Revelation

Power to the People

2012-01-08T20:13:00.000Z

In a bid to placate angry voters still reeling from the outrageous salaries and bonuses awarded to the very CEOs that got us into this mess, David Cameron has announced that he's going to make shareholders responsible for voting on CEO's pay.

Brilliant.

So in a bid to wrestle control from the grip of greedy corporations, he has put it into the hands of... greedy corporations.

Who are the shareholders in these companies? Is it people like you and me who go along to the AGMs with our sandwiches and flasks?

No.

The votes will be controlled by the institutional shareholders; fund managers, investment banks etc.

One of the big problems with the way our economy works is that corporate strategy isn't driven by customers or the environment. It's driven by institutional shareholders who want to make a quick profit on their shares. And the problem with that is that they get to call the shots with the CEOs. So now they're going to control CEOs' pay.

Will that make the problem better or worse, do you think?

Not a Shoplifter

2012-01-04T10:29:00.001Z

On BBC Radio 4 recently, an interview featured a mother whose 16 year old daughter has been sent to prison for participating in 2011's London riots.

The interviewer said that the papers had reported the girl already had a conviction for shoplifting.

The mother replied, no, no, not my little angel, she's never been in trouble for anything.

The gloves she was wearing when she stole the trainers from the looted shop? They weren't to hide her fingerprints, someone just gave them to her and she was messing around with them.

Going out specifically to join a riot? No, she was just curious about what was going on and got accidentally caught up in it. What 16 year old thinks "Riots? Firebombs? Rubber bullets? Danger? I'll go look!"

And a previous conviction? No, definitely not true. She's never been in trouble. Well, she had a little bit of trouble but that was years ago. It's all in the past. She was 12 at the time and all she did was "pick something up in a shop".

Pick something up in a shop. She didn't steal. She just picked something up. And didn't put it down again. And walked out of the shop.

I think I'll go down to Comet later and pick up a new TV. It's in the way there, someone could trip over it and damage it. I think it will be out of the way in the boot of my car.

No, your honour, I didn't kill him. I just stuck a knife in him. It was him that died, your honour. He murdered himself.

Well, I suppose that the police have been using the 'the accused attacked my boot with his face' excuse for years, so we might as well all join in.

Piers Morgan Faces the Leveson Enquiry

2012-01-04T10:19:00.004Z

Of course, when we say 'faces' we mean in a very loose sense. Or a very literal one, as he his behind a video link from the USA.

He was asked if phone hacking had gone on at the Daily Mirror while he was the editor.

In reply, he used phrases such as "I had no reason to believe..." or "I was not aware..." or "I was not aware that it was widely prevalent in any specific form" or even "I was never directly involved"

Apparently, an editor is aware of maybe 5% of what happens at a newspaper. So by sheer coincidence, all the illegal stuff was squarely in the hidden 95%. Fancy that. In the ten years that he edited the Daily Mirror, nothing illegal ever crept into that 5%. Despite the fact that he wrote in his own diary in 2001 that someone had told him about phone hacking. But he never for a moment imagined that his own reporters would be doing it. Or that they would be paying private investigators. Or the police.

But hang on, what about the telephone message from Sir Paul McCartney on Heather Mills' phone that he listened to? Where did that come from? Who played it to him? How did they get it?

Apparently, he can't reveal his sources.

The QC threatened to ring up Heather Mills and ask if she played Piers the recording, because if she didn't, it was clearly obtained illegally.

Piers replied that there's nothing unethical about listening in on a private conversation. If it was that private, they shouldn't be having it. Translation: "Call her then. See if I care."

Now remember, Piers left the Daily Mirror because of a scandal involving a front page photo of a British soldier torturing an Iraqi prisoner. Except it wasn't a British soldier. And the photo wasn't taken in Iraq. And the man being tortured wasn't an Iraqi. It all happened in the Daily Mirror's car park. Now, it may be true that an editor only knows 5% of what happens at the newspaper. Wouldn't you think that the front page story would be part of that 5%??

Piers told Lord Justice Leveson that "he was concerned that the hearing was not focusing on the good papers had done over the years". It's the classic line of the manipulator. Yes, Mummy, I broke the window, but look how clean my shoes are! Yes, it's three hours past my bedtime but look, I can sing and dance! And what a lovely smile! Your good deeds are not under review, Piers. Hopefully, after the enquiry is all finished and the lengthy report has been written and the government promises an overhaul of the PCC and the newspapers have finished pointing at each other and all the scapegoats are safely banged up and no longer a threat to society, we'll have a review of the good deeds of the tabloids. When we have 5 minutes to spare.

Manipulating to be Spectacularly Unsuccessful

2012-01-04T10:10:00.000Z

A fascinating article by Sydney Finkelstein at forbes.com puts the behaviour of failure into the language of 'habits' in a kind of parody of Steven Covey's '7 habits of highly effective people'.

I'm not entirely sure why Forbes are publishing this now, as Sydney wrote his book, 'Why Smart Executives Fail', and the article, in 2004. Still, it makes as good reading now as ever.

Here are the 7 'habits' and our take on them. I recommend you read the original article to see Sydney's findings too.

Habit # 1: They see themselves and their companies as dominating their environment

Arrogance is a disconnection from reality, often driven by a personal need to prove something. Maybe the CEO never did well enough at school to please his father. Maybe he wants to impress his secretary. Maybe he feels inferior to the CEO next door.

Habit #2: They identify so completely with the company that there is no clear boundary between their personal interests and their corporation’s interests

Lack of personal boundaries is a problem that has plagued CEOs - and employees at every level - since the first caveman wheel factory owner put his arm round the first caveman wheelwright and told him that things weren't that good at home, his wife kept burning the brontosaurus and he wondered if the wheelwright could cover for him while he went for 'lunch' with his cavewoman secretary.

See our earlier post on the news reports of Microsoft's antics for some nice examples of blurred boundaries and the problems this creates.

Habit #3: They think they have all the answers

The same as habit 1, really, arrogance. To not have an answer is to be fallible, imperfect, vulnerable.

Habit #4: They ruthlessly eliminate anyone who isn’t completely behind them

Pure manipulation, and something that we've written about before. Another sign of habit 1, arrogance, and an excess of power. Should a CEO be able to fire someone? Often, the HR manager complies in order to be part of the power base, not realising that people who use power recklessly don't really care who they aim it at.

Habit #5: They are consummate spokespersons, obsessed with the company image

There's nothing beneath the surface, no substance, or so they think. A sign of habit 1, arrogance, creating a false reality, a feeling of inferiority or often a secret knowledge that the 'top show' is all there is. Once you start creating a false image, for example by fabricating reports like the marine defence engineering company did, you have to carry on and the lie gets bigger and bigger.

Habit #6: They underestimate obstacles

What obstacles? Obstacles are a thing one sees when he takes his eyes off the goal. At least, that's what they tell all those negative worriers in finance. Another sign of habit 1, arrogance. Failing to assess reality is a sign of avoiding facing their own weaknesses.

Habit #7: They stubbornly rely on what worked for them in the past

The same as habit 3, having all the answers. They have to be right, otherwise they're wrong and they lose credibility and power. While it's counter-intuitive to them, it's obvious to everyone else that saying "I don't know..." is a sign of confidence and strength, not weakness, particularly when it's followed up with "... but we'll figure it out together"

Sydney's article makes good reading for the behaviour of failure, but the motive? Does it explain the motive? Why on Earth would any CEO want to fail? Why would they continue to behave in a self-destructive fashion?

For the answer to that, and therefore the key to changing that behaviour or at the very least isolating and neutralising it, you'll have to wait for our book!

