need both ball-carriers and supports to succeed;
10) You cannot lead a team; either you are part of it, or you are not. Who leads at any one time will change with where the team has got to;
11) When the job is done celebrate the success and disband the team;
12) Different jobs need different teams.

Elephants traps ahead

Words: 362
Reading Time: 1 minute 12 seconds

What do a British oil company, an American bank and a Japanese car maker all have in common? Rob Cox on Reuters’ Breakingviews.com believes there is no link. I disagree.

BP, Goldman Sachs and Toyota are linked by a common failure of corporate governance. They did the saving-cost-at-all-costs thing instead of doing-the-right-thing-no-matter-what-the-cost thing.

Johnson & Johnson’s handling of the Tylenol recall in 1982 is a good case study for how to minimize damage to brand and reputation.

The painkiller was recalled when seven people died in Chicago after taking capsules of Tylenol laced with cyanide. At the time it was thought the brand would not recover from the sabotage. However, an extensive product recall followed by a media campaign and the introduction of tamper-proof packaging saw Tylenol return to the market within two months.

Johnson & Johnson handled it so well they were able to enhance their reputation.

BP, Goldman Sachs and Toyota have all made themselves look even more guilty by blaming others, denying any culpability and doing too little, too late.

Any company facing irate members of the public, customers or the press has got to speak openly, candidly and forthrightly to its customers and the wider public about what has happened and what they intend to do to put it right. And a genuine apology is the first place to start.

People recognize that mistakes are made and that CEOs cannot be everywhere all the time. They appreciate being kept in the loop about what’s happening and when things will return to normal. This isn’t the time for corporate deception; it’s the time for common decency.

It is also time to wonder how we have produced a generation of so-called business leaders who seem to have no moral standards and a generation of workers who go along with things they know to be wrong.

The fact that business schools see fit to include modules on ethics as part of MBA courses is probably symptomatic. Some MBA students are even being asked to take “ethics oaths”. But if anybody can reach 21+ years of age and still not know right from wrong, then a classroom course is unlikely to help.

What Was Your Message?

Words: 1,374 Reading time: 4 minutes 35 seconds

When Lee, the Operations Director, announced the pending plant closures she had been working on it for weeks. The problems with the firm had been clear for a while, but answers had been elusive. This was her solution.

When Simon, the Warehouse Foreman, heard the proposals he wondered what had taken them so long. He would have told them what needed to be done months ago, only they never asked.

In organizations, when things don’t go as planned, or as hoped, or as well as we would have liked, there is one culprit certain to be nominated – lack of communication.

Common Culprit
Rey in her book “Secrets of the Body Broker” says that in her consulting practice, communication—or lack of it—is the leading cause of workplace dissatisfaction, and that the problem encompasses communication between employee and boss, between departments and between senior management and management staff.

So, not only does communication feature in the roll call of why things went wrong, it also stands in the dock when the charge is lack of satisfaction. Communication is conceived as being something not only outside of the individual, but also beyond their scope. It is a darkness, always there and into which no light of our own can shine. All of us await the harsh magnesium luminosity of some rescuer’s flare before we can steer our way to knowing.

Apparently, leaders, managers and workers are each shipwrecked on their own desert island of ignorance, playing their eight records and waiting for the fates to send them a ship.

We may not wish to admit it, but it doesn’t actually happen like this.

* Some of us are ignorant because we choose to be; it’s less of a problem that way.
* Some of us think we know it all anyway; anything else would be inconsequential.
* Some of don’t know what we don’t know; we are within the realms of what’s possible.
* Some of us don’t care what we don’t know; that’s somebody else’s problem.
* And some of us don’t want others to know; it’s just none of their business.


If we knew more, we’d do better
Organizational theory has it that communication in the workplace will provide employees with a clear understanding of what is demanded from them and give them knowledge of what to do and what to expect. It is said that communication creates effective performance by the staff, and, consequently, increases customer loyalty and profit.

The reverse of the coin says that lack of communication may lead to:

§ Misunderstandings
§ Lack of information
§ Decrease in employees’ performance
§ Decrease in company’s turnover

In this model the inability of leaders and managers to clearly express their thoughts, ideas and demands leads to employees' inability to work well.

This strikes me as way too simplistic and naïve.

