The Peter Principle states that “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” It was formulated by Dr Lawrence Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book by the same name.

I call them “the brand dead” or “brand spectators” who fur up the organisation’s arteries. Most MDs tolerate a Peter or two. But when conditions change, Peter and pals can very quickly poison your brand from within. When the big battalions are mobilised and change is demanded, the Peter’s, not the market conditions, are your worst enemy.

Consider the impact a Peter can have on your recruitment drive.

“Hire people who are better than you are, then leave them to get on with it . . . ; Look for people who will aim for the remarkable, who will not settle for the routine.” The late David Ogilvy, advertising executive

“If you pick the right people and give them the opportunity to spread their wings—and put compensation as a carrier behind it—you almost don’t have to manage them.” Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric

Ogilvy and Welch point the way towards recruitment nirvana – making the most of the fact that it’s an employer’s market to recruit experienced; challenging; maverick; game changers who will stimulate the innovation you need.

But the Peters will desperately cling onto the status quo, recruit in their own image and reinforce the employer brand which failed to spot the issues which have since marched all the way around the corner and into your boardroom.

And if you’ve encouraged Peter-style behaviour within your intermediaries and recruitment agents, you’re in deep trouble as they will doubtless perpetuate a protectionist culture.

When you get a moment, just take a look at the various recruitment and blogging forums and consider how many really good people are out there at the moment. Listen to what they’re saying about the recruitment practices of the Peters. Ask yourself whether you know who your Peters are and whether Peter can be motivated to change?

But most of all question whether your recruitment strategy is paying Peter by robbing Paul and the impact this is having and will have on the performance of your brand.

I was at a dinner party thrown by a former HR director friend recently and as I arrived at his house was struck by the number of high performance cars on the driveway and then, once I was introduced to his guests, was equally surprised by the fact that most were from the HR community.

Now, I’m not deriding folk for their success. It just took a little getting used to, especially as most of the conversation revolved around the financial benefits associated with acquiring a reputation as a downsizing expert and “being the last one to turn out the lights” before moving on.

It’s clearly wrong to claim that re-sizing has become the raison d’etre of the modern HRD. But this perception wasn’t helped by the dinner party conversation about what it really means to trust and whether trust has any place at work?  

One premise was that the last two years has seen employees’ trust in their organisations fall dramatically and that organisations need to work at ways of re-engaging and re-establishing the psychological contract. The opposite - and prevailing view - was that there are certain things in business that have to remain secret, that being open and honest is often impossible and people should be mature enough to accept that.

The concensus was that trust has no real place at work any longer and that a healthy scepticism should prevail recognising that the employer/employee relationship is “a marriage of convenience”. Neutrality was seen as preferable but is it possible or even desirable to remain neutral in a vocational environment you devote the largest portion of your life to?

I appreciate that many of the HRDs I seem to meet these days are vassels for the process re-engineers and have become de-sensitised to emotions in a similar way to soldiers on the frontline. But is this a reflection of behaviour born of survival or how they really believe things should be?

Trust is a fairly fundamental emotion. If there’s no trust there’s no psychological contract between employees and the employer. Without that there’s no “extra mile” and no relationship development.

I guess you can have a relationship or marriage of convenience based on neutrality, without passion; empathy and drive. But then you can also join Victorian role playing societies to escape from reality.

WASP males don’t tend to get too many invitations to be involved in the promotion of diversity management; which is a shame really.  I’m a firm believer in the notion that the promotion of diversity should embrace the full range of stakeholders; it should truly practice inclusiveness in the way stakeholders are engaged with the philosophy or it runs the risk of being seen as a marginal activity aimed at an exclusive audience.  A “push” communication approach may be one of the reasons why the diversity flag bearers within organisations sometimes find themselves struggling for real influence at the top table.

But this thought piece isn’t to critique the notion of diversity or challenge its increasing relevance to the organisation development and employee engagement agenda. I would like to share a rare moment of Belgian enlightenment.

