1 00:00:03,540 --> 00:00:08,100 Well, thank you. As they say after that introduction, I can't wait to hear what I'm going to say to you. 2 00:00:09,510 --> 00:00:17,100 And before I start, I've got about 60 slides and we've got about 60 minutes, and my normal delivery is one slide per minute. 3 00:00:17,100 --> 00:00:24,570 So you'll be all right. We will get to the wine on time. But notwithstanding that, could you interrupt if anything's not clear? 4 00:00:25,170 --> 00:00:31,080 Because I'm anxious that I give you something useful as well as that which I thought you might like to know. 5 00:00:31,320 --> 00:00:38,490 So please do interrupt if if something needs clarifying and I'll catch up the time and we will get to the wine in time. 6 00:00:39,060 --> 00:00:45,990 So you've already heard my CV. I started off as a physicist and soon found that there was no money in physics. 7 00:00:45,990 --> 00:00:50,520 So I went into business. I ran some companies for seven years. 8 00:00:50,820 --> 00:00:55,200 I then got fired. We're talking about managing people, managing teams. 9 00:00:55,560 --> 00:00:57,870 I was the managing director of APL Sea. 10 00:00:58,170 --> 00:01:04,950 Fighting with the chairman and board meetings is a really bad idea if you want to promote a successful management career. 11 00:01:05,190 --> 00:01:10,350 So I got fired. I was then unemployed or a consultant, as we call them in Oxford, 12 00:01:10,860 --> 00:01:17,520 and I met some rich guys who wanted to invest in technology based businesses and we started a couple. 13 00:01:17,670 --> 00:01:24,600 Oxford asymmetry was sold for 300 million. The university made 11 million for a cash investment of zero. 14 00:01:24,930 --> 00:01:31,829 They thought this was a good idea. So they recruited me to build a business innovation so they could have more spin outs. 15 00:01:31,830 --> 00:01:34,860 And that's what I did for ten years after I retired. 16 00:01:34,860 --> 00:01:38,910 From there I joined a couple of companies as a non exec. 17 00:01:39,120 --> 00:01:47,579 So you can say I started my life in industry, dabbled in finance, dabbled in academia, and now I'm sort of back in industry as well. 18 00:01:47,580 --> 00:01:50,940 So it really achieved nothing going round all this pain and anguish. 19 00:01:50,940 --> 00:01:59,190 But this will explain to you some of my prejudices. And now I'm supposed to be talking to you about managing people, managing teams. 20 00:01:59,520 --> 00:02:03,180 And the first thing the first point to make is it really matters. 21 00:02:04,350 --> 00:02:09,089 Everything that's done in the company is done by a person. And if you're not going to do it all yourself, 22 00:02:09,090 --> 00:02:15,750 you need to be getting other good at getting other people to do what you want them to do, which may well not be what they want to do. 23 00:02:16,950 --> 00:02:21,269 I've seen more companies fail through lack of cohesion than any other cause. 24 00:02:21,270 --> 00:02:25,380 I mean, sometimes the market fails, sometimes the technology fails. 25 00:02:25,650 --> 00:02:32,640 But with a great market and a great technology, incompetent management can wreck a huge amount of shareholder value. 26 00:02:33,030 --> 00:02:37,770 And that being so, I think it's probably worth spending an evening thinking about this stuff. 27 00:02:38,730 --> 00:02:45,360 When the going gets tough. You don't want to have to start building relationships with the people you work with. 28 00:02:45,750 --> 00:02:47,459 And very early in my career, 29 00:02:47,460 --> 00:02:53,550 the first managing director job I had was for one of the subsidiaries of one of the companies in the Oxford Instruments Group, 30 00:02:54,120 --> 00:02:57,989 and a colleague of mine was the managing director of Oxford Medical Systems, 31 00:02:57,990 --> 00:03:04,620 which was based in Abingdon, but had a subsidiary in Florida run by an American called Jack Frost. 32 00:03:05,220 --> 00:03:13,830 And my friend and the head of the American subsidiary used to meet once a month, either in the UK or in the States. 33 00:03:14,190 --> 00:03:18,179 And this seemed to me a terrible waste of money on trans-Atlantic airfares. 34 00:03:18,180 --> 00:03:27,120 And I said to my friend, Why do you do this? And he said, Well, it's important for us to communicate with each other when we're not having problems, 35 00:03:27,120 --> 00:03:32,849 so that when we are having problems, the communication is already open, he said. 36 00:03:32,850 --> 00:03:34,890 It's a bit like a concert pianist. 37 00:03:35,220 --> 00:03:43,200 Concert pianist spend a long time playing the piano when nobody is listening so that when people are listening, it all comes out right. 38 00:03:43,530 --> 00:03:46,260 And I think this is a theme through my talk, really. 39 00:03:46,680 --> 00:03:54,390 If you communicate when you're not under stress, when you are under stress, at least you've got viable communication channels open. 40 00:03:55,260 --> 00:04:02,100 So if you're going to run a business, if you're going to manage a piece of a business, see this as an important part of the job, 41 00:04:02,340 --> 00:04:10,350 not a personal characteristic of you as a manager, but as a professional skill that if you're good at your life, will be easier and more successful. 42 00:04:10,350 --> 00:04:15,509 So it's a professional skill. Many managers never get themselves any training in this subject. 43 00:04:15,510 --> 00:04:17,010 They think they can make it up. 44 00:04:18,570 --> 00:04:25,170 It's a major risk if you get it wrong, as I'll well as I demonstrated in my own career when I got fired from Michael Vick. 45 00:04:26,460 --> 00:04:33,150 So transactional analysis is a way of looking and structuring the interaction between two people. 46 00:04:33,750 --> 00:04:38,819 And I've just spent ten weeks on a part time course on this. 47 00:04:38,820 --> 00:04:45,210 You can spend four years covering this. I'm going to tell you about it in about 4 minutes. 48 00:04:45,780 --> 00:04:50,010 So this will be a superficial presentation, but if you're interested in it, it's worth looking. 49 00:04:50,340 --> 00:04:55,800 The idea is that each of us can operate in one of three ego states. 50 00:04:55,830 --> 00:05:02,460 These are conveniently enabled labels parent, adult and child when we're operating. 51 00:05:02,490 --> 00:05:13,200 Being in a parent state, we are supporting, we are using our experience and we have some pat responses we give people when we're operating in adult. 52 00:05:13,200 --> 00:05:24,420 It's all about data processing facts, reporting back, asking for reports back and of course the resulting gratification of being adult about things. 53 00:05:25,020 --> 00:05:33,240 And finally, when we're behaving in child, it's all about intuition, creativity, spontaneity, having fun, enjoyment. 54 00:05:33,900 --> 00:05:37,710 None of these are more important than the others. They're equally respectable. 55 00:05:37,800 --> 00:05:41,010 And we all do. All of them. Some people do, some more than others. 56 00:05:42,150 --> 00:05:46,050 And these on the standard transactional analysis diagram, these are shown as three blobs. 57 00:05:47,070 --> 00:05:57,000 Now, if we initiate an interaction with someone, we'll label ourselves as the agent and they can label them as the respondent. 58 00:05:57,810 --> 00:06:02,790 Let's look what happens. So I say something to you and you respond. 59 00:06:03,150 --> 00:06:10,320 A stimulus and a response. This is all pretty straightforward, but it gets quite complex in a minute. 60 00:06:10,500 --> 00:06:13,950 So let's look at a transaction. 61 00:06:14,220 --> 00:06:20,460 I arrive at Oxford Railway Station and there's someone in the booking hall sitting on the seat sobbing. 62 00:06:21,540 --> 00:06:25,530 I walk up to this person and say, Is there anything I can do to help? 63 00:06:26,910 --> 00:06:29,340 And they say, Yes, 64 00:06:29,340 --> 00:06:39,060 I've just had some really bad news and I've got to get home to Birmingham and I don't know what time the train is and I'm very distraught about it. 65 00:06:39,930 --> 00:06:45,570 So this is me taking a parent role, inviting them to respond in a child role. 66 00:06:45,780 --> 00:06:50,940 In other words, I'm saying I've got the power. Can I use my power to help your problem? 