Merger Planning and Employee Engagement Advice and Support

During a major organisation-wide transformation, Future Catalyst has offered Merger Planning and Employee Engagement advice and support to Senior Managers during the merger/TUPE of teams from different organisations. The support included a number of facilitated meetings to support the Senior Managers in planning the merger journey, planning of communications and employee engagement activities before and during the merger. After the merger, Future Catalyst also planned and facilitated an interactive group coaching workshops where all managers and employees were encouraged to participate in building a new team culture and future direction, combining the strengths of the merging teams into one cohesive team.

When asked why the Future Catalyst OD Consultant opted for an interactive workshop rather than an induction, they replied:
'Mergers need to be handled with much care and sensitivity. While most organisations perceive a company or team induction as a nice welcome, employees who join the new organisation actually experience it as a total loss of identity as the induction is asking them to adopt the welcoming organisation's culture, practices and processes. It is not perceived as a merger - which should be a melting pot of strengths - but a takeover. Utilising activities which send hidden messages of a takeover rather than a merger, will lead to a unfriendly working environment, silo working, continuous team conflict, poor employee well-being, divided loyalties and disengaged staff.

Opting for an interactive workshop, Future Catalyst provides the two parties with an opportunity to come together as equals, get to know everyone and work together to identify combined team strengths, work on a continuous team building action plan and the future direction of the team/organisation. Employees who attended one of our workshops told us they felt it was a great way to get to know new team members and were excited about continuing to build the team after the workshop.'

To contact Future Catalyst, please visit our website - www.futurecatalyst.net

How to build a better world one (risk) decision at a time?

With the pressures created by the current economy it is not unusual to find people are becoming more concerned about safety and seeking ways to return to stability. When this applies to individuals, this behaviour closely matches 'survival' behaviour. Where it applies to collectives -be that communities, organisations, nations etc - we start observing behaviours such as group-think, territorialism, nimby-ism, terrorism and more worryingly, the search for stronger leaders who are believed for their promise to return the collective to 'safety' and 'stability'.
 
Safety and stability are myths, which even strong leadership cannot help bring to life. Why? Because the 'laws of nature' dictate that risk is the norm and continuous change (AKA evolution) is positive. These are the simple, but for a lot of people, counter-intuitive principles which will help rebalance decisions for better (more peaceful) outcomes.
 
All this is based on a false belief that risk is the polar opposite to safety, and that only safety can avoid blame (see 'False' Risk Continuum below). Nothing could be further from the truth! Evidence shows that (command-and-) control behaviours actually attract more extreme 'survival' behaviour in others - be that flight or flight - leaving the collective more open to extreme behaviours and scenarios as described above. 

 

 

In order to win, we need to complete the continuum with the polar opposite to control. So here is what the full risk continuum looks like: 

 

The polar opposite of control is neglect. Without adding the consideration of neglect to our decision-making processes, risk will continue to be seen as needing to be avoided instead of embraced as that what helps us survive, grow and evolve. 

 

The trick is not to control but to find balance, build resilience to change, letting go of control and learning with the flow as set by the 'laws of nature'!

 

 

 



Living Interdependently - one way to build community cohesion

When we consider our lives, one value which often comes into mind is our want to live independently. Equally while working in Social Care, we talk about service users living independently. However is this encouraging isolation.

I would like to talk to you about 'living interdependently'. Every person who gives, can receive, and vice versa. We all have so much to give to the world around us, however our desire for independence and privacy has gone too far. We have become overly territorial about whatever space we call our own and with it have shut out others who can make a difference to us.

Every person I meet, regardless of age or experience, has something to teach me. Equally, I have something that is of value to all who meet me. Life is two-way street. Not one of us is only a giver, not one of us is only a receiver.

So let's live interdependently whether at work or at home, break down those territorial barriers and re-build real communities.

Want leadership? Turn the hierarchy on its side ...

Many organisations of various sizes are built on hierarchy and driven by status, encouraging people up the organisational management ladder. Managers are however set up to fail as not one person can be responsible for another person's choices and actions, let alone a group of people.

In recent years there has been more emphasis on 'leadership' and many discussions and articles have been written about the difference between management and leadership. The main difference between the two in my view is status within an organisation. With leadership, the level at which you operate in an organisation is not important. Anyone can show personal leadership and be a leader.

Is not the biggest barrier to leadership hierarchy? There is plenty of evidence that managers are not necessarily the leaders employees follow in an organisation. Managers seek compliance with processes and manage the  performance of others, while leaders aim to bring out the best in others and empower them to take personal responsibility for processes and performance, and develop more leaders.

