You know how the saying goes 'out with the old and in with the new'. Well it is a dilemma that is being faced by many organizations as the Baby Boomer generation ages and the Gen X and Gen Y'ers and the Facebook generation enter the workforce. Many a Baby Boomer is uncomfortable with the fast paced, technology driven younger generation snapping at their heels. I see many a clash where the old are being usurped and surpassed by the younger contemporaries.

Should the elders move aside and make way for the energized yeunglings? Well it is and always be a case of debate. Over the last few years I have come across clients whose common phrase has been speed. Speed with quality in all they do and deliver. With instanteous market news and exposure speed is something sought by consumer and supplier alike.

Recently I came across an article where a typical Middle Eastern consulting client wants a project to be delivered in half the usual time taken. I hear constantly here about speed of implementation and integration.

This is an area where there are major clashes between the generations. The wisdom of age and having been through it is denounced in favor of rapid change. The older generation feel that the new generation can do nothing but make mistakes, lose time and re-invent the wheel.

There is great value to be had from people with experience and years under their belt, as mentors, coaches and knowledge bases. yet we must not deny the energy and drive coming from the young stars fo tomorrow.

Shah Alam

Hello Readers,

Are Creativity and Competition two opposing forces or can they work hand-in-hand? I pose this question because I have a read a publication from the early twentieth century that denounces competition in favour of creativity. The author W.D. Wattles suggests that the plutocrats of the time, namely Rockefellers, Carnegie etc were necessary at the time but they are not the future. He goes onto say that the creative genius within people can lead to win-win situations for all without having to compete with one another. He goes onto say through our inherent creative genius, which if we nurture and strengthen through use can allow us to find new solutions, ideas, inventions, businesses etc. that can become future business giants.

The problem is society in general is geared towards competition that if someone else starts something then I will not succeed. In the coporate world the scramble up the ladder is very obvious. Ego's get in the way of doing what's right and best for the organisation, this could be a reason why we see the mess of the global economy over the last few years.

So maybe creativity needs to be taught and started earlier, way back in the schools and colleges. Future citizens of the world need to be inspired to think along creative lines in all disciplines.

However, I also believe in healthy competition, because it allows people to push further the boundaries of abilities, services and what's possible. Competition brings about new innovations and new discoveries.

I believe there is the possibility for the co-existence of the two without compromising the virtues of either.

Shah Alam

Hello Readers,

Do you know when it is time to hang up your hat? Does anyone know when they should walk away and look at a new purpose in life?

I am seeing more and more that the answer is a resounding "no". Over the last few years I have come across numerous individuals both within teams that I have partaken in and client people who just don't know when to quit.

These individuals believe that they still know what they are talking about and have a dogged tenacity in their abilities to deliver. Yet, in reality they fail to give any value either in quality or quantity.

I believe it comes down to the fact that people do not have other interests or are so narrowly focussed that they do not see in what other way they can serve humanity. That service of humanity could be anything, anything that makes use of one's unique talents, skills and passions.

Take Michael Schumacher returning to F1, in my opinion "big mistake". Now he is critisized as a former champ who keeps crashing into other racers trying to jeopardize their efforts. So when he does eventually stop, that is what he will be known for rather than his previous championship status.

My message is evaluate yourself regularly as you reach the top of your game and if it is time to go, do it gracefully and find another purpose.

That's all for today

Shah Alam

Good Morning from my desk in London.

It's a glorious summers day and the ash clouds have abated for some weeks now and flights are resuming normality over the UK, apart from the disruption BA is suffering at the hands of the unions.

My thought for the day is about management inaction and why some companies put people in power who are unable to take the necessary steps to make change happen.

There are some managers who head up organizations but lack any form of leadership. They see the issues in front of their eyes and yet they prevaricate about what the consequences of those isses. When they communicate to their teams they beat their chest and talk tough and demand tough action. Yet, they do this and say it often that people become numb to their chest thumping. The usual comments are "Ah! he's like a dog without a bark".

The only way to overcome this when performance is lacking or actions not taken is to make an example of an individual or two. A leader can only coach, guide and mentor so much. There has to come a time when a clear message has to be communicated that if an individual does not perform then they will be fired, demoted or moved sideways.

In today's tough economic climate such decisions should not be stretched out over a long period of time but a common three strike rule could be used. If no action is taken when performance is below par then the leader will be seen to be weak and over will lose liking and respect.