Picture the scene.  The wonderful and irrepressibly inspirational Myrtha Casanova of the The European Institute for Managing Diversity had enlisted my help to co-facilitate a workshop she was running with the senior executives of a global producer of cereal crops and foodstuffs.  They had been embroiled in a PR war with NGOs and pressure groups worldwide because of controversial growing techniques and what was perceived as an arrogant communication stance.

The workshops were intended to develop diversity strategies across their global businesses.  Most of their senior executives were gathered in Belgium to that end – and they weren’t very pleased about it.

It was soon clear that their beleaguered HR Director had been forced into developing a diversity strategy by the board who were in turn responding to US legislation.  The executive cadre encamped in Belgium were 90% male, mostly of Anglo Saxon origin and frankly, felt they had much more pressing priorities.  In short, the workshops quickly regressed into trench warfare.

The turning point came, however, shortly after lunch on day one when, rather than push more and more statistics, facts and process at the group, we adopted a less evangelical approach and asked them to explore their brand from the customer’s perspective. 

They had traditionally seen themselves as a business to business organisation but it took one of the more junior managers, who also happened to have the largest team and who also happened to be a woman, to point out that housewives could make or break their company.  By drawing a simple supply chain model she was able to quickly illustrate the route their product ultimately followed to market and how it was immaterial that they weren’t putting the bread on the shelves themselves. Women still make the vast majority of purchasing decisions per household and the retailers were reliant upon their suppliers to provide raw materials in tune with the ethics and values of the consumer.  An epiphany!

This simple, jaw-dropping moment proves to be a revelation for her cynical peers who had clearly spent years developing competencies and promoting values appropriate for managing their equally macho purchasing managers in the businesses they were selling to.  Suddenly the link between organisational culture and their PR problems was put into stark relief. More importantly, they realised that, without a more representative management structure they would make similar mistakes.  The business case for diversity had become clear and the rest of the session was put to productive use developing a central and local diversity policy, strategy and engagement approach which owed much to a loaf of bread!

If you want to find out more about the EIMD (a not for profit organisation founded in 1996, with headquarters in Barcelona and which operates across the European Union), take a look at their website http://www.iegd.org/englishok/who.htm

Or feel free to drop me a line and I’ll tell you more about this and similar stories.

Ian@by2w.co.uk

A client, let’s call him David, works for a formerly blue chip multi-national.  Their core HR or people processes, post SAP, were re-designed by teams of Big Four consultants to maximise efficiencies and drive out non-conformances arising from human error.  In short, HR has, in effect, been replaced by systems, standards, Helplines and KPI’s. Managerial learning and development has been re-focused on technical rather than soft skills.

David, by his own admission, is a relatively old school, line and customer service focused manager. He’s a believer in sustaining relationships and in resolving interpersonal differences before they become formal issues (often over a coffee or a beer). He has worked for his company for two decades and has received awards for his work on a number of occasions.

Recently David encountered issues in his personal life which compromised his 8am - 9pm working routine.  As pressure built he started to struggle and turned to his recently appointed executive line managers for support. They responded by citing due process, changed his reporting line from 1:1 to 2:1 and offered him the option of submitting formal Grievances and visiting Occupational Health if he had a problem. They also placed this loyal middle manager on a series of Performance Contracts when they believed his standards (loosely defined) started to slip. Unlike David, they documented every conversation.

Sleepless nights led to longer hours; stress led to Psoriasis and eventually to depression and medication and now to extended absence on health grounds. He eventually submitted a grievance but the 2 and sometimes 3:1 micro management has seen the organisation close ranks and he faces the invidious choice of turning on his own company via tribunal or falling on his own sword. 

David is passionate about the organisation and his job. He has the experience and people skills which customer and staff surveys suggest are needed to help turn the organisation around. Yet David, and it turns out, many of his contemporaries, have become the victims of “due process”.

The growing number of Davids remain voiceless despite the CEO Town Halls and surveys. Yet the organisation flounders in a short-termist backlash, woeful line management skills and mismanagement freefall.