By the way, we're still collecting research in our 2011 survey, so please take 5 minutes to complete it and you could be in the book! (In a good way, hopefully)

The Leveson Inquiry

2011-12-01T16:29:00.001Z

Every night on the news, we hear more and more scandalous testimonies from celebrities and parents whose lives and reputations were damaged by the press, centred around the "one off, rogue reporter, we knew nothing about it" phone hacking scandal.

We've had Charlotte Church singing for free at the Murdochs' wedding, JK Rowling's children being harassed at school and even the tragic story of a family whose son took his own life following allegations in the tabloid press about his recently deceased sister.

The stories in themselves are hardly surprising. Let's face it, when the public are clamouring for celebrity gossip, they're not stopping to think about how those stories or photos are obtained, are they? And the papers even take great pride in revealing how they entrapped some wayward footballer or other, perhaps with a reporter posing as a prostitute, or even a prostitute posing as a reporter. It's hard to tell the difference these days.

No, the stories are not a surprise. The antics of the journalists and media bosses aren't a surprise. The only surprise in the whole sad episode is that no-one cared until now.

You can follow the latest news at the dedicated website - www.levesoninquiry.org.uk

UBS: Unbelievable Banking Scandal

2011-09-19T11:41:00.000+01:00

The latest news in the UBS saga of blame and avoidance is that the losses attributed to the rogue trader, Kweku Adoboli, have now been revised to $2.3 billion.

Apparently, it was like "a terrorist attack that was impossible to prevent", even though he used the same method as that used by a French trader at another bank in 2008.

UBS officials have said, "It wasn't our fault. It was him! He did it!"

What they actually said, according to the FT, was...

"The positions taken were within the normal business flow of a large global equity trading house as part of a properly hedged portfolio. The true magnitude of the risk exposure was distorted because the positions had been offset in our systems with fictitious, forward settling, cash exchange traded fund positions, allegedly executed by the trader."

They went on to say that the dilithium crystal matrix was overloaded with tachyon radiation, causing a proton surge and a cascade of negative space time which itself led to a causal interdimensional rift in the quantum antimatter accelerator.

In short, their explanation is designed purely to confuse the hell out of people while they sneak out the back door and all head off to the Cayman Islands.

Oswald Grübel, the 67 year old CEO, took full responsibility for the problems, as the man in charge and therefore ultimately tasked with overseeing the bank's conduct.

"If you ask me if I feel responsible, then I say no." He said.

"My future is not decided by me alone. Ultimately, the buck stops with me.", he later added - with his fingers crossed behind his back.

Group Storming

2011-09-18T19:57:00.000+01:00

The Revelation book is coming along nicely, so I thought I'd share something from it; a look at group development, as defined by Bruce Tuckman. In 1965, he came up with his observation that there are four stages to team development; the famous Forming, Norming, Storming and Performing.

As the group enters the Storming stage, you'll see overt displays of power-seeking. You'll see people start to display their ornate tail feathers; name dropping, dropping their qualifications or project experiences into the conversation, bitching about other people and generally trying to discretely portray themselves as being as wonderful as possible.

If you've ever played the game of Top Trumps, you'll know that the only time you'd ever ask someone the cylinder capacity of their engine is when you believe that yours will be higher.

"So, where did you study?"

If you studied at Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Harvard etc. then you will always either win or draw. If it's a draw, you can pretend that it's a rapport building question. If you went to Birmingham Polytechnic, you just don't risk asking in the first place.

Here are some more Top Trumps questions:

"Where did you spend your internship?" (As for the University question)

"How long have you known the CEO?" (Demonstrates or implies personal connections to power)

"What's your handicap?" (By not specifying that they mean golf, they also demonstrate superiority over someone who doesn't play golf)

"How long have you been here?" (Demonstrates superiority through length of service)

"So, bad news about that new GFC project for the gilded lillies division, eh?" (Fishing to see if you know anything, and hinting at some insider knowledge that you don't have, which implies powerful connections)

"What do you think about our new manager?" (Trying to glean some information that will be used against you)

And here are our suggested responses to keep a manipulative questioner off guard:

"Where did you study?"

"In my room, mainly. Sometimes I went to the library, but it was too noisy, would you believe. How about you?"

"Where did you spend your internship?"

"Oh, in a lovely office with a window overlooking the park. And the people were so nice! They had this deli just outside that did these fantastic little... I don't even know what they were but they tasted great. How about you?"

"How long have you known the CEO?"

"Ha, well you know what they say, never long enough. I thought I knew my father until I found out that he had two half sisters. How about you?"

"What's your handicap?"

"One leg is slightly shorter than the other, but I just wear two layers of Odor-Eaters in that shoe so it doesn't really cause me any problems. How about you?"

"How long have you been here?"

"Oh, about five minutes. I thought I'd have missed all the good sandwiches but I was lucky and got myself the last coronation chicken. I love that. I hate it when all that's left is some vegetarian thing and it's all curled up at the edges. How about you?"

"Bad news about that project, eh?"

"Well, you know what they say; one door closes, and another's a jar. That's a funny saying isn't it? How can a door be a jar? You can't put jam in a door! Oh, wait, a door does have a jamb, though! How about you?"

"What do you think about our new manager?"

"Well, you know what they say, you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep. My brother used to hang around with a gangster. People used to think he was a gangster too! We got free drinks everywhere! And look at us two! Well, he certainly knew what he was doing when he picked us, don't you think? How about you?"

Do you see the pattern?

When you are being asked a question that is purely designed to put you in your place, follow these steps:

1. Answer the question obliquely

2. Confuse the questioner

3. Abruptly turn the question back on them

You can of course ignore the question, but there's no point in creating unnecessary conflict, especially with someone who will have many allies who were not as quick-witted as you.

Open Season at Microsoft

2011-09-03T16:44:00.001+01:00

Microsoft are in the headlines again, this time for a court battle between the company and its UK CEO.

Simon Negus was hired by Microsoft to succeed Gordon Frazer, but was fired last year on the grounds of sexual harrassment.

It looks like Microsoft are dragging up everything they can to defend the company's good name against Negus' wrongful dismissal claim.

Microsoft alleges that Negus sexually harassed a succession of senior female colleague, but were apparently unable to prove any of the allegations. At one point, they brought up the example of a corporate party which was "a 'throbbing mass' of drunken punch-ups, sexual liaisons and 'outrageous behaviour' among senior members of staff, all fuelled by an unlimited supply of neat vodka and Jagermeister", according to The Telegraph.

If you lock a child in a sweet shop for the night, are you going to punish them for being sick?

OK. So, Simon Negus has been up to no good, according to The Telegraph's rather jumbled account of events. You see, The Telegraph's article takes two different stories; one about a wild party and one about Simon Negus, and twists them together so it's hard to tell what Negus is alleged to have done and what other people, completely unrelated to the case, are alleged to have done. It certainly portrays Negus in an interesting light.

But whatever the 'truth' is, there is a far more important question: Who decided to provide unlimited free drinks at a corporate event?

Here's what we think really happened, and it is hinted at in the closing comments of the article:

"Mr Negus has vehemently denied the claims and is counter-suing the computer company for harassment and wrongful dismissal.

He claims Mr Frazer saw him as a threat and wanted him out of the business, telling Mr Negus that he and his team were not 'true Microsoft people'."

Our reading-between-the-lines view is that Microsoft hired Simon Negus into a culture that encourages this kind of unruly and inappropriate behaviour, and when he didn't fit in, they used that against him in court. It's like luring your little brother into trouble and then telling your parents what he did.

In a situation like this, you really can't single out one person. Unless, of course, you need a scapegoat, in which case it's open season after a party like that.

Revelation 2011 Survey - Please Take Part

2011-08-29T22:24:00.002+01:00

The Revelation survey is now ready and waiting for you to share your views and experiences on corporate politics, hidden agendas and manipulation in business. Please take a few minutes to take part, because the more responses we get, the more valuable the results will be.