Senior managers have no time to be caught like "deer in the headlights", they have to be seen to be decisive and action oriented. People look for strong leaders who have the vision, the focus and drive to take them to the next level of corporate success.

Shah Alam

Good afternoon everyone, today I want to talk a bit about change and what it entails.

The implementation of any change program within a business is a serious matter. Many experts will spout soundbites to impress their audiences with "change or you will go the way of the dinosaurs" or "change is the only constant" amongst others, without clarifying what they mean.

One of the aspects of change many do not realize is that it is difficult in the best of circumstances let alone when the parties concerned are happy and willing. The level of difficulty increases exponentially when people are involved and where people have been in the same situation doing the same thing for decades.

Change and the following improvement do not come easy. The basic premise of change is that to improve, we must continuously change.

In physics however, for every action (change) there is an equal and opposite reaction. People by nature resist change, i.e. they will look for excuses, wait and see etc. The reason they do this is that change takes them out of their comfort zones.

Therefore, the more change there is the greater the resistance, the greater the resistance the more difficult it is to improve (change).

This is a vicious circle and can have serious consequences for any business or individual or even a country.

People tend to hide behind excuses such as past practices, politics, procedures etc. rather than change. Within any organization there are also a host of barriers that prevent improvement, such as inconsistent direction, poor management, skepticism, lack of trust and not invented here excuse.

I am going to do my own spouting now;

"there is nothing permanent except change and if you do what you always did, you will get what you always got"

So what can make people change?

• Pain - emotional, financial, tragedy
• Despair - over a long period of time
• Discovery - constructive change is possible

Breakthrough comes when theories, concepts and philosophies are passed on as knowledge, then understanding and finally skills lead to breaking down of barriers.

Paradigms are "rules" we apply to certain situations to let us predict how things will be, that is rules of success. The key message is don't let YOUR paradigm become THE paradigm, because paradigms can CHANGE.

When a paradigm changes everyone goes back to zero. Past success is no guarantee. What is impossible today may be the norm tomorrow.

Change must be driven throughout the whole organization, that is: people, process, product

Managing complex change requires

Vision > Skills > Incentives > Resources > Action Plan > Change

However, many corporate leaders today want change to have happened yesterday. Well, it's a little bit late but not too late. I like the story of the ant and grasshopper, the grasshopper fiddled away the summer months and when winter came starved. Whereas the industrious ant worked throughout the summer and was able to store enough supplies to survive the winter.

We are still in a global recession and many more companies will continue to fall by the wayside, and those that are surviving are implementing cost cutting initiatives, change programs, six sigma etc to counter the effects of the recession. However, just like the grasshopper when good times were had they did nothing to prepare or protect themselves when the economy were to head south.

Now that companies are taking the lead to make a change, they want it to take effect instantaneously. Well, effective long-term sustainable change does not happen overnight. It requires thought, it requires planning, it requires expertise, it requires the inclusion of all within the company and last of all it takes time. Most large scale financial benefits of any improvement may not be realized for six to nine months after the action has been taken.

So my question to businesses is, do you have the patient to ensure long term successful change to take place within you organizations?

A Band-Aid ain't gonna work in todays business environment

Till the next time, I say adieu.

Shah Alam

Newspapers, news channels and other news media are reporting that crime, especially theft has been increasing since the econimic downturn.

We hear in London for example, every other week a bold and daring raid on jewellery shops in broad daylight in fashionable areas of the city. One particular street that has been hit is Bond Street, where the premier designer labels have their flaghsip London stores.

Fraud and petty theft in the workplace is up in the UK and I am sure this is being replicated throughout the globe.

No one is immune to this current malaise of stealing property from retailers, employers and those who own such worldly goods as camcorders, iPods, expensive cars etc.

The economic downturn has created a forced repatriation of migrant workers from cities in the sand such as Dubai, Kuwait City and others in Southeast Asia who rely on workers from less developed countries. These workers go back to their countries without any hope of work in their native lands or a swift return to the so-called gold paved streets of developed nations. Eventually some of these people may resort to crime to feed themselves and their families.

The reality of the crime of theft hit home to me last night.

My parents having retired spend their time mostly in the north-eastern hills of Sylhet in Bangladesh. My father purchased a place in 1979 and built his dream home. In the last 30 years he has never had any problems of thieves breaking into his place even when the place was locked up and empty whilst they were in the UK.