67 00:06:51,240 --> 00:06:56,280 And this is called a complimentary transaction and it's all very comfortable because I can go and look up the train 68 00:06:56,280 --> 00:07:03,149 times and help them and that and they'll feel cared for and I'll feel smug and that'll be a complimentary transaction. 69 00:07:03,150 --> 00:07:06,630 So that's nice. Let us now look at what can go wrong. 70 00:07:06,840 --> 00:07:13,050 And this is called a cross transaction. Same scenario I go and say can do anything to help. 71 00:07:13,470 --> 00:07:19,170 They stand up, smack me on the nose and say, Who the [INAUDIBLE] do you think you are coming interfering in my life. 72 00:07:19,800 --> 00:07:23,550 In other words, they're telling me what I'm doing wrong. So they're being parent. 73 00:07:23,550 --> 00:07:27,960 I'm being parent. And there's a lot of pain involved. You see this all the time, 74 00:07:28,260 --> 00:07:36,060 but this is an across transaction and the only way out of it is for one or other of us what we can either separate and break the transaction off, 75 00:07:36,300 --> 00:07:44,890 or for one or other of us to change roles. For example, I could move into an adult role and say, I'm terribly sorry, I just am. 76 00:07:45,000 --> 00:07:48,390 And then I start reporting, which is a characteristic of adult behaviour. 77 00:07:49,110 --> 00:07:55,050 I want to help, but if you'll fine, I'll go away and I apologise for it, for disturbing you. 78 00:07:55,410 --> 00:07:57,000 And they say, well actually no I did. 79 00:07:57,190 --> 00:08:04,080 Then they can go adult and say I did overreact a bit, but perhaps you could just give me a hand lifting this big heavy case off the platform. 80 00:08:04,440 --> 00:08:08,009 So that's the basis of transactional analysis. 81 00:08:08,010 --> 00:08:10,710 Now, there's a lot more to it than that. 82 00:08:11,250 --> 00:08:19,739 And the important point, I think, is that each of these three aspects is entitled to equal respect and has a legitimate place in life. 83 00:08:19,740 --> 00:08:23,580 So if you're always childish, you shouldn't feel bad about it. 84 00:08:23,580 --> 00:08:25,350 You may be a creative genius. 85 00:08:26,160 --> 00:08:34,920 This was the system was initiated by Rick Byrne in 1964 and there's a couple more books here, one by him, one by someone else. 86 00:08:34,920 --> 00:08:39,660 This word joins is not a typing error. He really is called Van Jones. 87 00:08:40,110 --> 00:08:44,730 So if you're interested in that, that's all I want to tell you about transactional analysis. 88 00:08:46,230 --> 00:08:52,620 Let's now get on to leadership styles. I'm talking I'm still talking as I was last time about 1 to 1. 89 00:08:52,620 --> 00:09:03,239 Relationships will do one to many later on. If you look at the ways leaders can operate, you could characterise it in two orthogonal dimensions. 90 00:09:03,240 --> 00:09:06,660 So you could say, how supportive are they? 91 00:09:06,960 --> 00:09:10,560 In other words, do they care what you, the people being led, think? 92 00:09:11,040 --> 00:09:15,900 And the other is how directive are they? Do they tell you what to do or do they trust you? 93 00:09:16,800 --> 00:09:23,340 And if you spread, if you define for styles of leadership around this sector one sector, 94 00:09:23,340 --> 00:09:28,380 two sector, three sector for that sometimes called type one, type two, type three, type four. 95 00:09:28,710 --> 00:09:35,640 If we just look at the bottom left hand corner type one leadership, highly directive, low supportive. 96 00:09:36,060 --> 00:09:43,260 If I smell smoke, I will tell you to get out of the lecture room quickly using the doors at the back. 97 00:09:43,410 --> 00:09:46,080 I don't want a discussion. I want you out now. 98 00:09:46,290 --> 00:09:54,150 That's type one leadership and that's the way you work when you've got subordinates whose capabilities you're not sure about. 99 00:09:54,990 --> 00:09:58,350 And similarly, you can go round the the chart. 100 00:09:58,470 --> 00:10:01,860 Now you can describe these for. 101 00:10:01,960 --> 00:10:05,770 Stiles is directing, coaching, supporting and delegating. 102 00:10:06,280 --> 00:10:11,530 And with different members of your team, you may have to use different styles. 103 00:10:12,520 --> 00:10:15,610 The important thing is that as you go round the chart, 104 00:10:16,210 --> 00:10:23,890 you don't want to miss out any steps and the progress you make if you define progress as moving from right to left depends 105 00:10:23,890 --> 00:10:29,500 on the stage of the development of the people that you're trying to manage or the person you're trying to manage. 106 00:10:30,250 --> 00:10:35,350 And of course, your skill. I will assume that having been on this course, you will all be supremely skilled. 107 00:10:36,370 --> 00:10:39,630 Not all members of your team will be at this at the same stage. 108 00:10:39,640 --> 00:10:40,550 They never are. 109 00:10:40,900 --> 00:10:51,130 You may well have people in your team who are very unself confident and who really do need you to tell them what to do every half day or so. 110 00:10:51,550 --> 00:10:58,480 They may well be members of your team who are so good at what they do and know you so well and who you trust so well 111 00:10:58,750 --> 00:11:04,840 that you just see them once a month when they come over from the States and they get on with doing what they do. 112 00:11:05,200 --> 00:11:13,960 So different members of the team can be at a different stage, but as you and your team progress, you and the individuals in your team progress. 113 00:11:14,260 --> 00:11:16,570 It is dangerous to miss out a stage. 114 00:11:16,990 --> 00:11:25,450 For example, if you've been working with someone who works for you and you've been directing them and you suddenly start delegating stuff for them, 115 00:11:25,840 --> 00:11:33,130 it may well be a symptom of you just having got fed up of telling them what to do and you're not delegating, you're abdicating. 116 00:11:33,610 --> 00:11:40,450 What's more, they will probably well, if you're lucky, they might lift up the baton, but on the other hand, they may just collapse under the strain. 117 00:11:41,470 --> 00:11:48,430 Similarly, if you've been supporting someone in fear in Sector three and you suddenly start telling them what to do, 118 00:11:48,760 --> 00:11:54,069 they will be very demotivated because they've been used to low direction from you 119 00:11:54,070 --> 00:11:59,800 and high support and suddenly they're getting strong direction and no support. 120 00:12:00,850 --> 00:12:09,220 And jumping straight from coaching to delegating may also destroy confidence because, you know, suddenly I've got no support anymore. 121 00:12:09,430 --> 00:12:13,959 Doesn't my boss love me? So you can make up your own examples. 122 00:12:13,960 --> 00:12:19,960 But it is important, I think, to know where each of your team are in their relations to you on this chart. 123 00:12:20,260 --> 00:12:25,540 And take take it step by step. And of course, you can go both ways if someone's struggling. 124 00:12:25,780 --> 00:12:29,590 You may need to move back a notch until their self-confidence gets going. 125 00:12:31,130 --> 00:12:34,470 Let's look at the variables in these relationships. 126 00:12:34,490 --> 00:12:37,880 The first one is the self-confidence of the person who's working for you. 127 00:12:39,020 --> 00:12:42,140 The second is your confidence in them. 128 00:12:43,390 --> 00:12:48,510 Third one is their confidence in you and of course, your confidence in yourself. 129 00:12:48,540 --> 00:12:56,820 Now, I will assume for the purposes of this course, that everybody's full of self-confidence and they enjoy the confidence of their subordinates. 130 00:12:56,850 --> 00:12:58,889 This is not, of course, always the case, 131 00:12:58,890 --> 00:13:08,980 but it's it suffices to make that assumption for the illustration that follows as the relationship moves around the chart. 