We'll be making the results available here once the survey is completed, and how long that takes depends on the number of responses we get, so please share this with all of your friends and colleagues, and also on any other networks or forums that you are a member of.

The survey is completely anonymous, just click on this link to go directly to it:

http://kwiksurveys.com?u=revelation2011

Propaganda

2011-08-19T11:44:00.000+01:00

Following the riots across the UK, the British government is getting tough on the rioters, threatening to evict them and their families from the council houses they live in which are in turn paid for by our council tax. The thieving spongers.

However, as many people are saying, where's the best place for the families of rioters? On the streets with nowhere to go? The problem with social housing is that you can't take it away when people depend on it, whether they choose to play by the rules or not.

Yesterday, I was driving through London and I saw a large group of police in full riot gear, gathered round the door of a flat. A large crowd watched from the other side of the road.

Full riot gear? Serious stuff.

So why wasn't the road closed?

Simple. The police weren't there for the protection of the public. They weren't there to take a dangerous criminal into custody. They were there purely for the purpose of propaganda. To show the locals, and anyone driving past, that they simply won't stand for this kind of thing any more.

And the best way to demonstrate this? Have twenty police thugs in full riot gear drag a teenager off in a police van.

Next, you'll see David Cameron on TV threatening to drown a kitten if criminals don't turn themselves in.

Fit to Broadcast?

2011-07-12T20:28:00.002+01:00

On BBC Radio 4's 'Any Questions' interview show, Ken Livingstone made an excellent point in relation to News Corporation's aspirations to fully acquire BSkyB and become a TV broadcasting giant, something which isn't only a matter of buying the company but also of demonstrating that the owners of the company are fit to broadcast to the public.

He said that if the editors and owners of the News of the World knew about the phone hacking then they knowingly condoned illegal and immoral practices and are not fit to be granted a broadcasting license.

However, if the editors and owners of the News of the World did not know about the phone hacking then they have no control over the practices of their staff and are not fit to be granted a broadcasting license.

In the same show, Matthew Parris, a columnist at The Times, avoided answering any questions of all. Amongst other slippery exits, he said that since the News of the World funded his own newspaper, it would not be right of him to make any comments about recent events. He also said that if someone were to ask the NOTW editor, Rebekah Brook, to comment about him, he would expect her to be discreet and not say anything and so he would extend her the same courtesy.

Difficult, in a program entirely devoted to the latest scandal at the NOTW.

For a change though, they're not stirring up the scandal, they ARE the scandal.

Farewell, News of the World

2011-07-08T10:28:00.001+01:00

And good riddance?

Unfortunately not. Of course the NOTW is not being closed down. How ridiculous.

There will still be a News International, sensationalist, bottom feeding, soft porn Sunday newspaper. It just won't be called the News of the World.

Today, David Cameron (British PM) said that what had happened was "illegal, unacceptable, despicable and disgusting"

I think, to be fair, he knew that months ago when News International were trying desperately to contain the damage. But everyone hoped that the wronged celebs could be paid to keep quiet and that the problem would go away.

If you're wondering what this is all about, then the current hot news in the UK is that one of Britain's oldest, most popular and least respected Sunday newspapers is closing with a week's notice because of a scandal involving the behaviour of its own reporters. A 168 year run brought to an abrupt end.

To be fair, the paper's reporters have always employed questionable techniques. Over the years, they have used methods such as secret filming, entrapment and impersonating various officials to extract 'dirt' from celebrities and public figures. They have brought countless careers to an abrupt end.

And all in the name of the "public interest"

Oh, the public are interested all right, that's why people buy the newspaper. But is it in the public interest? We would argue not.

Let's look at what happened.

Earlier this year, it came to light that NOTW journalists were 'hacking' into celebrities' mobile phone voicemail services. The concept is easy; you can call a number to retrieve your own messages from any other phone. All you need is a PIN. In the old days, you didn't even need a PIN unless you had set one up. But now you can only access it if you have already created a PIN. For years, gutter journalists have bribed mobile phone call centre operators to pass on the details of phones owned by celebrities.

So you have the number, all you need to do is guess the PIN. And with an autodialler, it's relatively easy to stage a 'brute force attack', trying every PIN until you hit the right one.

Once you have the PIN, you just keep dialling in, listening to the messages and hoping to pick up some juicy gossip.

When this first came to light, the NOTW blamed one reporter, who didn't even work for them, he was a freelancer, and he's very naughty, and we had no idea he was doing it and now we've fired him to show what a fine, upstanding and respectable media business we are.

The celebrities involved were paid damages and the whole thing was swept under the carpet, along with all of the other questionable reporting practices at the newspaper.

Over 4,000 victims have been discovered to date. I think that shows that this is not an isolated incident.

To cap it all, one of the phones that the single, lone wolf, rogue journalist hacked into was that of Milly Dowler, the British girl who was abducted and murdered a few years ago. What were they hoping to find? Evidence to pass to the police? Of course not.

The newspaper's owners and editors of course condone and are fully aware of what goes on. Rupert Murdoch's son was on TV, saying how awful it was and that they knew nothing about it. So they don't read their own newspapers? This is like the moment on Pier's Morgan's chat show with David Hasslehoff when he claimed to know nothing about the Daily Mirrors' publication of a photo of David Hasslehoff in a drunken, alcoholic haze. He was he editor at the time, and knew nothing about it?

Media such as the NOTW view celebrities - and murder victims - as public property. We made you famous, so now we own you. However, some celebrities don't agree, and in particular, Richard E Grant, would not allow the matter to be forgotten.

The police were in a difficult situation. They largely turn a blind eye to the activities of reporters, in fact there are also allegations of reporters bribing police. Well, doesn't almost every TV drama feature a reporter who gets information from a police source? Didn't the police and reporters all drink in the same pubs? They each regard each other as a necessary evil.

The problem is that the celebrities involved would not shut up, and sooner or later, the police have to accept the fact that they are allowing a criminal act to go widely publicised yet unchallenged. The editor said sorry, so that's OK.

Now the police are involved, everyone's coming out of the woodwork to say how awful it all is. The British PM, Rupert Murdoch's son.

It turns out that the 'rogue reporter' story has been spun too many times. Now the NOTW's editor, Andy Coulson, is being questioned by police, possibly even arrested.

The bottom line is that the NOTW, its editors and all of its staff had a good run. They got away with as much as they could for as long as they could. They stepped over the line countless times, and one time too many.

But what difference will this make?

Will it block News International's bid for BSkyB? Of course not. The activities of a few rogue individuals can't possibly bring the credibility of a global business into question.

Will it mean proper regulation of the media? There is talk of replacing the Press Complaints Commission with a better regulator. Of course not. Society is much bigger than one industry.

Will it mean that the media conducts itself more honourably?

Don't be ridiculous. The media just gives people what they want.

Call for the Provision of Jargon Leadership Facilities for the Public Sector

2011-06-18T16:03:00.004+01:00

Historically, industries such as IT, Home Entertainment and Telecoms have been accused of being over-reliant on jargon, creating black arts that are impenetrable to the layman.

My computer hasn't crashed, it has encountered an unexpected event in one of its registers.

My Internet isn't broken, the SNR of my DSL line has exceeded the engineering specifications.

And don't even mention my plasma TV. The digital signal level for the MPEG decoder is insufficient to enable container extraction.

But we have noticed a rather worrying trend. Computer companies, software vendors and Internet providers have ditched the jargon and now use plain English so that we can all understand what's going on.

Meanwhile, the very bedrock of our society - the public sector - has belatedly tried to catch up with the hi tech world and make itself sound interesting.

Either that, or civil servants are trying their hardest to prevent us from seeing where our taxes go.