Few companies, if any, run a single agenda and some items on the agenda are usually unstated. There are always conflicting demands between agenda items and which gets precedence can change rapidly, or be different in different parts of the organization at the same time. On top of that, each employee has their own agenda which – amazingly – is highly unlikely to be the same as that of the company.

What emerges from any company is the result of a complex of agenda trade-offs at every level. More and indiscriminate communication between those levels is likely to lead to greater confusion, not less; to reduced rather than improved results.

No news is good news
Some people believe they are managing by exception. This causes them to have their antennae tuned to hear only bad news. For those operating with such a mindset, no news is, indeed, good news.

However, there might be things, like political issues and conflicts of interest, which prevent others from bringing issues to surface. As a manager you will hear no news, but there will be hidden things that may go from bad to worse. Waiting until things get so awful that they can no longer be kept off your radar is a good way to be sure you will always be late to the scene of a fire and that fire will be out of control when you arrive.

If it’s an ‘internal’ customer not giving you feedback about a project you have completed, perhaps she’s not happy with it. If her preferred style is to avoid confrontation your future prospects may already be blighted, you just don’t know it yet. By the time you do it will be too late to repair the damage.

No news can also mean they didn’t hear what you thought you said, or they attach less weight to it than you do. Sometimes people just decided to put the issue on the back burner and let it simmer a while – if it’s that important, they expect you’ll mention it again – but they don't bother to let you know.

Mixed messages
If you continue to drive a large, expensive car while the firm is going through a rough patch, is that confidence or arrogance?

Critical non-essentials – like receiving flowers from the contractor after all your carpets have been cleaned – are a nice treat when everything else is fine, but something of an insult when the basics fail to come up to the mark. As a ‘thank you’ they are misplaced and as an apology they are inadequate.

If the functional area you manage is about to be downsized and you do not say anything to your staff, is that because you don’t know, or because you don’t want others to know, or because you can’t face it? In either case the end result could be an erosion of trust.

Even communication of success, the fact that things are going really well, can result in confusion. Is this reassurance that you are offering? Are you boasting just to look good? Or are the congratulations premature?


Leadership
Lack of communication is a lack of leadership. Leadership needs candour and honesty. Leadership is the communication of emotions. Lack of management experience is a primary reason why communication is such a problem in the workplace.

According to Rey, every day thousands of employees receive promotions into management positions for the first time, and the majority have little or no experience managing and motivating employees. She says it's no surprise they don't know how to effectively communicate to their staff what is expected of them. Exactly the same is true of businesses – of all sizes – hiring people.

However, if this is a lack, then it isn’t confined to business. Someone who is a good communicator does not suddenly cease to be so when she arrives at work. All of us communicate all of the time. However, the depth and breadth of communication, as well as the fact of communication itself, may be more critical where certain elements of business are concerned.

What we say and what is heard are not necessarily the same thing. What we want to say and what we ought to say can be different, both from our own perspective and that of the other person.

We Cannot Not Communicate
As Paul Watzlawick has made clear, and as some of the situations mentioned imply, you can not communicate, however you can always miscommunicate. Whether you say something, or not, others will interpret your words or your silence in their own way, structured by their own map of the world. Sometimes, by chance, the message sent and the message received are sufficiently similar to allow both parties to proceed along a common path. However, given that we are different people with different reality filters, there is every chance of some misunderstanding arising and our paths diverging.

Conclusion
In the annals of human tragedy Simon and Lee are just bit-part players in what amounts to a cast of thousands who are playing out similar disasters all the time. Simon and Lee are the Californian and the Titanic all over again; the Californian stops transmitting because its message isn’t being heard and the Titanic is transmitting when it really should be listening.

There is communication, it’s undeniable, but there’s no clarity of meaning.

Then, as now, we need to reach the Captain on the bridge, not the wireless operator in the radio room.

Knowing Is Not Enough

Words: 561 Reading time: 1 minute 52 seconds

It isn’t what we know that determines the outcome; it’s what we do with what we know.

Example 1
Prior to “Operation Market Garden” in September 1944 the senior Allied commanders knew that the 9th and 10th SS Panzer Divisions were located on the corridor that the Allies planned to use for their narrow-front thrust. This made achieving the objective highly unlikely.

More than 16,800 Allied troops were killed, wounded or captured in a fruitless effort that was essentially targeted at assuaging a bruised ego.