132 00:13:09,000 --> 00:13:16,530 It's interesting to look how the other two vary, the other two being the subordinates self-confidence and your confidence in them. 133 00:13:17,520 --> 00:13:24,870 So we start in directing. Your confidence in them is low and their self-confidence is low and you tell them 134 00:13:24,870 --> 00:13:28,770 what to do and they feel cared for and you feel in control of the business. 135 00:13:29,260 --> 00:13:37,950 And then as you move around the chart, your confidence in them increases and hopefully their sole self-confidence increases as well. 136 00:13:37,960 --> 00:13:42,570 So they become more and more autonomous as your relationship progresses. 137 00:13:42,930 --> 00:13:48,240 And that's great while it's all going well. But let's look what happens when it goes the other way. 138 00:13:48,570 --> 00:13:52,320 Assuming you've got someone who works for you and you've been delegating to them and 139 00:13:52,320 --> 00:13:56,190 you've given them objectives every four months and they've been delivering the goods, 140 00:13:56,190 --> 00:14:03,030 and if they've had problems, they've asked for help. But most of the time they're good and their work starts to fall off for whatever reason. 141 00:14:03,270 --> 00:14:06,490 Maybe a work related reason, maybe a non-work-related reason. 142 00:14:07,260 --> 00:14:13,620 Then your confidence in them starts reducing. But we have no idea what's happening to their self self-confidence. 143 00:14:13,620 --> 00:14:16,950 They may still feel they're doing a great job, but you know they're not. 144 00:14:17,550 --> 00:14:18,810 This is really tricky. 145 00:14:19,050 --> 00:14:26,950 And unless you can actually find time to sit and watch this relationship, you only find out about this when there's a huge crisis. 146 00:14:26,970 --> 00:14:31,470 And what I'm hoping to do is sensitise you to it so you see it before there's much blood. 147 00:14:32,450 --> 00:14:43,550 There's one other aspect of this that I should mention, and that is history, says this little man pulling his truck of gold walks in a path like that. 148 00:14:44,090 --> 00:14:51,110 And let's look what the truck knows. The truck goes to the left until he turns around and the string goes slack. 149 00:14:51,350 --> 00:14:57,380 Then the truck stops for a bit until the strings gone to the other way, and then the truck moves back the other way. 150 00:14:58,280 --> 00:15:06,380 The two important things to note about this is, one, there is a lag in the reaction of the truck to the change of direction of the little man. 151 00:15:07,010 --> 00:15:08,870 And so that will be with your people. 152 00:15:08,870 --> 00:15:16,190 If you change what you want to do, you should not assume that the whole team is going to change direction on a sixpence because it won't. 153 00:15:16,460 --> 00:15:23,030 First thing is, they have to work out what it is you wanted them to do. Then they have to stop doing the way doing things the way they did it before. 154 00:15:23,240 --> 00:15:31,360 Then they have to start doing it the way you want to do it. If you change direction sufficiently rapidly, they won't have a change at all. 155 00:15:31,370 --> 00:15:33,920 They'll just take the average of what they thought you wanted. 156 00:15:35,150 --> 00:15:39,620 The other thing to note is that the truck doesn't move with the same amplitude as the little man. 157 00:15:39,620 --> 00:15:44,270 And that's also the case with physical things, but may not be the case with people. 158 00:15:44,300 --> 00:15:51,800 If you've got your team dynamics right, you may get a much bigger energy from the response that you actually put in in the stimulus, 159 00:15:51,800 --> 00:15:57,740 and that's what makes it all worthwhile. And so that's enough about leadership and management. 160 00:15:57,770 --> 00:16:05,690 Let's now look at selection techniques, because a good way of successfully leading a team is to have a successful team. 161 00:16:06,500 --> 00:16:11,870 My colleague Tom Hockaday, who some of you may have met, who now runs ices, is one for the bond MMOs. 162 00:16:12,320 --> 00:16:15,320 And one of his bond Moz is that good people do good work. 163 00:16:15,320 --> 00:16:19,160 So when something when you see a piece of work that is really competently done. 164 00:16:19,610 --> 00:16:23,570 Surprise, surprise, it's done by a supremely competent person. 165 00:16:24,560 --> 00:16:29,210 HOCKADAY His second edict is equally illuminating, and that is that perhaps, 166 00:16:29,540 --> 00:16:40,190 perhaps if you meet an idiot and then you go and meet his or her boss, it turns out the boss is one as well, because who would employ an idiot? 167 00:16:40,340 --> 00:16:50,330 So good people do good work. So therefore, if you can, if you can select and assemble a winning team, your life will be a lot easier. 168 00:16:50,660 --> 00:16:57,410 So let me talk a bit about selection techniques and specifically I'm going to talk about interviews, psychometrics and networks. 169 00:16:58,220 --> 00:17:02,150 I mean, again, there's probably a two year course you can do on selection techniques. 170 00:17:02,420 --> 00:17:06,230 This is the ten minute version. So a bit about interviews. 171 00:17:07,550 --> 00:17:11,840 I've interviewed lots of people. I've been interviewed by lots of people. I've watched lots of interviews. 172 00:17:12,260 --> 00:17:20,360 And the first thing is to give you the health warning. You must avoid prejudice with respect to age, gender, sexual preference or race. 173 00:17:20,900 --> 00:17:25,550 Some people suggest that you should ask the same question to every candidate. 174 00:17:25,850 --> 00:17:32,600 I have been in organisations where I've been issued with a list of questions and you're not allowed to ask any other questions. 175 00:17:32,990 --> 00:17:37,340 This is the law and it doesn't work for an interview situation. 176 00:17:37,340 --> 00:17:45,170 I don't believe so. I'm not going to advise you to break the law, but I'm going to advise you to think rather than following. 177 00:17:49,000 --> 00:17:55,540 Strictly laid down rules because what you want to do is find out as much about the candidates as you possibly can. 178 00:17:57,410 --> 00:18:04,160 My approach is to ask factual rather than hypothetical questions, but always with an eye to the green stuff at the top. 179 00:18:06,140 --> 00:18:11,510 So before the interview and this is obvious study the advert and the job description you've written. 180 00:18:11,510 --> 00:18:19,130 I've been to interviews where I've seen the interviewer leafing through the job description on their desk while interviewing me. 181 00:18:19,140 --> 00:18:28,220 This is not good. So you may well have written the job description three months ago, or Job may have written the job description. 182 00:18:28,520 --> 00:18:35,299 But bear in mind that the person who's coming for the interview will have been reading this document all the way on the train as they came, 183 00:18:35,300 --> 00:18:41,410 so they will know what's in it. And you really need to know at least as much as they do about the job that you're interviewing them for. 184 00:18:43,330 --> 00:18:46,600 Really read their application before the interview day. 185 00:18:47,470 --> 00:18:53,160 I've seen managers who said, Oh, I'm on my way to some interviews now and I've not had time to read the CVS. 186 00:18:53,170 --> 00:19:01,960 This is stupid because hey, it's rude to the people you're trying to recruit and B you may well recruit the wrong person. 187 00:19:02,910 --> 00:19:07,410 And what I like to do is to look up their name and previous employers on the Web. 188 00:19:08,610 --> 00:19:13,770 You might even resort to Facebook. Don't forget, it's public information, so you're allowed to know it. 189 00:19:15,920 --> 00:19:18,920 Compare the facts in the application with what you have asked for. 190 00:19:19,160 --> 00:19:25,550 I make when I'm applying for a job, but when I'm recruiting for a job, I'll make a list of the key points and then I put down. 191 00:19:25,790 --> 00:19:30,229 If I'm applying for a job, how I meet all their requirements and if I'm recruiting, 192 00:19:30,230 --> 00:19:34,280 I look for how they meet all my requirements and just compare the facts. 