The CEO may understand the need for culture change but what’s to become of these invisible FTEs in the meantime when the HR offices are empty and the day to day processes don’t have ears?

 These are complex corporate times but as the finger of blame for the global economic downturn is pointed at various external stakeholders like the regulators and even the customers themselves, it’s interesting to hear the term “corporate culture” finally surfacing in banking post mortems.

The term performance culture has been increasingly abused within performance management parlance.  It has become inextricably linked with the drive for delivering shareholder value in quarterly increments and the “up or out” mentality which has spilled over from investment banking.

But now that almost every investment banking super-tanker has holed itself on the reefs of greed, selfishness, arrogance and some fairly suspect practice it’s time to reclaim the phrase. This is why leaders like RBS’s Stephen Hester are now having to open internal moratoriums in an attempt to bridge the obvious and growing employee engagement gap that has opened up within some of our high profile financial services names.

Ironically, despite this being an employer’s market, employee engagement; employer brand and corporate culture have never been so important. But it’s time for a fundamental re-think about how internal stakeholders (employees) are managed. The infrastructure underpinning many employment brands is clearly in need of a dramatic overhaul. And this is no job for the marketing function or advertising types.

Clearly characteristics like sustainability, network building and relationship development are the bedfellows of integrity, accountability, security and trust (the values, ironically, most popularly used to market the wares of financial services companies). But how can these values flourish when FS employees have seen HR functions replaced by processes and help lines; when average employee tenure (and loyalty) has fallen so dramatically and when  effective performance management and feedback loops have been replaced by grievance processes and whistle blowing – the corporate equivalent of “ratting on your colleagues”

I’m certainly not calling for a complete return to the cosy old hierarchies; glass ceilings and command and control regimes. But it’s clear that there’s going to have to be a large dose of mature, “back to the future” relationship based thinking if the nirvana of an appropriate and authentic performance culture is ever going to be achieved by arguably our most influential businesses and brands. And if the last 18 months has taught us anything it’s that none of us can afford for our financial services brands to continue to fail their employees by making promises to customers and the market that they simply can’t keep.

Ian

It’s easy to dwell on examples of negative customer service. But how often do we stop and think about the people behind a positive interaction with an organisation or a brand? On the occasions when we do receive exceptional customer service, however, chances are we will have met an Engaged Employee.

Engaged Employees are:

1.     Obvious – it may be an elusive quality, difficult to describe but an engaged employee is more likely to be exhilarated by their role.  Different cultures show this in different ways but most of us can spot and will be drawn to a genuine smile and welcoming, inclusive attitude.

2.     Authentic – our recent survey of almost 4000 communicators listed “being yourself” as one of the key motivators for employees.  It also proves that employees who are themselves in the workplace are more effective. Employees who are clear enough about what their organisation stands for and are at ease with the culture are more likely to bring themselves to work and to share stories about their family lives, hobbies, likes and dislikes.

3.     Receptive – we all know that if we’re engaged, we’re far more open to opportunities to be involved with new initiatives and share new experiences.  Engaged employees listen actively and offer support and challenge, largely because they care about the outcomes.

4.     Involved - they are part of the programme not recipients of it.   They feel they can influence their personal fate through influencing the fate of the organisation. Involvement leads to a greater sense of ownership. It’s also the way most of us learn best.

5.     Proactive – engaged employees understand the goals, culture and values of the organisation so they make suggestions or take initiative, even innovate for the greater good, without being asked. Their primary focus is on adding value to the organisation rather than obsessing about what the organisation gives them.

6.     Energised – engaged employees have correspondingly high energy levels.  They do things and maintain appropriate momentum. They are the heartbeat, rather than their managers, and they set the pace.

7.     Achievers – because of enhanced levels of understanding, clear goals and boundaries, an appropriate mix of support and challenge (and in light of the characteristics above), they tend to be focused and, therefore, more productive. The things they do tend to get results.