Example 2
In December of the same year the Germans launched a tactically brilliant offensive through the Ardennes, inflicting heavy losses on inexperienced Allied troops.

Just like Market Garden 'It was not intelligence (evaluated information of the enemy) that failed. The failure was the commanders and certain G-2's, who did not act on the intelligence they had,' according to one of Patton's subordinates.

Although both of these failures to listen came close together, they are by no means unique. Similar failures had preceded them in earlier times and others have followed in later times.

Example 3
The North Vietnamese Easter Offensive of 1972 was similar and as one author has pointed out "Though the location, numbers and types of forces were not the same, the command assumptions, the weather and the use and misuse of intelligence had almost the same catastrophic effects in both clashes.... "

Example 4
Ten years later, in the South Atlantic, the Falklands war may have been avoidable. In any event it was undoubtedly made more costly and riskier by the intelligence failure that preceded it. British officials were unresponsive to warnings that diplomacy had failed and invasion was imminent.

Example 5
In 2003 it was Iraq. As the White House has acknowledged, intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs did not drive its decision to go to war.

The intelligence on Iraq was there. It did not get things wrong and thereby mislead policymakers. Once again the leaders were insensitive to information that suggested that the course of action on which they were embarked was likely to lead to disaster.

These examples are drawn from the military sphere simply because mistakes there tend to more visible and better documented than failures in business. But similar failures in business abound. Failures where the enterprise does not give sufficient weight either to facts within its purview, or relevant facts easily revealed.

Many people, let alone businesses, are uneasy acknowledging that many of the conventions and principles they operate on are unwritten, unspoken and unconscious. Psychologists estimate that 95% of the things we say and do each day are done on “autopilot”, that is automatically, unthinkingly and routinely.

And the very familiarity of such actions mean they go unrecognised and unquestioned long after they cease to be either safe or appropriate. Thus it is that we wake up one day to find ourselves in an awful mess without realising quite how we got there.

The tragedy is that working with either a business coach, or an NLP Practitioner for even a short period of time will begin to raise awareness of the subconscious paradigms we are running and what the implications might be.

Make just one New Year’s Resolution – start working on raising your awareness of yourself and your business so that you can improve your chances of recognising the warning signs before it is too late.

Preparation

"It is better to be prepared for an opportunity and not have one than to have an opportunity and not be prepared" (Whitney Moore Young Jr.). As the economy shifts under us, moving from one phase to the next, some preparation for what might be ahead will promote our chances of capturing the opportunities that will be there for the taking.

We may be sure that opportunities will exist, whatever the circumstances.

If house prices continue to fall there will be bargains available to those willing and able to take advantage of them.

If oil prices continue to rise then oil reserves, previously uneconomic, will become worth drilling and refining.

If food shortages spread, then more land will be brought into cultivation, farmers will prosper and agricultural land values will increase.

It’s an open secret: in good time and in bad opportunity consists of looking at the same thing as everyone else and thinking something different. Preparation consists of dreaming what might be and devising contingencies to deal with that situation should it arise.

Most situations will not actually occur. Those that do will not be exactly as we planned. Nevertheless, the fact that we have been thinking ahead makes us better prepared, sooner than those that have just waited to see what turns up before they react, if they ever do.

In business we often find ourselves wrestling with current demands and misadventures. Our days are spent fire fighting, leaving no time to worry about tomorrow. However, this approach, while apparently sensible and seductive, will mean we continue to fight those fires day after day. Being busy will be no protection when the roof caves in.

With the future in mind it is often easier to spot opportunities as they arise. Without that mental preparation the chance goes unremarked. We are familiar with this phenomenon from our own experience. Having bought a new car we immediately notice how many other similar cars there are on the road. Before making the purchase we were totally unaware.

By way of illustration:

Sarah has just left the house after a blazing row with her husband. She was taking a quiet walk to calm down when she notices an unusual funeral procession coming along the road towards her. At the front is a large black hearse and 20 yards behind this is a second black hearse. A solitary woman is walking behind the second hearse with a large, well-groomed Rottweiler dog on a lead. Behind the woman are 50 other women walking single file.

Sarah is very curious and goes over to the woman with the dog and says, “I’m sorry about your loss.”