193 00:19:35,510 --> 00:19:38,810 If there's a mismatch, it's not necessarily a no no. 194 00:19:39,770 --> 00:19:44,200 If the candidate has addressed it, note it as a discussion point. 195 00:19:44,210 --> 00:19:46,370 So, for example, if you've put in the job description, 196 00:19:46,610 --> 00:19:53,120 we're looking for three years in a senior management position and the candidate hasn't got three years in a senior management position. 197 00:19:53,120 --> 00:20:00,260 But you've still, for some reason, decided to interview them, investigate whether they thought about it, because it may be. 198 00:20:00,500 --> 00:20:08,680 Well, no, I haven't had three years in a senior management position, but I did actually start my own business and sold this lot of stuff. 199 00:20:08,690 --> 00:20:13,760 So although I didn't have any staff, I do actually understand the basics of profit loss and cashflow. 200 00:20:14,120 --> 00:20:20,180 So look for the mismatch. But don't say wrong. 201 00:20:21,290 --> 00:20:28,180 If they've addressed it. Look for gaps in the CV this, particularly if you're recruiting senior people. 202 00:20:28,900 --> 00:20:34,900 There's a standard trick in CV writing that if you've been to prison for a year, you don't put it on your CV. 203 00:20:35,950 --> 00:20:42,760 You say, You know, I was with such and such a company till 1997 and then from 2000 I was with this company. 204 00:20:42,940 --> 00:20:46,089 Now, if you see, that's all intakes is difficult to do. 205 00:20:46,090 --> 00:20:53,739 So what I do with complex CVS actually put them on a spreadsheet and this is my CV on the left 206 00:20:53,740 --> 00:20:59,140 hand side of the jobs I've had and the right hand side is the training I've had roughly. 207 00:20:59,380 --> 00:21:03,280 Now, I'm not suggesting you go to this multicoloured level with everybody you interview, 208 00:21:03,280 --> 00:21:09,940 but if you've got someone who's had ten jobs for a senior job, if you put this in, there'll be a white bit where they were in prison. 209 00:21:10,990 --> 00:21:17,650 So so it's it's sometimes worth going to this level of effort for a complicated CV and the senior job. 210 00:21:19,360 --> 00:21:25,329 And when you're interviewing people, it's better if there's more than one of you for several reasons. 211 00:21:25,330 --> 00:21:30,190 One, it's much easier to observe what's going on if you're not interacting at the time. 212 00:21:31,840 --> 00:21:36,510 It's important that you decide in advance with your colleague what it is you want to know. 213 00:21:36,520 --> 00:21:40,030 In other words, which bit of the CV do we want to dig into? 214 00:21:40,120 --> 00:21:46,040 Which part of the job do we really want to talk about? Decide with your colleague who will cover what? 215 00:21:46,840 --> 00:21:50,200 It's really bad manners to steal other people's questions. 216 00:21:50,650 --> 00:21:55,030 So I would suggest that for this exercise you use a pro forma. 217 00:21:55,300 --> 00:22:01,840 This is the one I use, design it yourself, fill in as much as you can in advance. 218 00:22:01,840 --> 00:22:08,050 I have name at the top and I always write the first name of the candidate in large block capitals there. 219 00:22:08,350 --> 00:22:12,160 It's really embarrassing when you're interviewing someone if you forget their name. 220 00:22:12,400 --> 00:22:18,820 So if is at the top right hand corner so your eyes don't have to go down very far, you can address them by name. 221 00:22:19,630 --> 00:22:28,060 The personality and appearance is already getting a bit iffy from the legal point of view because on the other hand, 222 00:22:28,060 --> 00:22:33,880 if it's a job where personality and appearance is a key requirement, then I think it's allowable. 223 00:22:34,420 --> 00:22:38,799 I put down under education and career progression most recent first. 224 00:22:38,800 --> 00:22:46,360 So I'll put year company what they did and the rest I fill in as the interview proceeds. 225 00:22:46,360 --> 00:22:55,420 But before we start the interview on the questions, I'll have two or three words for each question and who's going to ask it. 226 00:22:56,470 --> 00:23:01,720 So finish as much as you can in advance. You don't have to fill it in in sequence as bits come out in the conversation, 227 00:23:01,720 --> 00:23:06,340 particularly if there's two of you, your colleague can draw the file while you write something down on here. 228 00:23:08,560 --> 00:23:11,560 Identify the order of questions and who asks what. 229 00:23:12,700 --> 00:23:14,440 Don't write stuff you may regret. 230 00:23:14,740 --> 00:23:22,420 Sometimes if you're in a problematical interview with a really dull person, you can make yourself feel better by writing down this guy. 231 00:23:22,570 --> 00:23:26,110 Very boring, and it may amuse your colleague who's sitting next to you. 232 00:23:26,260 --> 00:23:32,110 This is a really bad idea because if they don't get the job and if they then sue you, 233 00:23:32,470 --> 00:23:41,740 this document may well be disclosed in a court of law and your side doesn't look very good if you're writing that sort of thing down on the interview. 234 00:23:41,740 --> 00:23:47,860 So so just bear in mind, this piece of paper may well be read by someone who doesn't like you. 235 00:23:49,360 --> 00:23:53,800 So that then brings us on to what to ask and what to not what not to ask. 236 00:23:54,220 --> 00:23:58,510 I am not from the confrontational school of interviewing. 237 00:23:58,840 --> 00:24:08,950 I like to start with an easy one about their CV. It's usually can you expand on on this bit it's not a pressurised thing gets them going. 238 00:24:11,090 --> 00:24:18,500 Always ask factual. Ask factual questions because people are much, much less likely to exaggerate or lie about facts. 239 00:24:19,160 --> 00:24:23,060 So if you say, would you say you were a competent sales manager? 240 00:24:23,300 --> 00:24:27,920 What they're going to answer if you say, what's the biggest sales team you've ever managed? 241 00:24:28,160 --> 00:24:32,360 They might stretch it a bit, but they won't lie outright. 242 00:24:33,290 --> 00:24:37,760 Don't ask hypothetical questions. Do you think you could manage a team like the one we have? 243 00:24:38,510 --> 00:24:42,800 What are you going to say? Don't tell them the answer in advance. 244 00:24:43,130 --> 00:24:47,240 We are looking for someone bright and entrepreneurial. How would you describe yourself? 245 00:24:48,410 --> 00:24:51,650 And so they'll pretend to think. I think I'm quite bright and aren't. 246 00:24:51,680 --> 00:24:55,370 Yeah. I mean, these are all real. 247 00:24:56,600 --> 00:25:00,870 But one of the do things is ask open questions. When. 248 00:25:00,910 --> 00:25:06,020 When your brain is getting a bit jumbled in the middle of one of these things, remember the two words? 249 00:25:06,050 --> 00:25:09,200 Tell me. Because if you say Tell me about. 250 00:25:09,200 --> 00:25:15,890 And then anything on the piece of paper in front of you that gets you off the hook and gives you time to recover your presence of mind. 251 00:25:16,820 --> 00:25:25,420 But then. Whilst whilst they're telling you about whatever it was you've asked them, ask them to expand on it. 252 00:25:25,420 --> 00:25:29,090 So how successful was it? Oh, the turnover shot up. 253 00:25:29,420 --> 00:25:34,310 But look for facts in the answer. What was the turnover before and what was the turnover afterwards? 254 00:25:34,340 --> 00:25:38,750 Oh, it was three quid and then it was five quid. Now, that's not that's not what we're looking for. 255 00:25:38,780 --> 00:25:43,460 If it was 3 million, then it was five. And when you say it was 5 million, was that in your section? 256 00:25:43,610 --> 00:25:46,610 Oh, no. That was the company's turnover. There was another product. 257 00:25:46,610 --> 00:25:56,509 There was nothing to do with me. So all the time facts are much more difficult to exaggerate and how, why and when not? 258 00:25:56,510 --> 00:26:00,450 Questions with a yes or no answer, you know. Did you think this was successful? 