Here are some examples chosen from today's pick of public sector contracts, together with our translations:

Review of Funding Options for Fish Week Festival

Oh my God, it's Fish Week already. Where are we going to get the money from?

PR campaign for walking

The buses are so bad that we have to promote walking instead

The organisation is seeking to appoint a suitably qualified and experienced Business Consultancy, with a background and track record in successful enterprise development, to coordinate and oversee their new enterprise initiatives so that they become sustainable and self-sufficient.

Wanted: management consultant.

Addressing the prevalence of diseases in socioeconomically deprived areas

Don't ask.

Strategic Business Review of Agri-Food

How much are the vegetables?

Cohort Resources Facility Leadership Team Outline Call

No, we're stumped too.

The Facility will provide a dedicated resource through the sharing of best practice and the development of new practices across cohorts which have been developed from both the social and biomedical sciences.

Nope. Still stumped.

Assist with training and development in longitudinal research.

We give up.

The Board have recently been working to develop a language Framework for Welsh neighbourhoods, which offers a systematic approach to measure the state of the language in Welsh communities.

We can tell you the state of language in Welsh communities. It's obscene.

The service will deliver all or part of an agreed, strategic influencing and population behaviour change food programme.

We'll tell people to stop eating pies.

The aim of the Action Learning Sets is to build leadership capacity and capability in solving ‘wicked issues’ in an integrated manner across CHPs and CHCPs.

Wanted: Witch hunters.

Improving Residents’ Access to Health Services

Wanted: New door for the doctor's surgery.

Enhancing transferable skills in relation to domestic/commercial micro-generation to increase residents’ employability

Wanted: Odd job man.

Provision of "Thinking Skills Programme" to Military Detainees

Go to your room and think about what you did.

Farewell Focus

2011-05-27T20:40:00.007+01:00

Another well known British brand, Focus DIY, has gone down the toilet. Unfortunately for them, it was one of toilets from their bargain £199 bathroom suite.

What went wrong?

According to The Telegraph;

Simon Allport, one of the administrators, said: "Focus will continue to trade as we look for a buyer for the group and its stores. It is very much business as usual." He said the company has struggled due to low consumer confidence and a very weak housing market.

A weak housing market?

Recession = dead housing market = people invest in their houses rather than moving = boom time for DIY stores

What went wrong for the executives of Focus?

They sat back and let their competitors run riot, basically.

Homebase shifted their brand positioning upwards, B&Q used their size to control costs and Wickes crept up from their bargain basement builder's yard image and started chipping away at Focus' core market like a Dad on Christmas morning with a new hammer drill.

Even Wickes' new slogan, "It's got our name on it" is a crystal clear and quite brilliant positioning statement. A few years ago, that would have been an embarrassment. Today, it's something they aspire to take pride in.

This has happened so often to so many corporations that you'd think CEOs would have learned their lesson by now. Yet, time after time, huge High Street names disappear because they sit still while their competitors push up from the bottom and squeeze down from the top.

Focus tried to broaden their product base, moving into pet products and other such junk, but taking on new product lines is costly, and if your bank balance is heading south, you need to reduce the product range, not increase it.

"Despite management's actions to tightly control costs and restructure the operations, unfortunately it has not been possible for the business to continue to trade outside of insolvency," Mr Allport said. The company, run by former Iceland boss Bill Grimsey, warned last night that it had defaulted on a loan and was preparing to appoint an administrator.

The people involved in these situations often blame outside trading conditions that are beyond their control, and make the situation more complicated than it actually is.

By the way, our prediction is that Wickes will be next, because they have moved their positioning and stock strategy upwards without protecting their traditional core market of building materials and consumables. Seriously, go into Wickes and try to buy a box of nails. Recently, I went to buy a U bolt and none of the staff knew what one was. However, they could design me a fitted kitchen instead.

The simple yet often hard to face truth is that, when times are hard, the absolute last thing you must do is drop quality and price, no matter how tempting that seems.

At Iceland, Bills' strategy was to drop price and quality, competing with the bottom end retailers such as Heron Foods. This is fine for food retailers, because once your Mum's been to Iceland and come back with 96 cocktail sausage rolls and a box of frozen mini kievs for £1, she can go again tomorrow and get some more because there really is no limit to the number of sausage rolls that a gang of growing kids can stuff down their throats.

But what about Dad? How many lawn mowers does one man need?

We've shopped in Focus many times. Why? Because they were cheaper. That's never, ever a stable foundation for such a top heavy business that has limited potential for repeat product sales.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can say that if the Focus board had asked us at the time, we would have advised them to:

Reduce the number of product lines and choose target areas that were traditionally profitable.

Continue their discount schemes for retired DIYers and home movers. The problem was that they happily gave away discount cards, but did nothing to tie in product lines with those target shoppers.

For example, what do retired discount card holders need? Screws sold in small packs or even individually, basically anything for 'odd jobs', home improvement, etc. and anything that you used to be able to buy that is now hard to find, for example, wooden wall plugs.

Home movers? You could say that their core ranges of paint, furniture, DIY materials etc. target homemovers, but think back to the last time you moved house. What did you need?

You see the problem? Retirees and home movers only shop there because of the discount and have no reason to stay loyal after the discount card has expired.

B&Q had a trade counter and pushed down on Focus, Screwfix continued their growth and pushed up. Focus got caught in the middle. Trade consumables is an attractive market with lots of stock turnover, but tradesmen have different needs to consumers, for example they want ex-VAT invoices, free T shirts and bacon sandwiches.

Pet products? Big mistake. Their like for like prices were lower than Pets At Home, but limited shelf space meant they just didn't stock much that a pet owner needs. And with their retail park locations, there was sure to be a Pets At Home next door anyway.

In short, Focus. The clue was in the name all along.

Recruitment Scams Exposed

2011-05-18T12:26:00.006+01:00

We're seeing an increasing number of recruitment adverts which are scams of some kind rather than genuine jobs, and so we're going to show you how to spot them, because this is something quite worrying. Companies and individuals are preying on people looking for jobs, and in some cases deceiving them to obtain money.

Other adverts are written as if there is a vacancy, when in fact it is an advert for a franchise of some kind. It might, for example, be an advert for Business Coaches, offering a salary of £90,000 and based at home. When you read the advert, you see that it's actually a fantastic opportunity to buy into the Action Coaching franchise for just £10,000. All the way through, it's worded as if there is a vacancy. Well, at £10,000, there will always be a vacancy for you.

Other scams include adverts for pyramid selling schemes such as Betterware, Kleeneeze and similar franchises whose websites feature a smiling couple in front of a boat or sports car and a testimonial from J.S. of Preston who now has a house in the Cayman Islands as a result of this great business opportunity.

Hopefully, if you're sceptical about a job advert that you've seen, you'll find your way here.

Here's a typical email:

Dear [me],

Your CV crossed my desk today, and I am glad to say that I would like  to interview you for  a Business Unit Management position that I hope  you will be interested in. We are scheduling interviews for Monday afternoon next week, since this one is expected to be quite busy.

You may continue the process by visiting the application screening  area of our website. In order to complete the screening you will need  the Application Code that we have provided in this email. We will  forward your screening information to our client once you complete the  process. The whole process is about 10 minutes and we are expecting that  you will be able to have this to us before Monday and I will personally  call you to introduce you to our offer and schedule your interview  afterwards.

Here is the information you will need, please keep it secret and secure:

Application Screening Area: http://withu-recruitment.com/applicants

Application Code: f452f0cdb8b26b

Once again, thank you for considering this position and we look  forward to making a long-term work relationship possible from this.

Have a fantastic day! 

---

Betty Snider 

WithU Recruitment HR Dept

What's wrong with this?