“Thank you,” says the woman, “you’re very kind.”

“I know it’s a bad time to ask,” says Sarah, “but whose funeral is this?”

“It’s my husband's funeral,” replies the woman.

“So what happened to him?” asks Sarah.

The woman replies, “My dog attacked and killed him.”

“And who is in the second hearse?” asks Sarah.

The woman answers, “My mother-in-law. She was trying to help my husband when the dog turned on her.”

A poignant and thoughtful moment of silence passes between the two women.

“Can I borrow the dog?” asks Sarah.

“Go to the back of the line,” replies the woman.

Mining Facts and Missing the Point

Despite appearances bad decisions are rarely made because people don’t have all the facts. In the political sphere the Treasury will have been fully aware of the impact on taxpayers of abandoning the 10% tax band. The Treasury may even have alerted Ministers. Nevertheless, although the facts were noted, plainly they were not given sufficient weight.

In the run-up to the present ‘Credit Crunch’ the financial institutions were fully aware of what they were doing and, one hopes, so were the regulators. But merely knowing the facts proved insufficient. Clearly, they did not understand the facts and the whole unstable structure was allowed to plough on into the crash barriers.

The Burmese Government will be well informed about the consequences of Cyclone Nargis and how badly their population has been affected. However, here facts are equally useless because they are being ignored.

Business is subject to the same purblindness when it comes to facts. Too often when plans go awry Governments call for Royal Commissions or Parliamentary Committees; business calls for internal audits or additional research. More facts will not help them regain the perspective they have lost.

When facts have failed to register, the continued pursuit of yet more facts painfully echoes Dickens’ Thomas Gradgrind in ‘Hard Times’. Gradgrind worships facts and figures. He puts his faith in abstract theories rather than direct observation of real people and real needs. The asymmetrical approach to human life of early industrial England, the denial of some of the basic needs of human beings, is being repeated in what some are pleased to call our post-industrial age. The structure of the economy may have changed. Too many of the attitudes live on. The cost in human happiness is great.

In Dickens’ Coketown, the needs of the factories dominate everything else. The factory hands work long hours in oppressive conditions, and they live in cramped houses. Their lives are monotonous; every day is exactly like every other day, just as all the houses and streets look alike. In Coketown, there is a strict uniformity in everything. The workers have little time off to relax and enjoy themselves. Does that sound familiar?

Employees and those running their own businesses will recognise the close parallels. Today we still struggle with long hours, astronomic housing costs, poor diets and an existence where evenings and weekends are nothing more than the exercise yard of our own imprisonment.

Each business, each day, has the opportunity to step back and take a clear-eyed view of the workplace we have built for ourselves. If it is not as we would wish it, then we can change. If you think it isn’t as easy as that then you will be setting yourself up to fail as a self-fulfilling outcome. Give real change a try. Take action. You may surprise yourself.

Why Me?

Once upon a distant time in the here and now a seeker journeyed through the furthest regions of the earth to find a teacher rumoured to know the secrets to happiness, success, and well-being. When the seeker arrived at the teacher's mountain-top retreat, he eagerly awaited his audience with the reclusive teacher. Finally, his moment came.

"Why have you come?" the teacher asked.

The seeker proceeded to list problem after problem he was facing in his life. After listening patiently, the teacher sighed.

"I am afraid I cannot help you with your problems."

"Why not?" asked the puzzled and disappointed seeker.

"Because the gods have decreed that we all carry fifty-one problems with us at all times. Even if I could help you solve the problems you tell me of, they would only be replaced with fifty-one more."

The teacher paused to allow the full significance of the idea to sink in.

"I may, however," the teacher continued, "be able to help you with your 52nd problem."

"What's that?" asked the seeker.

"Your 52nd problem," replied the teacher, "Is that you think you should not have the first 51 problems."

The 52nd problem is not confined to our fabled seeker. I think most people in business would welcome fewer problems. Many would go further and wish there were no problems. Wouldn’t that be beautiful?

Probably not: man is a solution seeking animal and when problems become too few, or of insufficient size, then he (or she) will manufacture some challenge to fill the vacuum. If not, then the market will do it for him. If your sector was problem-free and life truly was a cushy number, then other firms would push their way in seeking this Sylvania for themselves. The problems would multiply and the natural balance would be restored.