So how do we change the design of the organisation to encourage personal leadership and personal responsibility? Organisations have been built on 3 disciplines, namely Strategy, Planning and Operations. In hierarchies these disciplines sit from top to bottom. In larger organisations, hierarchies are taller with duplication of disciplines, often leaving front line managers with nothing else to do but micro-manage staff leading to productivity paralysis, lack of innovation and high staff turnover.

So do organisations really need layers and layers of management in order to be productive, or do the layers create barriers to productivity and creativity?

What would happen when we turn the hierarchy on its side so the Strategy, Planning and Operations sit side-by-side?

- Would collaboration be easier?
- Instead of money and status, would organisations be driven by strengths, passion and empathy? (See video below)
- Would improved collaboration mean higher personal responsibility for actions?
- Would there be a flatted pay structure which benefits more people? (See video below)
- Would organisations turn into communities of action?
- Would it be easier to innovate?
- Would there be improved trust and respect between the different disciplines?
- Would your workforce be more autonomous and as such self-motivated?
- Would improved collaboration mean leaner and more sustainable solutions?

Makes sense, right? I'd welcome your thoughts.

Relevant video:
Paul Piff: Does money make you mean? - http://on.ted.com/raqw

What is the ideal workforce make-up for the Public Sector?

Every Public Sector organisation across the world is facing the same challenges caused by the current tough economic climate, which means that - as part of wider organisational considerations such as property assets and reducing duplication - workforce make-up is crucial in helping Public Sector organisations to become adaptable/agile and survive economic pressures.

 

Public Sector organisations need to become more aware of the types of employees they employ, including those who can best support the adaptability and transformation needs the organisation needs to consider in becoming more efficient and leaner, and those who are able to help the organisation manage the peaks and troughs of demand, and all this without negatively impacting on service delivery and local economic growth. 

 

There is a trend which has been set by some Public Sector bodies in London in working with Private Sector giants for both back office and community facing service delivery. These giants however face the same challenges as any Public Sector body in managing peaks and troughs. And they have an extra challenge, and that is 'winning business' of other Public Sector bodies in order to achieve local efficiencies through collaboration and partnership working. The question is however: 'Are Private Sector giants best-placed or even interested in supporting local collaborations and partnerships? Plus are they themselves agile and flexible enough to negotiate the same tough economy as faced by the Public Sector?'

 

The answer to sustainability and continuity of high-quality service delivery may be closer to home than first thought, namely the (often hidden) strengths of the Public Sector workforce. Public Sector workforces are often made up of people who live locally, who have worked in the Public Sector for some time and who are willing to be contributors and creators of a stronger local future for all. A great source of local knowledge and strengths!

 

The key is taking time to analyse the perfect workforce make-up for your organisation!

 

There are three types of employee status I would like to highlight in this blog:

• The 'permanent' workforce - Many organisations perceive this type of workforce to be ideal as they undoubtedly work hard and have extensive internal knowledge. They are also willing to work to organisational rules, policies and procedures. In reality this type of employee will only reluctantly offer challenge to something which could be improved upon out as they worry they might lose their job and are mostly driven by job security, stability, money and/or status. These drivers often mean the permanent workforce are less resilient to organisational change/transformation and some may even (wittingly or unwittingly) sabotage transformation initiatives due to lack of objectivity.
  
  
  It is noticeable that organisations who employ high numbers of permanent staff often have to resort to expensive and highly disruptive staff restructures in order to continuously improve and evolve. Moving staff around based on strengths rather than job descriptions is difficult as traditional contracts and consultation policies make it time consuming to change hierarchical management structures. The result is often the creation of more bureaucracy and higher complexity of decision-making processes, slowing down and at times paralysing transformation initiatives and service delivery.
 
• The 'free agent' workforce - This type of workforce has two subcategories. The internal free agent aka the intrapreneur, or the external free(lance) agents aka the entrepreneur. Both are highly committed to creating efficiencies and sustainability by breaking hierarchical silo mentalities. They are self-driven and on the whole take responsibility for their own learning and performance. They are less driven by job security, stability and status, and are not concerned about working themselves out of a job as they enjoy variety and more likely to work from the principle of empowerment of others (the 'teach a person to fish, ...' principle) which means they can step away. The intrapreneurs are often perceived as 'disruptive' by traditional managers as they challenge the status quo and act outside of their job descriptions.
  