Firstly, the email arrives around 6 hours 'ahead' of itself, i.e. the email arrives with a delivery time of, say 6 PM in its header, when it actually arrives at 11 AM. The result of this is that it stays right at the top of your inbox, all day long, regardless of what other emails arrive. This is a spammer's way of trying to get your attention.

Secondly, the email itself is vaguely specific. I have an interview for a job, which is very specific, but there are no other details. There is no job spec, for example. An interview on Monday. Where? Very suspicious.

Thirdly, the 'screening' process takes you to a fake psychometric test, and then on to a fake IQ test. To get the results of the IQ test and prove to the recruiter that you took the test, you have to get a code which is texted for you.

In fact, putting in your mobile number signs you up for a junk SMS service, costing £4.50 a week.

"This is a subscription service from Command M which costs £4.50 per week for 1x brainteaser, illusion or amazing fact until you send STOP to 80151"

So you see, the disgusting aspect of this is that someone looking for a job, presumably because they need the money (in this current state of the economy) actually gets their hopes raised and then ripped off by £4.50 a week.

At the end of the day, they do it because it works and it costs them nothing to have a go. But if we stop getting drawn in to scams like this, they'll find another way of disguising their scam as something you genuinely want.

These people are preying on the gullible, and our job, as ever, is to shine a light into the dark corners of the business world. Fore-warned is fore-armed.

*** STOP PRESS ***

(A bit dramatic. There is no press to stop.)

Here's another one, received today.

Dear [me], 

We have reviewed your application for a Business Unit Management  position in [my town] and decided to introduce you to the next phase of  our application process. Based on requirements from our clients, we  combine expertise with the latest recruitment software that allows us to  quickly assess and combine your experience and personality to each  organization's goals and culture.

You may continue the process by visiting the application screening  area of our website. In order to complete the screening you will need  the Application Code that we have provided in this email. We will  forward your screening information to our client once you complete the  process.

Application Screening Area: http://jobs-for-everyone.com/applicants 
Application Code: 1e4632dc9646db9

Have a nice weekend! 

--- 
Rose Elliott
Jobs-For-Everyone.com HR Dept 

What's the scam? They're actually selling dodgy credit scores. You have to pay for a credit score to get through the 'screening' process.

And guess what kind of information you have to put in to get your credit score?

That's right... Personal, sensitive, financial information.

You have to hand it to them, they're inventive.

The Mystery of Mystery Shopping

2011-05-14T14:09:00.000+01:00

Mystery Shopping is a concept that has been around for many years.

Mystery Shopping is even getting media attention through TV programs such as 'Undercover Boss ' and 'The Hotel Inspector'.

But with UK businesses losing £42 Billion a year through staff turnover, is Mystery Shopping the right way to maintain standards of customer service?

Mystery Shopping is a 'mop up' approach to customer service. The idea is that you have a poor chain of control through the business and when that falls out of the sharp end as poor service delivery, your customers walk away. One of those customers is a Mystery Shopper, who reports back so that you can correct problems in service delivery.

We've been Mystery Shopping for the past three years, visiting numerous pubs, restaurants, fast food outlets, hotels and retailers. What we've seen is a tendency in the larger Mystery Shopping agencies to make their reports more palatable to their clients. In other words, they don't like giving their clients bad news, so when a report says that the staff in a pub are totally disengaged, there's food on the floor and the queue at the bar is ten deep, the agency wants to reword this so that it's less... negative.

The most valuable feedback is often the hardest to hear, and that's the first problem.

The second problem is that the service delivery cycle doesn't exist at the customer interface. It reaches all the way up to the top of the business. When leaders and HR teams say that a business sector has an inevitably high staff turnover rate, they inadvertently tell managers not to be choosy about who they hire, because they're going to leave anyway. Managers can bury themselves in managing the restaurant or store, and staff can get away with doing whatever they want.

This is the second, and fundamental problem.

Mystery Shopping is therefore a feedback loop, notifying managers in Head Office that staff at the customer interface are not adhering to standards. They're not putting exactly 152 peas on a plate, or serving a pint with 1.2 cm of head, or saying, "Good morning/afternoon/evening Sir/Madam, welcome to McPizza King, how may I facilitate your purchasing decision today in the most efficient and enjoyable way today to enhance and pleasurise your dining experience with us today? (Big smile)"

It's very hard for a large, disjointed company to define why exactly it is that customers come back, time after time. Often, it's simple convenience. I prefer shopping at Brand A but Brand B is closer. So rather than try to manage the customer experience, Head Office tries to control the product.

In manufacturing, it's easy to make sure that every single widget you produce is identical and within performance standards, yet the occasional failure still slips through the QA net.

In a service business, ensuring uniformity of delivery actually ensures zero customer satisfaction, because not every customer wants the same thing. The more complex the service, the more difficult it is to control.

However, being standardised and having standards are two very different things.

Whilst in this age of employee engagement and empowerment, it's not very PC to mention this, it is a plain fact of business economics that the needs of your staff are not the same as the needs of your customers. What makes you a good employer doesn't make you a good business. You may have won an award for providing better facilities for staff, but they don't pay the bills.

It's an easy option though. Logically, if your staff are happy then they keep your customers happy. Not so. What are your staff happiest doing? Working hard? Or sneaking off to enjoy your best in class staff room facilities as often as possible?

And in any case, no successful business gives its customers what they want. The market economy gives your customers choice. You don't have to worry about that, and the more customer needs you try to meet, the thinner you spread your resources until you're not meeting anyone's needs.

Mystery Shopping and management training companies are growing at an alarming rate because there is a fundamental shortfall in the ability of managers to manage their staff, and a similarly alarming propensity for HR managers to clean up after them rather than get them to just keep the place tidy.

New book nearing completion - help us with your stories of office politics

2011-04-14T11:33:00.000+01:00

Our new book, Revelation, is nearing completion.

Do you have your own stories of office politics, hidden agendas and manipulation in the workplace that you would like to see in print?

Just email your contributions to info@askrevelation.com and if we use them, you'll receive full credit in the book unless you want to contribute anonymously, in which case let us know a pseudonym such as "Disgruntled from Staffordshire".

The new book explains corporate politics and manipulation, helps you to understand why people behave the way that they do and gives you a number of solutions to dealing with the business problems that arise from manipulative behaviour in the workplace.

Whilst the explanations and solutions are simple, they're not easy to implement in large organisations because there are so many variables and, often, so many people trying to sabotage you. However, what you can realistically do is protect yourself and make sure that at least your own team or your own business is free from the plague of corporate politics.

Why keeping on top of the little things makes a big difference

2011-03-31T16:09:00.002+01:00

A global defence engineering business has a big problem. A very high profile project, originally planned to run for two years, is over budget and late.

In fact, after two years, the project is roughly where it should have been after six months. The Director of the business unit responsible has to attend regular meetings with the country's Minister of Defence - the client for the project - explaining why the project is so out of control. The project is now £12 Million over budget and the client is starting to demand the penalty payments laid out in the contract.

The company - let's call it 'B' - is in an interesting position; once a subsidiary of another multinational engineering group, the engineers and managers see themselves as an elite group of experts, an engineering 'think tank', solving the great engineering challenges of the world such as how to load torpedoes into a nuclear submarine, or how to safely land a helicopter on a deck of a ship in rough seas. Now the company has been acquired by a parent group, much more focused on results than on interesting ideas, and has merged B with another business - let's call it 'A' - once a competitor with a track record of on time and on budget delivery.

A's project managers work to tight deadlines. They communicate across teams and share knowledge. Their main problem is that 50% of their workforce will retire within the next 5 years - a problem that they are addressing with our talent management coaching program. Their staff work a flexi-time system, and it is common practice for them to accrue enough overtime during the week to go home at lunchtime on a Friday. A's staff view B's staff as 'prima donnas'.

10% of A's skilled workforce is made up of contract staff. Contractors don't have the same benefits as the full time staff, being paid purely on contract hours.