Problems are essentially opportunities in disguise. How well you cope with them will determine how well you do in business and in life. Problems are not something from which we should flee. Rather they are things we should embrace.

A leader faced with an almighty challenge is afforded reward and recognition when that challenge is eventually overcome. A leader handed an easy life reaps no honour; success is expected. For him there is only the yawning chasm represented by muffing an easy shot and failing to capture what everyone else saw as a gift.

It is an entirely different proposition to have a sufficiency of problems, yet be tempted into making even more for yourself. This is particularly attractive when the problems you do have are chronic and familiar. In such circumstances either the problem fades into the background and is hardly noticed, or there is seen to be little kudos in dealing it. If collecting cash has always taken 90 days at your firm there may be little enthusiasm for reducing it to 30 days. There may even be some opposition to disturbing the status quo and ‘upsetting’ certain clients.

Whatever you circumstances where problems are concerned – too few, enough, or too many – the basic approach is the same: rather than engaging in the self-pity of “Why me?” pick the one problem whose solution, or easement, would have the biggest impact on your business. When that one is solved, or temporarily stalled, work on the problem with the next biggest impact. Have no more than six problems, ranked in order of impact, on your list at any one time.

This is not a new idea. It was first put into practice by Charles Schwab, President of Bethlehem Steel in the 1900’s. The idea is simple, but don’t let that deceive you. There are still plenty of opportunities for distractions. The real achievement is in recognising the potential diversions and resolutely refusing to get sidetracked.

Clinging to the Wreckage

UBS, Switzerland's largest banking group, has just written off $37bn (£18.7bn) of its sub-prime investments.

Following an internal investigation demanded by the Swiss Federal Banking Commission, the Swiss version of our own dear FSA, it admitted a series of mistakes including inadequate supervision, poor risk management and a failure to react quickly enough when the sub-prime market started crumbling.

UBS was so focused on racking up ever larger profits that it “forgot” every silver lining has a cloud.

This is its first full-year loss (Sfr4.38bn for 2007) since its came into being 10 years ago following the merger of Swiss Banking Corporation and Union Bank of Switzerland. Planned job cuts are rumoured to run to more than 3,000 people.

As one might expect of the Swiss, those in charge have shouldered their full share of the responsibility and suffered the inevitable consequences. The Chief Executive, Peter Wuffli, was ousted in July last year, followed by the CFO, Clive Standish and the Head of Investment Banking Huw Jenkins. This month it was announced that the Chairman, Marcel Ospel, would not seek re-election.

Meanwhile, here in the UK, RBS came up with a further £5.9bn of write-offs on bad debts yesterday having already declared a £1.7bn write-down of sub-prime investments in December. However, you would search in vain for any admissions of abject personal failure by top management, let alone a principled resignation. In any industrial company the chairman and chief executive would both have been fired and forgotten by now. Not so with RBS.

Apparently RBS's has two excuses: (1) things have changed, and (2) it didn't foresee quite how bad things would become. Well, isn’t that what leaders are paid to do? Doesn’t leadership imply vision – the ability to see and foresee, rather than stumbling over the truth, picking themselves up and hurrying off as if nothing had happened (Churchill). And if they fail to uphold their end of the contract should that contract not be properly terminated?

According to Sir Tom McKillop, the RBS chairman, the board is unanimous: the current team is the one to take the bank forward. On what logical basis should that be the case? Those that have engineered dramatic expansion are rarely adept at managing either a holding operation, or retrenchment. Those call for very different skills. Endangering the ship when it’s in stormy seas, based solely on your capacity in calm waters, constitutes reckless conduct in anybody’s book.

Marianne Jennings, Professor of Legal & Ethical Studies at Arizona State University has identified the belief by management that they are so brilliant and innovative that the mundane rules of accounting, corporate governance and even basic economics do not apply to them as one of the seven signs of ethical collapse. RBS fits the bill.

Of the five leadership traits identified by Kouzes and Posner’s research that was done for the book ‘The Leadership Challenge’ namely:

~ Honesty
~ Forward-Looking
~ Competency
~ Inspirational
~ Intelligence

RBS seems to fall short on the first three.

If the Swiss banking fraternity have the principled leadership qualities needed to do the right thing then those privileged individuals on this side of the Channel should exhibit the same qualities.

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.