8.     Advocates – whether at conferences or recruitment fairs even dinner parties or sitting next to you on a plane , engaged employees are proud and happy to recommend the organisation and to represent the brand. Want to know how engaged your employees are?  As a starting point, find out how many buy/use your products.

9.     Ceos - they are chief engagement officers. They inspire others by example. They are communication role models in all stakeholder engagements whether with customers, fellow employees, competitors or even shareholders.

10.  In demand - take care, engaged employees are a precious commodity. The war for talent rages irrespective of market conditions. Who and where are your ceos?  What measures are you taking to clarify your employer brand and to engage and manage your talent?

Yes, we’re in the middle of  global recession. Yes, this is an employer’s market.  But remember, your brand is the sum of your customer’s interactions with your people and in a downturn this simple truth becomes all the more salient. So what are you doing to engage your employees and are you valuing your brand engagement role models as highly as you should be?

Ian

These are complex corporate times but as the fingers of blame for the global economic downturn have been pointed at various external stakeholders, it’s interesting to hear the term “culture” creeping into the post mortem about the banking sector.

I’ve become increasingly fascinated by the growing abuse of the term performance culture within performance management parlance.  For me this phrase has become inextricably linked with the drive for delivering shareholder value in quarterly increments and the “up or out” mentality which has spilled over from investment banking.

But where does this leave the zealots now that a number of the investment banking super-tankers have holed themselves on the reefs of greed, selfishness, arrogance and some fairly suspect practice? It’s time for a fundamental re-think. The infrastructure underpinning many employment brands is clearly in need of a dramatic overhaul.

The current witch hunt for high profile scapegoats amongst the executive leadership cadre may “give good headline” but this sideshow threatens to distract from the core issues. Controversially I would go so far as to suggest that the culture problem is a widespread issue every bit as serious as the accusations of systemic racism levelled at the police force back in the 90s. Arguably this crisis will have even more far reaching consequences.

Far from being advocates of what have often been derided as “nice to have” initiatives, in these tough times, organisation development should be prioritised as part of the recovery process and OD professionals should be leading the revolutionary line. The time has come for comprehensive internal reviews followed by an energetic re-positioning of the vision, mission and values and associated people processes within many of our leading brand names.  This should be the first step towards a re-framing of the definition of performance in the context of the employer or employment brand

This is a complex issue but consider for a second the long established theory that an individual is at their most effective within a role some 2.5 years into the job. Or reflect on the equally established best practice that leaders should spend most of their first 100 days listening and gathering information. Contrast this with the notion of “hitting the ground running” and the obsession with quarterly shareholder reporting and year on year incremental targeting regardless of conditions. Mixed messages?

It seems a little old fashioned in these high octane times but there’s sound logic underpinning leadership best practices which call for considered, well paced decision making based upon an understanding that the decision makers will still be around when the impact of their decisions come to fruition.

Bankers, for example, used to be remunerated on the basis of loyalty bonuses and benefits packages at preferential rates.  Not so long ago, any posting on a c.v. revealing tenure in a role of under three years was viewed with suspicion.  Lift the drains on the recent recruitment drive amongst the retail banking sector and you will be greeted by whole teams made up of job-hopping former investment bankers.

Of course the flipside of low employee turnover includes problems with innovation, pace and inertia. But inertia and stability are two very different things.  The latter was once a highly prized commodity even in important parts of the investment market but was derided by the “short termists”. What wouldn’t shareholders now give for even incremental returns on their investments?

Those in the know suggest that many of the high profile leaders who will be appearing in committees over the next few months have been off the record advocates of culling grey hair in their staff ranks.  What price wisdom now?

Don’t get me wrong.  I very much believe in the notion of a culture of performance.  That’s why we’re all in business after all.  I just don’t believe in the notion of winning at all costs.