B's project managers and design engineers go home early - around 4:00 most days. Once they see what A's staff do, they see it as their inherited right to leave at lunchtime on a Friday so that they can enjoy their weekend. Of course, they don't see that they have a corresponding responsibility to work late on other days. When someone misses a deadline, the reaction is, "Oh well, try and get it done by next week". When they do actually deliver a project milestone, albeit late and over budget, the managers buy everyone cakes to celebrate.

50% of B's skilled workforce is made up of contract staff. Contractors go home the same time as everyone else, because no-one wants to stay around to supervise them.

B's leaders have tried a number of schemes to improve performance, the most recent of which is an annual bonus. To recognise that everyone in the business, from engineers and project managers through to support staff, contributes in some way to the success of the business, everyone gets a £1,000 annual bonus if the company hits certain targets. The company hasn't hit a target yet, but staff have come to expect the bonus, so they still receive it. With around 200 staff, this costs the business £200,000 per year, and it still makes absolutely no difference to performance.

The management culture at 'B' is one of rewarding failure. Where do they even begin to change this?

There is a fundamental piece of the puzzle missing from 'B's management strategy, and that is the existence of consequences for under-performance. The managers at B think that their staff are so precious that they are irreplaceable. They constantly fear losing staff to competitors, not realising that all the staff know full well that they would have to work for a living at a competitor, and they're quite happy where they are. The staff know that they can keep pushing and managers will never push back.

You may recall that B and A are now merged into one company within a holding group that focuses on performance, so how can they continue to get away with this? Surely, if projects are so late and so over budget, heads would have rolled by now?

You would certainly think so. Unfortunately, the parent group don't know what's really happening.

The Operations Director at B is responsible for collating monthly reports, measuring project milestones met, milestones missed and costs.

The Finance Director incorporates these operational reports into his monthly financial reports. In turn, these feed into the group's annual financial report.

The Operations Director produces impressive graphs and charts that show how well the business is performing. Look closely at the graphs, though, and you'll see that figures from business units on the other side of the world are included in the 'local' data. You'll also see that rolling averages smooth out any missed milestones, and if a milestone is late by more than a month it doesn't count. The Operations Director only reports on this month's problems, and ignores the fact that problems are still piling up from last month, and the month before, and the month before...

The Business Unit Director signs off more and more requests for contractors, thinking that the solution must be to throw more resource at the problem. If pouring oil on a fire doesn't help, pouring more oil certainly won't.

A's leadership team knows exactly what is happening at B and becomes more disconnected, wanting to distance themselves from the inevitable fallout. A's Business Unit Director leaves the company, fearing being tarred with the same brush. His replacement tries in vain to avoid being pulled into B's worsening situation, but finds himself asked to stand in for B's Business Unit Manager and is faced with the choice of 'blowing the whistle' or saying nothing and in doing so, becomes complicit in what is becoming a case of corporate fraud.

By now, we have identified £16 Million in lost annual revenue that directly results from the leadership team's lack of control over the business. This is made up of:

Payments to contractors hired specifically to work on missed milestones

Contract penalty payments

Working hours lost to staff absence

The overall situation can be summed up as follows:

The leadership team do not have control of the business, because there are no consequences for failure. The leadership team reward failure by misrepresenting performance reports and protecting staff, and by rewarding staff even though they are failing against their primary job requirements.

The leadership team are afraid of introducing consequences for under-performance in case the staff 'revolt' and move to a competitor, not realising that the staff will never leave because they know that competitors will demand measurable results.

Therefore, the leadership team solve the problem by doing what is under their control - misrepresenting reporting data, lying and hiding the problem in the hope that next month, a miracle will occur and the problem will go away.

The longer this goes on, the worse it gets because the leadership team have to work harder and harder to hide a growing problem.

A short term first step is to force the resignation of the Operations Director, using him as a scapegoat and providing an opportunity to start afresh. Since he was the root cause of a number of issues, this is a sensible course of action. This also sends a message to staff that they are no longer safe from being measured and managed.

Managers at every level have to be supervised to be tough on performance management, and any allowances or excuses made for poor performance have to be dealt with. This introduces a culture of accountability, and with accountability comes attention to detail, personal engagement and increased performance.

It's a long road for B's leaders, having let the situation get so far out of control, yet with our hands-on guidance and support, they will get the business back on track.

What to do when your staff retire and take their knowledge with them

2011-03-31T16:08:00.003+01:00

Talent management, succession planning and knowledge management seem like HR buzzwords of the last decade, yet for some businesses they represent a very real and very threatening problem.

A global engineering company with an outstanding reputation has a highly skilled and experienced workforce with experience going back to the first jet aircraft, the first nuclear power stations and the first large scale materials handling systems in the UK.

The problem is that 50% of these people will reach retirement age in the next 5 years. This means that 50% of the company's tacit knowledge will disappear, and the older installations that the company still supports will be left with no instruction manual.

Historically, the company has had no formal knowledge management structure, and knowledge was passed across generations using the time honoured methods of apprenticeship and team work.

The company has a generation of talented engineers in junior grades, a generation of experienced engineers in senior grades, and very little in between.

The solution? The company identified 24 of its engineers and project managers who they believe have what it takes to be tomorrow's leaders, and we developed a customised talent management program to give them the best possible start.

There are no appraisal systems or competency frameworks to rely on, so the selection criteria were inherently subjective. Yet everyone involved had a clear understanding of the problem and what was required for the company's continuing success and even survival.

We created a bespoke, two year coaching program aimed at developing these junior staff and giving them the direction, guidance and skills to drive their careers forwards to reach pivotal positions in the business of the future.

The design process began by asking the question, "What do people who have highly successful careers do to manage their growth and development?"

By interviewing and researching people in a range of industries who had demonstrated an ability to drive their own career progression, we developed a cyclic process which focused heavily on the acquisition of tacit knowledge and personal accountability. Gone are the days of being told what their next role will be, these high potential staff must make their own choices and develop their own career paths.

Each of the 24 nominated staff were assessed against the career development model, and the coaching process began at whichever step was appropriate for the individual.

During the regular coaching sessions, we challenged staff to look further to the future, to think in more depth about their personal motivations and to seek new challenges earlier than they would have done otherwise.

For the most part, these staff enjoyed the technical challenges of their jobs so much that they didn't ever set time aside for career planning. By setting challenging short term goals, we encouraged the staff to look outside of their immediate teams and seek opportunities across the entire business. They rose to this new challenge willingly and made new connections that they found invaluable in many ways.

Every six months, we pulled the group together for a networking and knowledge sharing session, creating a new sense of community and support amongst this group of people who would one day lead the business.

Over the two years, 20 out of 24 staff achieved either promotions or significant job changes - a 83% success rate. The 4 who did not achieve this expressed an ongoing desire not to progress but to seek technical growth, a desire that was wholeheartedly supported by their managers.

The participants reported many personal benefits including:

"It's given me the opportunity to reflect back on myself, see what I do and why and take control of that."

"I hadn't put much emphasis on networking before, now I do and wherever I go I ask myself "who do I need to know?'"

"It helped me to get my promotion which would have taken longer. It's given me more confidence."

"It's made me realise what I want out of life and where I want to be. It's given me direction. What you put in you get out."

"It's definitely been of benefit. It gave me a good kick up the backside to get my IMechE sorted. I've actually taken an interest in my career planning and where I want to be in the next few years, I have more interest in how I can effect changes to my career rather than being reactive."

"If someone had said I would be a [role] in ten years I would have been happy. It's actually taken me two years, that's quite a step up."

"You've got to be open and honest with the coaches and put your cards on the table. I learned not to take things personally [the coach's direct feedback], nobody gave me that advice before. It definitely speeds things up."