259 00:26:00,470 --> 00:26:04,370 Yes. Well, by how much did you increase the turnover? 260 00:26:05,610 --> 00:26:12,100 And this is controversial because some people think that people should really be put under pressure at interviews. 261 00:26:12,110 --> 00:26:15,440 I don't think you get a realistic assessment of people under pressure. 262 00:26:16,010 --> 00:26:19,909 I think they have a much more realistic performance if they're enjoying it. 263 00:26:19,910 --> 00:26:23,420 I'm not suggesting you should have drinks and nibbles and everything, 264 00:26:23,420 --> 00:26:29,840 but I think if you're trying to develop a relationship with this person who might be working for you, this is a good time to start. 265 00:26:30,890 --> 00:26:34,130 You're selling the job to them, so don't be nasty. 266 00:26:34,310 --> 00:26:39,230 Most people don't want to work for a nasty boss. Now, why are you selling the job to them? 267 00:26:39,260 --> 00:26:43,790 Because if this is the candidate you want, you don't want them to think. 268 00:26:44,450 --> 00:26:51,020 I don't want to work for him. He's nasty. Don't argue with your colleague in front of interviewees. 269 00:26:51,260 --> 00:26:54,140 Most people don't want to join a disunited team. 270 00:26:55,070 --> 00:27:01,370 I was in a meeting with some lawyers who were pitching for our business and two of them had an argument. 271 00:27:02,200 --> 00:27:06,860 This was when we were recruiting lawyers to work for ICE's patent attorneys to work for us. 272 00:27:07,010 --> 00:27:12,200 And they just disagreed. And they insisting we just sitting there watching these two clowns. 273 00:27:13,270 --> 00:27:19,440 Putting each other down. So don't argue with a colleague. I mean, if you must argue with your colleague, do it after they've left. 274 00:27:19,600 --> 00:27:23,530 I didn't really agree with what you said about that, but not in front of the interviewees. 275 00:27:24,610 --> 00:27:26,260 Assume they will be nervous. 276 00:27:26,440 --> 00:27:31,929 I mean, we're all nervous when we go for interviews, unless we're particularly thick skinned and they may well behave non. 277 00:27:31,930 --> 00:27:36,970 Typically, they may be too smiley, too giggly, too shaky, too silent. 278 00:27:37,480 --> 00:27:40,930 So help them to settle and don't jump to conclusions. 279 00:27:42,170 --> 00:27:45,030 And after the interview, immediately review your notes. 280 00:27:45,040 --> 00:27:51,460 It's very easy at the end of a long day of interviewing to slam your bank, jump on the train and think, I'll look at it tomorrow. 281 00:27:51,470 --> 00:27:54,960 But then you get in the office tomorrow and there's something urgent and you get through to lunchtime. 282 00:27:55,130 --> 00:27:59,470 I really must look at that interview. By this time, your colleagues flown back to Canada. 283 00:27:59,680 --> 00:28:03,009 So you then conferring with him by cell phone and it doesn't work. 284 00:28:03,010 --> 00:28:09,220 So immediately review your notes, confer with the colleague if you've got one on what you've learned. 285 00:28:10,700 --> 00:28:18,560 Different people see different things in interviews and getting as soon as you've had the interview is a good idea. 286 00:28:19,850 --> 00:28:24,340 Review with your colleague. How you did this is particularly useful if you're doing a series of interviews, 287 00:28:24,350 --> 00:28:27,950 so you're doing two in the morning and two in the afternoon after the first one. 288 00:28:30,040 --> 00:28:35,589 Say, How did we do? And you say, Well, I think it would be better if I talked about this and you talked about that, 289 00:28:35,590 --> 00:28:38,530 or perhaps we should do these two points in another order, 290 00:28:40,090 --> 00:28:44,020 because you can then improve on your performance, on your performance as the day progresses. 291 00:28:46,090 --> 00:28:51,400 Get back to candidates as soon as possible, preferably by phone, preferably yourself. 292 00:28:51,760 --> 00:28:59,120 This is very. Difficult to do if you have a punitive H.R. department who won't let you do any managing. 293 00:28:59,510 --> 00:29:05,810 But if you can do this, it shows courtesy and starts to build a working relationship with the people you're trying to recruit. 294 00:29:06,470 --> 00:29:11,840 And if I've had an interview and the person I spoke to phoned me up the next day, 295 00:29:12,470 --> 00:29:18,080 even if it's only to tell me that I might be on for a second interview, that's better than never hearing anything. 296 00:29:18,290 --> 00:29:22,040 A colleague of mine has just was made redundant some time ago and he's been 297 00:29:22,040 --> 00:29:25,880 looking for jobs and he goes for interviews and never hears anything at all. 298 00:29:26,300 --> 00:29:33,110 This is not only impolite, but it means that the people doing the interviewing are just not competent. 299 00:29:33,380 --> 00:29:38,390 So do get back to them as soon as possible. As soon as your companies rules will allow. 300 00:29:39,090 --> 00:29:45,380 Always. I should have underlined that. Get references. So a bit about getting references. 301 00:29:47,920 --> 00:29:56,400 Sometimes people will only give written ones. For example, I think if if you're getting references for teachers, education authorities have a rule. 302 00:29:56,410 --> 00:30:00,399 We never give telephone references, so you can't have one. 303 00:30:00,400 --> 00:30:08,580 But if you can, I prefer to phone the referee. Say who you are, what the job is, and that the candidate is nominated. 304 00:30:08,580 --> 00:30:11,710 Then if they say, Well, he never asked me. 305 00:30:11,730 --> 00:30:17,850 That tells you something about the candidate. But assuming that the candidate is kosher, that's all right. 306 00:30:19,050 --> 00:30:22,680 Ask the referee about facts. Start date, end date, salary and so on. 307 00:30:23,670 --> 00:30:29,120 Then you get on to the. More fuzzy things ask about strengths. 308 00:30:29,130 --> 00:30:32,520 People are quite good to tell you about their ex-colleagues strengths. 309 00:30:33,210 --> 00:30:38,280 I don't ask about weaknesses, but I ask what advice the referee would give the new boss. 310 00:30:38,280 --> 00:30:48,090 And that's the same as asking about weaknesses. But it's not so not so much pressure on the referee and also the referee. 311 00:30:48,600 --> 00:30:53,100 He shows the referee that you care what they've got to say because they can then go in to parent you. 312 00:30:53,100 --> 00:30:57,180 If going back to the transactional stuff you have now assume the role of child. 313 00:30:57,360 --> 00:31:00,390 Oh please. Can you tell me what I need to know about this person? 314 00:31:00,600 --> 00:31:03,630 And it's always good being parents. So they'll say, Well, yes, you want to be. 315 00:31:04,100 --> 00:31:09,360 And make sure that you give very clear instructions and don't expect them to ever do 316 00:31:09,360 --> 00:31:13,200 much on a Thursday morning because he always goes out drinking on Wednesday night. 317 00:31:13,350 --> 00:31:18,450 So you find out about weaknesses without actually being explicit in asking for weaknesses. 318 00:31:20,320 --> 00:31:22,720 If you decide not to bother with references, 319 00:31:22,930 --> 00:31:30,100 work out in advance what you're going to say to your investors or your boss when the appointee turns out to be a con artist. 320 00:31:30,370 --> 00:31:33,820 In other words, always, always, always get references. 321 00:31:36,700 --> 00:31:41,440 Many jobs are filled from networks rather than from recruiting adverts or head-hunters. 322 00:31:42,870 --> 00:31:46,230 Sometimes your own network will produce a candidate. 323 00:31:47,070 --> 00:31:54,030 Sometimes one of your mates will say, Can I have the job? It is really important to try and treat them as any other candidate. 324 00:31:55,650 --> 00:32:04,470 If they expect to bypass the process. They're probably not right for the job because they have not accepted the jobs in your gift. 325 00:32:05,100 --> 00:32:10,050 And if they're insubordinate now, what are they going to be like when they're an employee? 326 00:32:11,280 --> 00:32:15,720 I was running a company and was advertising for a sales and marketing. 