  
  In case of the external freelancer, it has been noted that organisations often invite back employees who have worked for them in the past. This may be perceived as expensive by permanent employees, however this is a myth. Freelance staff, while they may be more expensive in relation to pay, actually save organisations a lot of time and money by being a highly flexible workforce, which mitigates the need for costly and highly disruptive restructure programmes. Freelancers bring an objectivity to transformation programmes which require tough decisions which are likely affect the organisational structure, its corporate centre controls and its workforce, and as such help drive the transformation forward. Organisations are better able to attract and where needed switch off knowledge and skills based on fluctuating demand. 

Given the economic pressures and the need to encourage more local economic growth I would argue that the ideal workforce for any Public Sector organisation who seriously needs to consider 'downsizing' is to identify and work with its internal Free Agents, but also with local external Free(lance) Agents. Internally Free Agents make for a highly flexible and resilient workforce and using local Free(lance) Agents utilises local strengths and knowledge, engages citizens into local action for a better future and supports the local economy.

 

So what is your organisation's ideal workforce make-up for surviving tough economic times?

Generational Diversity and Agile Working in the Public Sector

To date there is still too much office working in the Public Sector and not enough 'working where the work is', which for the Public Sector is working with the public. It is important to recognise that the Public Sector is on a Cultural journey which will require working differently, and in some cases counter-intuitively.

When 'working where the work is', technology is a great enabler. However there continues to be cultural barriers which link to a need to let go of some control, which understandably is counter-intuitive for political leaders, as well as the expectations of the different generations in the workplace.
Baby Boomers and - to some extend - my generation, Generation X, have become used to an office space we have been able to 'personalise' to our individual needs. In the current climate, office space is a high cost to any organisation, not just the Public Sector, and needs to be reviewed so that organisations don't compromise on their people (talent). In recent years, Generation X has been making more demands for equality, flexibility and work/life balance, however further economic pressures are demanding more compromise around the way we work. Equally access to ever-changing technologies has raised different workstyle expectations for the younger generations that are now sharing our workspaces.

The economy is pushing the Public Sector to think more carefully about the needs for efficiencies. Technology is a great enabler and should be led by the younger generation as the rate of adoption of the use of new technologies is 'speeding up' and will in turn enable new innovations. The younger generations - by the very nature of how an organisation works - are more likely to sit in the front line, hence a need for bottom-up innovation.

The culture set by Top Managers (likely to be Baby Boomers and Generation X) is important to consider as it highly depends on Top Managers' individual ability and willingness to recognise and embrace - not necessarily adopt - these generational changes and expectations, which will feel like a loss of control and in real terms is counter-intuitive, but - as you can see - extremely important.

Managing a virtual workforce requires organisations/managers to trust their front line workforce and embrace the use of technology and social media. This is all part of a wider cultural journey and  remains an enormous challenge for the Public Sector who are trying to get used to being more open and transparent, meaning a counter-intuitive 'loosening of the reins'.

Related blog - http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=23073

Innovation Series - Are you asking the right questions to help you innovate & future-proof your business?

In an uncertain world it is more important to be outcome-focussed. Why?

Here is a simple metaphor that hopes to shine a light on the difference between engaging stakeholders using solution-driven (aka output-driven) and outcomes-driven (aka values-driven) questions.

Two identical ice cream vendors have noticed that over the past year they have been losing customers. They both want to learn from their customers what they can improve. 

The first vendor opts to ask its customers solution-driven questions:

- Do you like the ice cream in our products?
- Do you like the texture of our cones?
- Do you like the chocolate sauce?
- Did the flake meet your needs?

Following analysis of the seemingly positive feedback, the first vendor tweaks their product based on their customer feedback and continues to sell ice cream. Over the next year they continue to loose customers.

The second vendor asks its customers outcomes-driven questions:

- How can we improve our product based on our commitment to offer you (our customers) something refreshing closer to home?

From the feedback, the second vendor learns that his customers have become more health-conscious. He researches new healthier product lines, such as yoghurt ice cream, smoothies & fruit salads, and transforms his business model to reach more customers. The business is growing from strength to strength. 

Where's the difference?

The first vendor has made the assumption that ice cream is what their customers want to continue to purchase and have failed to learn that more and more of their customers are becoming more health conscious. 

The second vendor has approached the problem from a completely different perspective and as such - with the right type of question - has invited his customers to help him transform (and sustain) his business for the future.

Did you ever think that questions could be that important?