"I probably didn't realise how much I was in control of my career path, it's been a valuable insight, it's made me realise it's my responsibility to move things forward."

"Taking a step back, looking in, reviewing where you are, steps to move forward, questioning why you want to change, doing things differently, it's a way of thinking that is definitely useful."

"I've learned about myself, that I am able to learn, move on and adapt into a new role. It's made a difference to my status too, more people know who I am."

"It helped me to move across [to a new role] and left [previous managers] with a good relationship, that helped me move to where I wanted to move."

"The program definitely made me think about what I really want to do."

The talent management coaching program has had a measurable impact on the value to the businesses of these 24 staff, increasing their loyalty and their willingness to invest in the business. With a greater sense of control over their own careers, they are more aware of their own value to the business and therefore the potential for them to achieve even greater career success.

While the company can't stop experienced people from getting older and retiring, it can protect their years of experience and learning by investing in the development of tomorrow's business leaders.

Negotiation Days in Sonderborg

2009-11-02T12:13:00.004Z

We have been asked to speak at the Sonderborg Student Foundation's annual 'Negotiation Days' conference in Denmark on November 13th, and you might be wondering what manipulation and hidden agendas have to do with negotiations...

Although we doubt it. It's one of the key business interactions where manipulation is most obvious.

What is perhaps most interesting is the way that the players in a negotiation each have their own 'ace' - a single indirect tactic that they will play in order to gain control, to either force or block an agreement. In a negotiation, you'll see these aces played, very subtly, in the first interaction. The greater the threat of losing control, the more strongly you'll see these tactics played out.

An honest and flexible negotiator will have many different ways of presenting an argument in order to reach a mutual agreement.

A manipulative negotiator puts more indirect force into the negotiation and whilst their methods seem unprofessional and even unbelievable, they are allowed to get away with it, so why should they change?

During the workshop that we're running in Denmark, we'll be taking the group through a negotiation simulation which is distilled from real people, real events and real meetings which we have experienced. There are five players, and each has a different hidden agenda. Again, these roles and their hidden agendas are real, they are based on real people and real events which we have uncovered in our work with a client.

There isn't a predetermined outcome, and each group of delegates can end up with a different result, which the group learns more from.

The simulation comprises 4 meetings where the hidden agendas drive the negotiation more and more until it reaches a tense and revealing conclusion.

If you or your staff are involved in negotiations, and who isn't, you could learn a lot from taking your staff through this exercise.

The alternative is that you continue to let your customers and suppliers get away with it...

What is culture?

2009-06-29T18:27:00.006+01:00

We can define culture as a set of language and rules which exist in a country, workplace, family or other subset of human society. When human beings come together for a shared purpose, perhaps to live or work, they have to obey the rules which govern social behaviour.

Some of these rules are explicit, such as a country’s laws, a company’s policies or a family’s routines and boundaries. Some of these rules are implicit, such as knowing how much to bribe the local police, how to get round the company car policy and the fact that if you get into trouble, your sister will always distract your parents so that they forget to punish you.

When we observe humans interacting with each other in one of these social groups, we can infer the underlying rules that they are following. Also, when someone from a different social group enters, we can see how confusion and conflict arises from different expectations and different implicit rules.

For example, if you look down as you walk through the streets of any city centre in Britain, you will see litter. If you look at rubbish bins, you will see signs asking people not to drop litter. Clearly, someone is not following the rules.

How do these different sets of rules emerge? Over time, people in a social group will write down rules, making them explicit. They will have determined these rules by trial and error, and by recognising when someone does something that is not in the interests of the group as a whole.

Fundamentally, these explicit rules are generic rules that govern the group, but it is the behaviour of individuals in contrary to the interests of the group that creates the necessity for those rules in the first place.

This creates a basic flaw in explicit social rules. They benefit everyone, but no-one in particular.

Now we have differences between the way that a member of the social group wants to behave and the way that the rules of the group allow him or her to behave. Since the rules, some words on paper or carved in stone, have no power to permit or deny anything, they only have power when enforced by other members of the group.

Who decides who has the power to enforce the rules? Surely, if everyone agrees with the rules, everyone can enforce them? What if the rules are vague enough that they need interpretation? Who interprets the generic rules for specific situations?

What we end up with is a situation where the explicit rules are agreed by the social group, but individuals may want to behave contrary to those rules, and where they are allowed to get away with that, implicit rules are created.

For example, my parents say that bedtime is at 8:00, but I know that if I start an argument between them at 7:55, I’ll be able to stay up until 9:00 until they calm down. I have learned that bedtime has both an explicit rule and an implicit rule, and the difference between them was caused by my parents’ failure to enforce the explicit rule.

In short, people will get away with whatever you allow them to.

Rules, laws and policies do not enforce themselves. People enforce rules. And when an individual's rules differ from the explicit rules of the social group, they teach those implicit rules to new members of the group. When those people also carry some perceived authority, they make their implicit rules more important than the explicit social rules, and the result, ultimately, is another sub-culture existing within the social group.

The gap between explicit social rules and implicit individual rules is the natural habitat of the manipulator.

This is the first extract from our forthcoming book, Revelation

Office Politics on Google

2009-06-23T17:20:00.005+01:00

We've been searching Google for a while now, looking for other sites and blogs that are working in the field that Revelation is in, and we haven't found much.

On the subject of manipulation, we have found literally a handful of books and websites that teach you how to be manipulative, how to use politics to climb the corporate ladder. Just don't walk underneath it.

We've had to resort to the search phrase 'office politics' which, to be honest, trivialises the importance of manipulation within business. It makes it sound as if someone's hiding the stapler and trying to get a desk by a window. Nothing to get excited about, it happens everywhere, live with it.

What if you don't want to live with it? What if you're experiencing manipulation on a level where it is affecting the performance, even the survival of your business?

Office politics, if we have to use that phrase, is doing more damage to businesses than the credit crunch. We have companies that are taking their focus off their core business and becoming the personal career vehicles of the minority of individuals. That can't be a good thing.

Gordon Ramsey has been putting restaurants right lately in Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares. What's interesting is that he does not set out to make any changes to the team culture of the restaurant, he doesn't get involved in staff issues, management issues or politics. He simply gets them to focus, relentlessly, on serving fresh, quality food. No gimmicks, discount coupons, special offers or flashing signs. Just good food. And what happens as a result of forcing the managers and staff to rally around the core business of the restaurant is that the culture changes. Passion, standards and accountability all change as a result.

When companies exist to serve the needs of individuals, something has gone very wrong; office politics has become the business plan.

Are you going to let that happen to you?

Fraud and Litigation

2009-06-20T10:26:00.003+01:00

This week, we went along to the first breakfast networking meeting at DMH Stallard in London, where, amongst other things, we heard about the problems of litigation in businesses. In the current economic climate, we were told, companies have failed because their contracts with customers or suppliers left them at a disadvantage. Some companies go to court to solve disputes rather than reading the contracts in the first place.

We also heard about the work that one company does in investigating fraud. They are usually called in after the 'crime' has already taken place in order to find evidence on people's computers, in emails etc.

Fraud and issues of contracts and litigation are apparently very costly for businesses, and in the current economic climate can make the difference in a company's survival.

What happens when no crime has been committed and no trail of evidence has been left?

What happens in situations where manipulation, power, politics and hidden agendas are destroying the business as surely as fraud, yet you can't rely on the lawyers after its too late?

At Revelation, our job is to uncover the hidden agendas where the manipulation takes place out in public, in meetings, in presentations as well as at the coffee machine or after everyone else has gone home for the night.

We reveal the issues that are just as damaging to your business - before it's too late.

The Apprentice

2009-06-20T09:38:00.004+01:00

BWA Radio, mentioned in the next post, is run by Peter Roper, and in his own blog he reviews the final of The Apprentice, which you may follow on TV.