327 00:32:16,650 --> 00:32:22,770 A manager and a mate of mine who lived in Holland applied and I thought he was the man for the job. 328 00:32:23,340 --> 00:32:25,970 Nevertheless, he went through the process. 329 00:32:25,980 --> 00:32:30,540 He had the interview with all the people that everyone else had interviews with, yet fill an application form. 330 00:32:31,170 --> 00:32:34,950 We had a night away with all the candidates came all of that. 331 00:32:35,250 --> 00:32:44,680 Now we ended up appointing him. Now, I could have saved the Head-hunter fee and appointed him, but I would never have known that he was the best. 332 00:32:44,700 --> 00:32:50,040 And so I think this treat them as any other candidate is a really important thing to do. 333 00:32:50,280 --> 00:32:57,780 You will spend some money on it, and you will also avoid some errors where you then have to fire a mate, which is an unpleasant thing to have to do. 334 00:32:58,740 --> 00:33:03,600 Don't grab. This is a low effort, low cost way of recruiting unless you really do get the right person. 335 00:33:03,600 --> 00:33:09,210 And even then I will get someone who isn't you, whose judgement you respect to check it. 336 00:33:10,740 --> 00:33:14,610 And it's much easier to hire people than to file 5 a.m. 337 00:33:14,610 --> 00:33:18,419 I had a a chairman a long time ago who said that to me. And he's absolutely right. 338 00:33:18,420 --> 00:33:23,730 I have had a lot of people have fired a few. It's not pleasant firing people because it means. 339 00:33:24,910 --> 00:33:27,420 You probably made a mistake recruiting them in the first place. 340 00:33:27,430 --> 00:33:33,250 It's a bit easier if someone else recruited them, but you still have all the human angst and you never feel good about it. 341 00:33:33,690 --> 00:33:37,410 So. Don't say. 342 00:33:37,430 --> 00:33:44,540 We must get someone to do this job, however bad they are. A bad employee generally creates more work than they resolve. 343 00:33:45,460 --> 00:33:50,070 And now another subject which you can spend your life studying is psychometrics. 344 00:33:50,550 --> 00:33:56,250 So again, I want to give you a taste of this, and if you are interested in it, you can do it properly later. 345 00:33:58,320 --> 00:34:03,450 The idea of psychometrics is there questionnaire based tests to parameterised. 346 00:34:03,780 --> 00:34:06,930 Sorry about the word personality and behavioural traits. 347 00:34:07,500 --> 00:34:10,950 In other words, you give someone a big list of questions they have to take. 348 00:34:11,160 --> 00:34:15,060 Agree strongly. Agree. Disagree strongly, and anything in between. 349 00:34:15,390 --> 00:34:20,820 And then there's an algorithm that produces a result. There are lots of different sets of psychometric tests. 350 00:34:21,480 --> 00:34:25,020 Myers-Briggs is probably the most famous one. That was 88. 351 00:34:25,020 --> 00:34:35,250 Questions that you sit down and you tick boxes. And that rates you on four different axes extroversion, introversion and so on. 352 00:34:35,790 --> 00:34:39,240 It's used by some dating agencies and some recruitment agencies. 353 00:34:41,080 --> 00:34:48,520 I think they're fine if you use them as a way of raising questions and things to talk about in a subsequent interview. 354 00:34:48,820 --> 00:34:53,770 I don't think they're decision making tools. I think they're subject raising tools. 355 00:34:54,400 --> 00:34:58,840 I used to go into companies with management problems to sort them out, 356 00:34:58,840 --> 00:35:05,050 and I got someone to do one of these on the top team, a sales director, production director and so on. 357 00:35:05,680 --> 00:35:12,160 And it's quite difficult presenting the results of this back to the people, particularly to senior people. 358 00:35:13,120 --> 00:35:17,410 And one way to do it is to, in the subsequent interview, to say, 359 00:35:17,920 --> 00:35:22,209 what I can't understand is this is showing me that you have a strong something 360 00:35:22,210 --> 00:35:26,500 or other and I can't understand how that's come through in the question. 361 00:35:26,500 --> 00:35:32,950 So I had a sales director and he came through as as argumentative on the test. 362 00:35:32,960 --> 00:35:36,460 So I said I liked him and I said, well, you know, this, 363 00:35:36,460 --> 00:35:41,020 this has come across showing that you're quite argumentative and you actually stood up and said, no, I'm not. 364 00:35:41,830 --> 00:35:45,780 And then we both laughed. So it was all right. So they're good. 365 00:35:45,790 --> 00:35:52,119 But but it's I don't think they're anything other than a way of getting into a conversation, 366 00:35:52,120 --> 00:35:55,750 because it's only in the conversation that you actually get to what you want to do. 367 00:35:56,530 --> 00:36:02,829 And now this has all been 1 to 1 stuff so far. So it said on the advert that I had to talk about teams a bit. 368 00:36:02,830 --> 00:36:11,980 So this is now more about one too many. So I just I should to I'm sure you all know what management is, but I'll tell you what I mean by management. 369 00:36:12,280 --> 00:36:17,500 A manager is given authority over some resources owned by somebody else. 370 00:36:19,240 --> 00:36:26,680 And the the owner of the resources gives the manager authority in order to achieve an objective set by the owner. 371 00:36:28,060 --> 00:36:32,530 And this would be news to some managers who thought they actually owned everything they were managing. 372 00:36:33,070 --> 00:36:35,290 So the fundamental tasks of the manager are, one, 373 00:36:35,590 --> 00:36:42,370 control the resources that we've been entrusted with to coordinate the activities of the staff that we're responsible for so 374 00:36:42,370 --> 00:36:48,790 they don't fight amongst themselves and finally manage the boundaries between what we control and the rest of the world. 375 00:36:50,060 --> 00:36:59,450 So it's fairly straightforward. But looking at this with the team in mind, I'd like to divide our team into two. 376 00:36:59,660 --> 00:37:05,360 One the ones we control directly, i.e. staff and the machinery and assets that we've been trusted with. 377 00:37:05,540 --> 00:37:10,460 And I'll call them insiders. And then there's all the members of our team that we don't actually control. 378 00:37:10,490 --> 00:37:14,270 So there's the advisors, the accountants, the lawyers, the bankers, the local government, 379 00:37:14,270 --> 00:37:19,490 all the people who you need to do stuff who you don't actually control. 380 00:37:21,820 --> 00:37:30,910 Of course, you can fire the outsiders if you want. I mean, companies change their accountants if the accountants don't do a good job. 381 00:37:32,030 --> 00:37:35,239 But it's time consuming and disruptive. So there must be a better way. 382 00:37:35,240 --> 00:37:40,310 And the end of the talk. I want to talk about how you control people you don't own. 383 00:37:42,590 --> 00:37:48,140 There's a book came out in 1936, which is a cliché called How to Make Friends and Influence People. 384 00:37:49,220 --> 00:37:55,850 If you haven't read it, you really should. I had a another of my great management disasters. 385 00:37:56,120 --> 00:38:01,160 I was working for a company and I was I was the managing director of a subsidiary, and I was called in by the board. 386 00:38:01,430 --> 00:38:07,219 And I lost my temper with the board because I was all hyped up for my presentation. 387 00:38:07,220 --> 00:38:10,670 And they just sat there and I got no response. 388 00:38:11,110 --> 00:38:15,110 And this was, again, not a great career advancing move. 389 00:38:15,950 --> 00:38:20,090 I left the company shortly afterwards. I did actually leave that one rather than getting fired. 390 00:38:20,480 --> 00:38:26,480 But I went on a one week course run by the Dale Carnegie Organisation, which was utterly brilliant. 391 00:38:28,040 --> 00:38:31,129 If you not read this, read it. It's not embarrassing. 392 00:38:31,130 --> 00:38:36,170 I mean, you might not want to be seen reading it so you can get it in a plane cover or something, I suppose. 