However, last night they became a statistic and were robbed of some minor possessions, the usual camcorder, mobile phone some cash etc. Fortunately they weren't harmed or harassed.

But these are signs of the times and thieves are venturing into wealthy expat suburbs and villages where the pickings are rich.

Another, example of the times was a recent voluntary return home by a South Asian family from New York. The husband and father of the household was the main breadwinner, he lost his job late last year, subsequently his house was repossessed and he went bankrupt. With no immediate job prospects he returned back to his native country with his wife and two kids and will live out two years there until the job market is stronger in the US.

Some immigrants have a choice which is quite refreshing that allows them to sit out the recession in a country where they have land and an income which will pay for a lifestyle that costs very little in comparison to the West, whilst others have nothing to come back to and may resort to crime.

I think this recession is affecting every person on this planet in one way or another and here we are witnessing one aspect of the dark underbelly of globalisation.

But hey I am an eternal optimist and I think in countries such as Bangladesh, India, Pakistan etc where law enforcement and crime resolution is a joke, there is a great need for private security firms to step in and provide a service that is much needed.

Till the next time

Shah Alam

Can politics be harmful to a company?

Yes I definitely think so. In the last decade as a consultant I have seen political games being played across all levels of an organisation. I've seen individuals who are the "yes" man or woman to their bosses. These "yes" people will tag along regardless of whether decisions will benefit the organization in any way.

I've seen examples of where senior management have commenced an initiative to improve or change the business for the better, then as is normal in business a new CEO comes in and those initiatives are dropped. This is not because the new CEO has proposed an alternative but rather to please the newcomer and ensure the individuals are on his good books, because he/she said not to proceed.

Of course certain amount of politicking does oil the machinery that are the behemoths of business world. Funnily, the larger the company the more political wrangling is prevalent. However excessive politics can freeze a business and make it immobile.

Decisions are stymied action is not taken and competitive edge is lost.

Internal politics can cause ill-feeling amongst colleagues, it can cause undue stress and a myriad of other symptoms which ultimately lead to lower productivity, a greater number of sick days and ultimately a huge cost to the business.

Unfortunately, as is human nature certain individuals encourage such behaviour within their departments, divisions and teams. This is part of ensuring their empire survives (see my previous article Empires Strike Back). Others resign and take the attitude of if you can't beat them then join them.

I don't think politics within any business can be eradicated, purely because we are all humans and it is nigh on impossible to say what an individual brings to a job apart from their academic and business experience.

However, I think it is crucial that management see this as a disease and weed out such behaviour where it is identifiable. In the business world there is only one model that should be supported above all others and that is meritocracy.

That ends today's musing, till the next time.

Shah Alam

Good morning all from London.

Well we have good news from all around. The Chinese are showing very strong growth, Goldman Sachs posts record profits and the FTSE 100 has been climbing steadily with the banking sector leading the way. So we must be on the road to recovery? NOT!

Putting aside the so called recovery which in my view is a distant blip on the horizon, I want to talk about Empires Strike Back. No not Darth Vader in his raspy voice and his long lost son, young Luke.

In almost all the companies that I have implemented a change or performance improvement program over the last decade, I have seen a disturbing feature that is hugely detrimental to any business.

Empires!

Empires built by management at all levels within a business, but more prevalent within middle management. Empires that serve no purpose in running a business successfully. Empires that inhibit change, create a static environment and destroy value for all stakeholders.

My definition of an empire is as follows:

"A mini organization within a company that runs semi-autonomously with very little transparency and accountability"

These empires may be a small team or a whole department or even an entire account run by an individual and his 'minions'. These empires are very hard to identify until you come to review what is being done and who is doing what. They are also very hard to penetrate as the top two or three individuals running the outfit are very defensive and protective.

Such empires are run like fiefdoms and performance, efficiency, accountability and other key deliverables are 'managed' by those at the helm.

In my view the main reasons for the existence of these empires are:

1. To hide the weakness and inadequacies of the manager in charge
2. Reduce workload within the department or team, to create a 'cushy' work environment, i.e. lots of tea breaks and web browsing
3. Hide inefficiencies within the division
4. Develop a managers need to feel important and needed, massaging their ego
5. Job protection

I have come across one such incident recently where an account manager had a site manager running the day-to-day activities of the account, who in turn had a team leader running the teams workload, who in turn had a work allocator and also another person writing management reports. This was before we arrived at the people delivering the service.

