|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings!
June. A month of shock and awe for some, and surprises for many. A month which saw the new coalition's 'emergency' budget and the World Cup dominate headlines, as well (sic!) as BP - all of which feature in this month's newsletter, epitomising some good and other not so good aspects of business management.
For example: people were asked to judge the coalition's financial management based on the concept of fairness. Risky, because these things are very partisan - yet perhaps being in coalition has muted a strong reaction to a harsh (but, well, you fill in the gap) budget. Our concern is more about a claim to openness - where, as with previous long-serving Chancellors, the devil is in the detail. It appears that more subtle consequences are emerging around CGT and other taxes. We look at communication - and credibility.
We also look at the potential impact of Cameron's desire for 'Big Society' and its consequences for voluntary groups and charities.
The World Cup results for England and France brought disappointment to fans. Many will rage about tactics, 'overpaid' footballers, selfish behaviour and disallowed goals. We ask whether business has anything to contribute in terms of team management and conflict.
And so to BP. Much has been hypothesised about their ballooning costs, poor risk management, and a $20Bn budget. We simply ask whether their Executive Leadership managed the initial stages of the problem with an eye to reputation management - and ask whether in a less dramatic way, you would be properly prepared to answer critics in an emergency or disaster.
As ever, you are also welcome to share your views on these and other opinions on our 'blog, and read our latest utterances on twitter. |
|
| Communicating change. Credibly...
Commentators rightly criticised the way in which Gordon Brown, and to a lesser extent Alastair Darling, used their Budget speech to make positive headline-grabbing announcements, and then use the Treasury documents to detail the actual cost of their decisions, including unannounced tax changes. The 10p tax fiasco in 2008 and the Trusts secret tax grab of 2006 are just two examples of the problems that 'back-door' tax rises can cause, both resulting in humiliating climbdowns, with the 10p rate reversal costing another £2.7Bn. Small beer, as it would turn out...
So, if Cameron promised in 2007 that there would be no hidden tax rises in a Conservative budget...why the furore about tax drag and hidden CGT costs in the very first coalition budget.
Oakview is apolitical, so makes no comment. Except to ask whether business can learn anything from this approach so early in the new government's life...
Trust is important: mostly, people want to be able to believe their leaders. Can your people trust you - do you do as you say, or expect others to accept the way things are.
Read our view on the need for organisational trust to be seen and demonstrated here. |
Big Society vision - big voluntary sector challenges!
There is one change which both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are keen on, which is the need to increasingly involve and invite the voluntary sector to help take responsibility for some of the more difficult societal problems faced by the country.
One flaw could quickly emerge as we head for the Comprehensive Spending Review announced for this autumn. If this sector is important to government, some thought needs to be given to how and whether many organisations have the capacity and/or capability to manage - particularly as they will be asked to take on more responsibility with less resource.
There are many charities and voluntary organisations supporting those less fortunate in some way, from major international and nationally based organisations such as the Red Cross, the RSPCA, or the one that Oakview supports, the NSPCC. There are a great many around which rely hugely on the goodwill and zeal of their supporters for income and management - and are perhaps less 'professionally' managed.
That might need to change! For example, we know of at least three organisations in need of stronger financial controls, or which require greater attention to the effective and economic means of delivering their services. Some we are mentoring through; others we know have other professionals helping. We are concerned about how many others might need help, and whether they can afford it...
The question is whether they have the capability and capacity to take on much more, with lower incomes than currently experienced. We've blogged about it here, and hope other more powerful voices take up this concern.
Before it's too late, and these organisations - and their dependents - suffer from trying to do more than they are able, and failing to deliver to the needed standards.
For more information, please contact us by email, or by calling 08448 484853. |
Managing changes: conflict
 Amongst the glamour of the World Cup, two massively contrasting issues stand out - and the lessons for business could be as stark as these.
One, of course, is the anticipated brilliance and ongoing success of South American football, which has been a joy to watch: the other is the almost self-destructive attitude seen in some camps - most notoriously the French, although the England camp has seen some shoddy and self-serving behaviour too. More than just Capello's decision to put a non-scoring forward in the field at the very time when we need to score goals...
Research shows that team members who share a common goal and a sense of success are more likely to feel positive about their work, and view conflict constructively. In self-aware teams such as those, people see different views and opinions as a means to drive improved performance - and when handled effectively, they are a way of increasing trust and enhancing creativity and innovation.
On the other hand, failure often creates conflict, especially when people react by blaming each other rather than taking responsibility for their own actions.
In the middle of conflict, team members respond by pulling back and protecting themselves. They stop sharing information, helping each other out and talking openly. These behaviours add to the initial problem, leading to a vicious cycle of destructive actions. Witness the debacle over John Terry, Frank Lampard and Fabio Capello openly contradicting each other within twenty-four hours of the opening salvo from the former England captain, who in his own simplistic way might have seen the drab draws as a way of extracting revenge on the man who withdrew his captaincy.
|
|
BP. Reputation Management - oh, well...
 One might have hoped that one of the biggest businesses in the world might have had crisis training for their executives, and some better idea about reputation management than has been evident over these last few weeks.
And one also hopes that anyone reading this might look beneath the stories about Hayward, denial compensation funds and missed dividends - and think about whether they have the ability to cope if something catastrophic happend to their business, especially if it impacted severely on those on whom they depend for income or resource.
We use several key principles when dealing with reputation management in a crisis:
- Ownership - who owns the problem, when will they make a decision; what are the potential consequences of communicating...against not doing so;
- Perception - what you know counts for less than people believe. BP will not recover from the belief that they deliberately misled the public about the scale of the disaster;
- Speed - with every passing hour of silence, reputation suffers... 'nuff said;
- Openness - accept the need to tell truth, it will probably help allay suspicions, and possibly help gain the moral high ground;
- Empathy - get them onside. Or, as it seems here, not.
In keeping with the reputational bias within this newsletter, and without claiming presience, please look back at some of the blogs written in the last six months - and then ask whether you would have or could have handled things differently. Honestly. |
|
Oakview Consulting Limited is registered at Companies House in England and Wales under Company number 6781824, and its registered office is at 71B High Street, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes, MK11 1AY
This email and any information contained within it or any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient(s) of this communication, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken on reliance on it, is done so with any admission of liability on the part of the sender, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately return it to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from your computer. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Oakview Consulting Limited does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
While we have taken every reasonable precaution to minimise the risk of software viruses, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of opening this email. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
P Before printing this e-mail, please think whether you really need a hardcopy and do your bit for the environment
| |
|
|
|
|