393 00:38:36,350 --> 00:38:39,830 But it's good stuff and it matters. 394 00:38:42,570 --> 00:38:46,260 It's just as relevant with employees as it is with outsiders. 395 00:38:46,290 --> 00:38:53,610 I mean, I've been talking about managing employees and influencing outsiders, but of course, you need to influence employees as well. 396 00:38:53,910 --> 00:38:57,320 You can't tell everybody what you want them to do in detail. 397 00:38:57,330 --> 00:39:00,510 So you have to influence them so that they think the way you think. 398 00:39:02,350 --> 00:39:09,310 In the company. Assuming it's a manufacturing company, you need people who will say what you sell, what you're going to sell, develop it. 399 00:39:09,610 --> 00:39:12,819 And there was obviously going to be feedback between the people developing the product, 400 00:39:12,820 --> 00:39:19,510 their offering and the marketing department and product development where you're going to get it from. 401 00:39:19,510 --> 00:39:30,160 You're going to buy it or make it. Delivering it and particularly delivering what the customers think they've bought and collecting the money. 402 00:39:30,170 --> 00:39:36,890 And the leader the leader might well not be you. I mean, I assume you're all going to be leaders of multinational companies, 403 00:39:37,100 --> 00:39:45,850 but if you're not if you are someone with a vision but without any enthusiasm for executive authority, you may want to employ a leader. 404 00:39:45,860 --> 00:39:50,360 So don't necessarily assume it's going to be you. A couple of words about investors. 405 00:39:50,840 --> 00:39:52,190 You don't always need investors. 406 00:39:52,460 --> 00:39:58,930 Sometimes you can start a company on your overdraft and you can get it into cash generation quick enough so you don't need investors. 407 00:39:59,330 --> 00:40:04,340 And which saves an awful lot of time spent on trying to raise investment. 408 00:40:06,560 --> 00:40:14,299 But when we're trying to raise investment, which most companies do, the investors will like to see a full team and start-ups hardly. 409 00:40:14,300 --> 00:40:19,250 I would say never have a full team. They don't have people doing all that stuff I put on the previous job. 410 00:40:19,280 --> 00:40:22,640 They have two or three people, each of whom does more than one of those. 411 00:40:24,620 --> 00:40:30,350 It's important when you're trying to raise investment that you recognise that you haven't got a full team and you have a plan. 412 00:40:31,760 --> 00:40:40,160 In other words, we are subcontracting out our website management for the time being and that's the plan. 413 00:40:40,460 --> 00:40:44,000 Then we're going to take it in-house in year three and edit it today. 414 00:40:44,420 --> 00:40:52,069 This is sometimes difficult because of team dynamics, because there may well be someone in the Start-Up team who all the members of the team, 415 00:40:52,070 --> 00:40:55,550 except this person knows, are not going to make it full time. 416 00:40:57,170 --> 00:41:03,979 Talking about the long term may be problematical. I worked for a company where the chief executive was quoted in the Financial Times that 417 00:41:03,980 --> 00:41:07,730 he didn't think that the technical director was going to be in it for the long run. 418 00:41:08,570 --> 00:41:12,650 This was extremely demotivating for the technical director who read it in the paper. 419 00:41:13,160 --> 00:41:17,120 But on the other hand, don't wreck the business because you don't want to offend a mate. 420 00:41:17,600 --> 00:41:21,890 It's sometimes cruel and a bit about authority. 421 00:41:22,510 --> 00:41:28,640 He has the standard company structure. Some owners employ directors or employ managers or employ workers. 422 00:41:29,270 --> 00:41:36,049 This shows who's accountable to whom. Who decides whose salary people get and who gets fired? 423 00:41:36,050 --> 00:41:39,070 Who gets hot? And so on. And that's all very well. 424 00:41:39,080 --> 00:41:40,910 But you could equally draw it this way, 425 00:41:41,090 --> 00:41:47,570 because this chart shows the people who do useful things in selling stuff and making stuff and collecting money and so on. 426 00:41:47,900 --> 00:41:51,290 Who is supported by the managers? Who are supported by the director? 427 00:41:52,160 --> 00:41:55,190 And it's quite useful to see who's supporting whom. 428 00:41:56,480 --> 00:42:01,760 There was a conversation about spread of management. How many subordinates do we think a manager can manage? 429 00:42:01,970 --> 00:42:06,799 I was on a a management training course and the lecturer said that the general 430 00:42:06,800 --> 00:42:12,080 assumption is that people can't really manage and support more than six reports. 431 00:42:12,380 --> 00:42:18,590 And there was a Noel at the back who said, Well, I've got 15 reporters and I don't seem to have any problem. 432 00:42:18,950 --> 00:42:24,169 And the lecturer said, Well, Jesus chose 12 and he made a mistake with one. 433 00:42:24,170 --> 00:42:30,860 So what makes you so much better than him? So I think if it's more than six, you're probably not supporting them properly. 434 00:42:32,070 --> 00:42:34,610 And each member of the team has two roles. 435 00:42:35,420 --> 00:42:43,070 There's a functional role, i.e., salespeople sell and production people produce, and there's a social role in the team dynamics. 436 00:42:43,310 --> 00:42:53,570 And if you represent these as orthogonal axes, it helps you remember that there's no that they are mutually independent. 437 00:42:53,810 --> 00:43:00,810 There's no reason why someone who is brilliant at writing software should also be brilliant at team coordination. 438 00:43:00,830 --> 00:43:04,850 You might almost say there's an opposite correlation. 439 00:43:05,870 --> 00:43:10,010 One joke, you know, the the definition of an extrovert software writer. 440 00:43:10,370 --> 00:43:17,420 They look at your shoes and there's no reason why anybody should be good at both. 441 00:43:18,290 --> 00:43:27,270 And in the team, you need to cover all the functional needs, obviously, but you also need to have enough social skills to cover all the social needs. 442 00:43:27,290 --> 00:43:30,829 I am in an hour and 40 minutes. 443 00:43:30,830 --> 00:43:36,170 I'm going to be singing with seven of my friends. I do this every Tuesday night as eight of us sing together. 444 00:43:36,170 --> 00:43:45,890 We've been doing it for 22 years and some of my friends are good singers and okay music readers and some are good readers and okay singers. 445 00:43:46,940 --> 00:43:55,220 Some are good at both, but a bit difficult to work with. And some of them are sort of okay as musicians, but really good at defusing fights. 446 00:43:55,550 --> 00:44:00,110 So we have the social and the functional capabilities on orthogonal axis. 447 00:44:00,110 --> 00:44:04,729 The point is that between us we cover the functional you know, 448 00:44:04,730 --> 00:44:10,340 we've got some people who sing high and some people loosing low and some people who are good readers and some people who are adequate readers, 449 00:44:10,670 --> 00:44:15,379 but also the sociology. And exactly the same happens in the company management meeting. 450 00:44:15,380 --> 00:44:20,690 You'll have people around a table and some will be brilliant at doing what they do and a bit spiky, 451 00:44:21,260 --> 00:44:24,979 and some will be quite good at stopping people fighting. 452 00:44:24,980 --> 00:44:31,309 And you do need both of these covered. And I felt I should say a bit about matrix management. 453 00:44:31,310 --> 00:44:40,190 That hierarchical system that I drew before contrasts with the matrix system where you have a sales manager, 454 00:44:40,190 --> 00:44:46,580 a design manager, production manager, shipping manager, and then on a different axis you have product managers. 455 00:44:46,910 --> 00:44:54,260 And when it's like this, the functional managers rule and allow the product managers access to their resources. 456 00:44:55,540 --> 00:45:00,100 Another way of drawing this is to rotate it and have the products at the top and the salespeople down the side. 457 00:45:00,430 --> 00:45:05,380 In this company, the project, the product managers role, and they employ bits of the function. 