I’m realistic enough to understand that sustainability, network building and relationship development are the bedfellows of integrity, accountability, security and trust (the values, ironically, most popularly used to advertise the wares of financial services companies). I’m certainly not calling for a complete return to the old hierarchies and command and control regimes but it’s clear that there’s going to have to be a large dose of mature,“back to the future” thinking if the nirvana of an appropriate and  authentic performance culture is ever going to be achieved by arguably our most influential businesses and brands.

Ian@by2w.co.uk

Ian is the author of Brand Engagement: How Employees Make or Break Brands

 www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?PID=281268

These are complex corporate times but as the fingers of blame for the global economic downturn have been pointed at various external stakeholders, it’s interesting to hear the term “culture” creeping into the post mortem about the banking sector.

I’ve become increasingly fascinated by the growing abuse of the term performance culture within performance management parlance. For me this phrase has become inextricably linked with the drive for delivering shareholder value in quarterly increments and the “up or out” mentality which has spilled over from investment banking.

But where does this leave the zealots now that a number of the investment banking super-tankers have holed themselves on the reefs of greed, selfishness, arrogance and some fairly suspect practice? It’s time for a fundamental re-think. The infrastructure underpinning many employment brands is clearly in need of a dramatic overhaul.

The current witch hunt for high profile scapegoats amongst the executive leadership cadre may “give good headline” but this sideshow threatens to distract from the core issues. Controversially I would go so far as to suggest that the culture problem is a widespread issue every bit as serious as the accusations of systemic racism levelled at the police force back in the 90s. Arguably this crisis will have even more far reaching consequences.

Far from being advocates of what have often been derided as “nice to have” initiatives, in these tough times, organisation development should be prioritised as part of the recovery process and OD professionals should be leading the revolutionary line. The time has come for comprehensive internal reviews followed by an energetic re-positioning of the vision, mission and values and associated people processes within many of our leading brand names. This should be the first step towards a re-framing of the definition of performance in the context of the employer or employment brand

This is a complex issue but consider for a second the long established theory that an individual is at their most effective within a role some 2.5 years into the job. Or reflect on the equally established best practice that leaders should spend most of their first 100 days listening and gathering information. Contrast this with the notion of “hitting the ground running” and the obsession with quarterly shareholder reporting and year on year incremental targeting regardless of conditions. Mixed messages?

It seems a little old fashioned in these high octane times but there’s sound logic underpinning leadership best practices which call for considered, well paced decision making based upon an understanding that the decision makers will still be around when the impact of their decisions come to fruition.

Bankers, for example, used to be remunerated on the basis of loyalty bonuses and benefits packages at preferential rates. Not so long ago, any posting on a c.v. revealing tenure in a role of under three years was viewed with suspicion. Lift the drains on the recent recruitment drive amongst the retail banking sector and you will be greeted by whole teams made up of job-hopping former investment bankers.

Of course the flipside of low employee turnover includes problems with innovation, pace and inertia. But inertia and stability are two very different things. The latter was once a highly prized commodity even in important parts of the investment market but was derided by the “short termists”. What wouldn’t shareholders now give for even incremental returns on their investments?

Those in the know suggest that many of the high profile leaders who will be appearing in committees over the next few months have been off the record advocates of culling grey hair in their staff ranks. What price wisdom now?

Don’t get me wrong. I very much believe in the notion of a culture of performance. That’s why we’re all in business after all. I just don’t believe in the notion of winning at all costs.

I’m realistic enough to understand that sustainability, network building and relationship development are the bedfellows of integrity, accountability, security and trust (the values, ironically, most popularly used to advertise the wares of financial services companies). I’m certainly not calling for a complete return to the old hierarchies and command and control regimes but it’s clear that there’s going to have to be a large dose of mature, “back to the future” thinking if the nirvana of an appropriate and authentic performance culture is ever going to be achieved by arguably our most influential businesses and brands.

If you would like to know more about how to develop a people centred approach to culture development and brand engagement drop us a line.

Ian Buckingham is the author of Brand Engagement: How Employees Make or Break Brands

http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?is=0230573061