It was such that the three individuals 'looked out' for each other to massage reports and numbers. When the performance improvement program was implemented, within 8 weeks the account manager moved out taking a sideways job change, the site manager resigned and the team leader was eventually replaced.

What strikes me is that when called upon for greater transparency and a clear measurement of performance these empires fall apart like a house of cards. These empire builders can never rise to the challenge of delivering when asked to, they usually become very defensive or walk away of their own volition.

It also seems that the larger the company the greater the number of empires it will have residing within. Don't get me wrong when a CEO or a senior manager is replaced he/she will bring in their team to make the changes they see fit to improve a companies fortune, but this should not be just so that another empire replaces the incumbent.

I think it is important that teams, departments and the whole organizational structure is reviewed by senior management on a regular basis to identify any unnecessary building of empires. These should be backed up with clear performance indicators that all managers should be held accountable to.

However, I do not believe this phenomenon will go away overnight or ever, it is human nature to create such empires and often these will happen organically and before you know it a behemoth is straddling a section within a business.

Till the next time

Shah Alam

Hello everybody from a sweltering day here in London. It feels good to have 30 degree Celsius in the capital for a few days straight.

Good Morning from London,

I trust everyone out there is enjoying 2009 which is a year of elections around the world and some surprising results are manifesting here and there that will hopefully move the world towards peace and understanding amongst the human race.

I was recently watching a programme on the BBC about the evolution of the human race, the anthropologist who presented the programme concluded that we the human race have a gene that indicates our emergence from a small handful of tribes that left East Africa approximately 70,000 years or so ago. They left via the Arabian peninsula through what is now Yemen and then beyond to populate the whole plant. So if we are all related to one another why do we have so much war, strife, hatred and violence towards our fellow man?

In the 21st century this has gone beyond the battlefields of Iraq, the diamond fields of Sierra Leone and the Korean peninsula.

It drives us crazy when we dial a number to pay our bills and we hear in a heavy accent someone saying "Hello my name is Fred, how may I help you?" When we clearly know this persons name isn't Fred and they are in an office thousands of miles away.

Call centres! They are the bane of modern life for many of us and I'm sure we've all seen red sometime or another when the person at the other end of the line cannot or does not seem to understand our needs. They speak like an automaton from a fixed script without any consideration for what our dilemma is.

When I first started consulting back in 1999, the client was a call centre operator with five locations in the UK's southeast. All the operators were young students or just out of university and had the ability to communicate clearly concisely and effectively. These operators handled calls for utility companies, banks and other companies selling services to the public. One of the noticeable beneficial aspects of using operators who are native to a country is that there is less of a misunderstanding in communication and the operator is more able to empathise with the customers needs.

However, as we all know most call centres were moved overseas and my first client also closed down all five locations in the UK for sunnier climes. A bulk of these call centres whether in Europe or USA were moved to India which has the advantage of English as its language of business. Couple this with low labour costs and you get a situation where any business would relocate to achieve costs savings.

Now, don't get me wrong I am just as much a capitalist as the next CEO, but some aspects of achieving costs savings that affect quality and the level of service should not be compromised.

So what happened in the early years of the new millennia? Well, in the UK for one, many companies brought their call centres back home and even went so far as to advertise the fact that "Our call centres are now based in the UK".

There definitely is a solid business case for locating call centres in a places where the labour is cheaper, for example I recently completed an assignment with an ICT services firm that have their first line based in Romania. The same client was also looking at options to base some call centres in Malaysia.

The key issue here is for companies to get a balance between what can be sent overseas without a drop in quality and quantity of service and what aspect of the operations must be kept in the home country?

Take a bank for example that offers a two tier personal cheque account. One is the basic account and the other is a premium service whereby the customer is paying a monthly fee to have the premium service. Now, you would expect the premium customer to be offered a service that ensures a qualitative handling of their needs. This does not mean that two call centres are operated, one in the home country and one overseas.

It is about implementing controls, metrics and reviews that measure and allow the continuous monitoring of customer satisfaction at all levels. Whether a company decides to send all its call centres abroad or keep some at home there needs to be a clear strategy on how to ensure customer service and satisfaction does not get compromised.

At Storm we have several articles on Call Centre Management and some tips on 'How To'. Click the link below to take you directly there.

http://www.storm-international.us/resources/KnowledgeBase.aspx

Till the next time have a great weekend

Shah Alam