458 00:45:05,710 --> 00:45:11,650 And the design manager only gets to stay in work if enough of the product managers want something designing. 459 00:45:12,560 --> 00:45:19,300 Now, of course, both of these are oversimplifications because you can either have the functions at the top or you can have the products at the top, 460 00:45:19,480 --> 00:45:28,030 or you can rotate the thing. Quite often there's a balance of power between the functional manager, the function managers and the product managers. 461 00:45:28,630 --> 00:45:30,010 And the matrix can rotate. 462 00:45:30,400 --> 00:45:38,500 But it is crucial that you, as the leader of this thing, understand the power structure and how you can optimise it in real life, 463 00:45:38,770 --> 00:45:43,030 however hierarchical the staff charts, there's always a deal of horse trading. 464 00:45:43,480 --> 00:45:48,040 So really all organisations are matrices to a greater or lesser extent. 465 00:45:48,370 --> 00:45:53,410 You know, there was that organisation chart. Andrew is a simplification of real life. 466 00:45:54,310 --> 00:45:58,420 Shared resources like shared toys are always a management challenge. 467 00:45:58,420 --> 00:46:06,490 So the leader I view needs to be able to set up a structure that works, then run it, and if you can't run it, you need to change it. 468 00:46:08,200 --> 00:46:14,860 And there's been lots of people who've designed have developed an idea of different team roles. 469 00:46:15,250 --> 00:46:19,060 I won't go into this in any detail, but these are the Belbin ones. 470 00:46:19,420 --> 00:46:25,569 So for example, number two, a resource investigator is the person in the team who goes outside looking for new stuff, 471 00:46:25,570 --> 00:46:32,170 new products, new techniques, new suppliers and so on. Schaefer is usually the chief executive who shapes the company. 472 00:46:32,590 --> 00:46:37,600 Team worker, for example, is the person who is really good at stopping fires and so on. 473 00:46:38,380 --> 00:46:43,990 Now, if you've got six people in your team and you want to know how the team looks, 474 00:46:43,990 --> 00:46:48,730 you can stick these characteristics around the edge of a circle and you can. 475 00:46:50,210 --> 00:46:56,030 Put where you think one of your members of staff is, and then you can put what you think another member of staff is. 476 00:46:56,330 --> 00:47:00,020 And then if you add all this lot together, you can see how your team's looking. 477 00:47:00,020 --> 00:47:07,400 For example, if you've got a whole bunch of extroverts in your team, you probably haven't got enough on the number six team worker. 478 00:47:07,760 --> 00:47:11,000 And that means your team will spend a lot of time fighting with itself. 479 00:47:11,330 --> 00:47:15,080 I mean, you see this a lot when people recruit top people, you know, 480 00:47:15,080 --> 00:47:19,129 they get the best designer and the best production person and the team just blows up. 481 00:47:19,130 --> 00:47:25,490 They did a really cruel experiment in one of the business schools where they actually characterised a bunch of MBA students, 482 00:47:25,490 --> 00:47:29,210 and of course they're already a self-selecting sample and put them in a team. 483 00:47:29,360 --> 00:47:33,919 And there was it was absolutely ineffective because each of them was leading the team. 484 00:47:33,920 --> 00:47:40,340 You can see it every week on The Apprentice, if you like, that sort of thing. And you've got this in the in the notes. 485 00:47:40,340 --> 00:47:48,389 But I just wanted to point out that for each role there are strengths and weaknesses on the one I'll draw you to is is the teamwork. 486 00:47:48,390 --> 00:47:52,310 And because you might think that the team worker is a universal asset. 487 00:47:52,820 --> 00:47:57,290 So the teamwork is support team member strengths, underpins their shortcomings, 488 00:47:57,290 --> 00:48:01,760 improves internal communication, generates team spirit, everybody's friend. 489 00:48:02,330 --> 00:48:08,960 And of course, the strength is the humility, flexibility, popularity, distaste for friction and competition. 490 00:48:09,590 --> 00:48:16,129 But the weakness is that if they're underemployed, they will go out of their way to create a crisis for them to resolve. 491 00:48:16,130 --> 00:48:21,320 So they tend to gossip, you know, did you know what he said about, you know, all that stuff? 492 00:48:21,320 --> 00:48:24,379 So there are strengths and weaknesses in each of these. 493 00:48:24,380 --> 00:48:35,110 So and watch it. Now I mentioned that I end up talking about how you influence that which you don't control. 494 00:48:37,380 --> 00:48:41,610 And this, of course, is important with inside as as well as with outsiders. 495 00:48:42,480 --> 00:48:48,390 The first thing is to invest in the relationship. Remember my friend going across the Atlantic once a month when he wasn't having a crisis? 496 00:48:49,050 --> 00:48:54,000 And that, of course, means understanding their priorities, not yours. Now, it's difficult to say. 497 00:48:54,000 --> 00:48:58,319 You must understand your banker's priority priorities in the present climate. 498 00:48:58,320 --> 00:49:02,310 But I think if you want your banker to be an asset to your company, 499 00:49:02,460 --> 00:49:07,410 you do have to understand your banker's priorities and align your interests with them. 500 00:49:07,410 --> 00:49:13,170 So why is it going to be good for my company's bank if they lend me 50,000 quid? 501 00:49:13,500 --> 00:49:18,270 Well, unless I can make that case, my chances of getting the 50 grand is less. 502 00:49:20,000 --> 00:49:23,000 Activist. I can't spend too long on active listening. 503 00:49:23,180 --> 00:49:27,410 But what it means is not turning your brain off while the other person's talking. 504 00:49:28,880 --> 00:49:35,930 Go and see them when there's no overt agenda. Remember a concert pianist who does most of his playing when nobody's listening? 505 00:49:37,590 --> 00:49:42,240 Do the communicating when there isn't a crisis so that when there is one, you've already got the channels open. 506 00:49:44,200 --> 00:49:47,890 An amateur musician will practice in practice until they get it right. 507 00:49:48,850 --> 00:49:52,200 A professional musician practices until they can't get it wrong. 508 00:49:53,080 --> 00:49:56,950 We want to create professional managers. So really, you need to practice too. 509 00:49:56,970 --> 00:50:03,940 You can't get it wrong. And I made this slide when I first was running this innovation because we 510 00:50:03,940 --> 00:50:08,200 recruited some people who found it very difficult to work with this university. 511 00:50:08,500 --> 00:50:17,950 I can't. Why? Why? But in fact, it's generally applicable to you working with any large organisation over which you've got no control, only influence. 512 00:50:18,610 --> 00:50:27,610 And I suggest you think of the university or this large organisation as an elephant to which you're connected with a thin rubber band. 513 00:50:28,630 --> 00:50:36,100 And my recommendation is that you walk along with the elephant in whichever direction the elephants going until it gets used to. 514 00:50:37,450 --> 00:50:44,170 At that point, you can start to pull gently on your rubber band, but if you pull too hard or too suddenly, 515 00:50:44,500 --> 00:50:48,280 you'll break your rubber band and have no further influence over the elephant. 516 00:50:48,490 --> 00:50:52,630 Now, this is the case if you're talking to local government. 517 00:50:52,840 --> 00:50:56,770 If you're talking to your financiers, if you're talking to the university, 518 00:50:57,400 --> 00:51:04,330 any big organisation which has got a much greater mass than you that you're trying to control by influence, 519 00:51:04,810 --> 00:51:13,420 this walking with the elephant, reword it into management speak is building up your influence with the elephant. 520 00:51:14,500 --> 00:51:18,850 But I don't think you'll ever have complete control because you won't. 521 00:51:19,300 --> 00:51:20,230 Thank you for your attention.