Peter's blog post is a description of the events that transpired during the final, and the writer suggests that the final decision rested on the price of a box of chocolates.

As usual, there may be more to this than meets the eye.

According to the runner-up, Kate Walsh, Sir Alan Sugar wanted to hire her too but BBC red tape wouldn't let him. Those nasty bureaucrats.

In the post-final review show, 'You're Fired', Adrian Chiles interviewed Sir Alan about his decision, and about his thoughts on Kate. Now I don't recall his exact words, but they were something like this:

'Kate will be fine, I have no concerns about Kate, and I've given her my private email address and my phone number and told her that she can call me 24/7 if she needs any advice'

24/7? How nice for her. Honestly, Sir Alan, if you do want to give out your private contact details to young girls, don't announce the fact on live national TV.

And don't forget that Kate had a brief romance with one of the other contestants, just to make sure that she was the cat amongst the pigeons in the penthouse.

As Adrian Chiles says in his blog, "she wasn't mourning for him once he'd left, was she?".

So what does Kate get out of being runner-up? Maximum publicity, Sir Alan Sugar's private email address and of course she doesn't actually have to work for him (as the winner does). All of the benefits of being on the show with none of the downsides.

I'm not saying she threw it, just that every cloud has a sugared lining.

Revelation on the radio... sort of

2009-06-20T09:20:00.003+01:00

We're recording two interviews for BWA (Business With Attitude) Radio next week, which is an Internet Podcast radio station. You sign up to the newsletter and download the shows that you want to listen to. It's new, so we can't tell you where to download it just yet, all being well the BWA Radio web page may even have some information on it some time soon. We'll keep you posted.

A woman in a man's world

2009-06-10T16:06:00.006+01:00

According to the Observer Magazine, reported via the BBC, Marks & Spencer chairman Sir Stuart Rose says that women "have never had it so good".

"Girls today have never had it so good, right? Apart from the fact that you've got more equality than you ever can deal with, the fact of the matter is that you've got real democracy and there really are no glass ceilings, despite the fact that some of you moan about it all the time."

A woman on one of our coaching programs was telling us about her career options. Over the course of her career, she has been very lucky to have been offered many exciting opportunities which she mostly accepts. She works hard, loves working with people, has excellent management skills and likes a challenge. Doesn't she sound perfect?

She has been seconded to a project where she has to organise meetings with senior managers. She says that she feels uncomfortable telling senior managers what to do, and that she would feel ever so much more comfortable doing it if they promoted her. Once in the meeting, she becomes timid and says that she feels really nervous and uncomfortable telling those senior managers what to do. They say that she doesn't look nervous. She says she does. They say she doesn't. Yes I do, no you don't. Ooh, you are awful, but I like you. And then she can tell them what to do. But of course, if they promoted her, she would feel ever so much more comfortable doing the things she does anyway.

This is a very interesting situation, because it turns out that she has excelled at maneuvering herself into positions where the right person offers her the right opportunity out of the blue, and what a lovely surprise, and how lucky she was. And of course, the right person was always a man.

There is a slightly sad aspect to this. Essentially her control strategy is to get into a position where the person that she wants something from offers it to her as if it was their idea. She graciously accepts, except when she doesn't. This is a control strategy because if she just asked them for it, they could say no, putting them in control. If they ask her, she can say hmmm... let me think... weeeeellllll go on then. You've talked me into it. I'm doing you a favour, though. She is in control.

When we suggested that she tells her manager that she wants the promotion, she said that she couldn't say that, she couldn't be so direct.

The danger for her, and others who use this strategy, is that asking for what she wants puts her in far more control than all the waiting and hoping. While she is waiting for the right person to recognise and reward her, the business is evolving and changing. Fast. The business is moving so quickly that her strategy doesn't work any more, because it needs plenty of time for her to set up the control relationship with the person who has what she wants. The managers might well think she's very good at her job, but they don't know what she wants, so they have to focus on the people who are driving the business, not the ones sitting on the bench, hoping to be noticed.

In fact, they just hired someone who will likely develop into a manager to encompass the area that she wants to move into, so now she has to start over, looking for a different route to the top. The clock is ticking faster and faster, and by the time she realises that she is more likely to get what she wants if she asks for it, it will be too late.

I hope that Sir Stuart Rose knows enough about these things to realise what he's saying. Some women will get to the top, on their own merits. Some people - men and women - will never get to the top because they need someone else to be there first, pulling them along. They don't want to be at the top. From the point of view of a manipulator, if you're at the top, who is left to manipulate anyway?

Why is he/her/it still in that band?

2009-05-19T14:36:00.003+01:00

Have you ever wondered why a band (pop group etc.) keeps certain members despite the absence of any apparent musical talent?

Last night on the TV quiz show, 'Never Mind the Buzzcocks', the presenter was questioning a panellist's bizarre choice of instruments in his band's music, such as a double bass. The panellist replied that the girl that played the double bass in the band had claimed to have found the note that gives her an orgasm. I don't see them asking her to leave the band just yet....

Imagine the conversation... "She's rubbish, we've got to get rid of her".... "Hey boys, guess what I've found".... "Actually, maybe we should keep her in the band, I mean her playing off key adds an interesting dimension to the harmony".... etc. etc.

A very well known pop group that has been around since the early 80s has had many changes of band members, especially in the first few years of their significant fame. The only three members of the band who have been around since the start of their mainstream success are the lead singer and the two backing singers/dancers/ornamental figurines.

The story goes that some of the band members were in a nightclub and saw these two girls dancing. They said "Hey, do you want to join our band?" and the girls said "OK".

Soon afterwards, the band were booked to be on a popular TV show, so they asked the girls to appear with them and the rest is history.

Except.... many people ask "why?" The lead singer has been in long term relationships with both of them at various times. The other members of the band left and formed other, very successful bands. It is difficult to see what value the girls add. They certainly struggle to sing in tune. If you look at the careers of the various musicians who have been in the band, you can clearly see where the talent lies, or lay.

Imagine this alternate scenario. The boys in the nightclub want to impress the girls so they think that saying they have a band will entice the girls back to their places, because girls in nightclubs love pop stars. Since they do actually have a band they think they're onto a winner. In fact, the girls have already snared the boys long before the boys had this marvellous idea. They may or may not have known that the boys were almost famous pop stars, but they certainly will have made the first move on the oblivious boys.

Later, when the TV opportunity comes up, the boys are absolutely certain that this will ensure their wicked way with the girls. Once again, the girls are way ahead of them. So way ahead, in fact, that when any of the boys voice their concerns that the girls are getting in the way of the creative process, it's the boys who leave the band. The boys probably get very frustrated that the girls seem to be pulling the strings and manipulating the lead singer. They are possibly also frustrated that the girls are more interested in the lead singer than them. "Humph", they snort, "We'll take our synthesisers somewhere that we'll have a say in the direction of the band". And off they stomp, telling the journalists that the split was over musical differences, because they would never admit it was because the girls weren't interested in them.

30 years later, and one of the girls appears on a women's radio talk show talking about creativity and the role of women. The band tour. The girls sway in time to the music. They release more albums. Everyone is happy. And all they had to do was flutter their eyelashes in a night club.

Why do people do that?

2009-05-16T07:45:00.003+01:00

Last night my brother in law asked, "When we go into an empty cafe, why is it that when someone else comes in, and they could sit anywhere, they sit next to us?" My sister and her husband like their privacy, you see.

"Last week, we were in a cafe and a couple came in and they sat right behind us! And then all they did was argue the whole time they were there", he said. My sister added, "We picked up our trays and moved".

Why do people do that? If all they were going to do was argue, why sit next to the only other people in the cafe instead of finding themselves a quiet corner?

Because they wanted an audience...