ValuExecBlog

The 'War for Talent' ~ Truth or Fiction

We have heard alot about the 'war for talent' over the last 5 years, and I suspect that we will continue to hear alot about it in the year ahead. But, has there really been a 'war for talent' or has it been nothing more than an opportunity for the major consulting companies to sugar coat what has always been a dilemma facing companies - getting the best person to fill a role. I can only surmise that the reason for the sugar coated pill is so that the so-called top tier consultants can extendtheir usefulness beyond their use-by-date but mainly so that those executives who continue to fall short of targets can still pay themselves exorbitant salaries or bonuses under the guise of they're the best talent around. It wasn't long before we got the spin that financial institutions had to pay the vast pre-GFC bonuses again to those in charge because they were the best and that they couldn't afford to lose them. I mean - who the hell got us in the mess in the first place. But, I digress.

If there is indeed a war for talent, why are companies still falling short of strategic goals? Why are they still falling short of shareholder expectations? 

Let me suggest that there is a 'battle for talent' but the war being waged is not for talent but for employee engagement in the full sense of the word. We have seen 'talent' in roles unable to get results because they just couldn't muster the 'troops'. If employees are not committed, not engaged, disconnected - I don't care how good your talent - the results will not be forthcoming. It worries me how high the number is of people who hate their current job because if they hate their job, how can they be truly engaged.

Companies may well win the 'battle for talent' but still lose the 'war for employee engagement'.

Yours in execution.

ian 

Thumbing their noses at their customers - why banks have lost the moral ground

There are 4 major banks in Australia and all of them without exception have thumbed their noses at their customers and by doing so - they have lost not just the moral high-ground but the moral ground in total.

When the banks decided to raise their rates above the increase of the Reserve bank, their arrogance and self indulgence was apparant. All of the banks have had record profits this year and their CEO's have all collected record-breaking salaries and bonuses in the millions. I do not begrudge that but what I do find self-indulgent is when asked why - the banks argued that they have a duty to their shareholders. Not one bank mentioned a duty to their customers - Oh, I stand corrected - the CEO of the leading bank after his salary of $16 - $22 million for 2009/2010 was announced did say that people can expect to lose their homes. Shareholders first - customers a far, far second.  

If ever there was a time for a bank to stand up and take the moral high-ground, this was it. Can you imagine if one of the bank CEO's got up and said: we know our customers have it tough and we want them to know we will support them through this. To that end, we will hold our rates and fees for as long as we can, and to our shareholders, this will mean that we will not make record-breaking profits but we will make a healthy profit non-the-less.

They had a chance to seize the moral high-ground but they were too absorbed in their own self-importance, trying to appease faceless shareholders to worry about the customers that walk into their banks daily, stand in long cues, and do business with them. 

ian

OK, I'm a cranky old f..t!

Ok, I admit it - I'm getting cranky in my old age - but I am tired of joining one hour long teleconferences that are nothing more than glorified 'tele-advertorials'. I do have to hand it though to those who hold them because they are masters at the skill of self-promotion and in keeping us hanging on to a muted phone in the expectation of some genuine free value. The problem is, and I have to side with the very people that I am cranky about, I want value for nothing and that is probably a little unfair, if the truth be told.

However, I did attend one teleconference this week where the person holding it gave value after value after value and all of it was free. What impressed me also was his use of slides which improved my retention rate because I was now able to hear his key points, see those key points and then write down those key points in my notes, and if I missed anything - I could download those slides and hear the audio sixty minutes after the conference ended. He provided so much valuable information that I believe that I can now prepare and develop the subject matter of the teleconference with the notes that I have and I do not have to spend money on any further programs.

Some may argue that he has lost an opportunity to earn money by providing so much valuable information which he has obviously gained from hours and hours of trial and error and no doubt at great expense. And that would be a very valid argument. But to receive you have to give and boy, did he give.

At the end of the day, it is all about perception. My perception was that he had my best interests at heart. I felt that he genuinely was not holding the teleconference to  'sell product or self-promote' but to help me master a particular skill. In other words, at the end of that conference, he wanted his attendees to have enough information so that they could walk away and execute what he had shared. We buy on emotion and if someone has my interest at heart and they are liberal in the amount of valuable information they are happy to share with me at no cost - I will buy from them - maybe not now, but at some time I will.

Those who hold teleconferences would do well to drop in on one of his. And if you are looking to learn about including on-line video on your website, blog or any other media, you would do well to drop in as well. His name - Lou Bortone. Also known as 'the online video guy' and you can find him at http://loubortone.tv/ 

Talk soon,

ian 

Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing

I had the misfortune recently of joining a one hour teleclass that was touted as providing valuable lessons in the marketing of products on-line but which was nothing more than an infomercial for the host's numerous products and an opportunity for the host to make money on an unsuspecting and captive audience. I rated the teleclass as follows:

• Valuable content = 0
• Benefit to me = 0
• Time wastage = 60 minutes
• Trust Factor = 0
• Net Result = Never do business again with the person/company

You may well have asked why I didn't hang up and that would have been a valid question. But although tempted to do so, it occurred to me that people and businesses that rely on the Internet to sell their products or services were, I felt, beginning to cross that very thin line of trust between buyer and seller, if they had not already done so.

I have no doubt that these companies do offer a valuable service or product that can benefit their target audience. But I have to question the execution of their strategies. In instances where buyer and seller are not able to meet face-to-face, personal credibility is built through trust and I am not convinced that these people are doing enough to build that trust. Perhaps, competition is mudding their waters of integrity and intent. 

Some people or companies do get it right though. At one teleclass this week, the host spent 45 minutes talking about the topic and only that topic. He then spent a further 14 minutes fielding questions relating to the content of his teleclass and one minute providing his contact details should any of us feel the need to discuss the topic further or address issues that we had. There was no mention of his product range; there were no freebies; no extra courses offered for the first 25 people who signed up straight after the call. It was focused totally on the topic that we had all signed up for and for which we had taken 60 minutes out of our busy lives to stop what we were doing and listen to someone whom we had never met before. My rating for the teleclass:

• Valuable content = 100
• Benefit to me  = 100
• Time wastage - 0
• Trust = 100
• Net Result = Repeat business definitely likely.

As soon as the host of a teleclass says something along the lines of 'I cover this in a lot more detail in my program xxxxx which you can get if you go to my site xxxxxx at a cost of $xxx but if you are one of the first 25 people who buy the product (CD set) after this call, you can get loads of free material valued at $xxxx',' I think to myself, 'Oh, no! another wolf in sheep's clothing' and I immediately question their intent for holding the teleclass and my trust begins to wane. This is a pity because I am sure that they have a lot of wisdom to share from which we can all learn.

ian

The Power of One

In Bryce Courtney's book, "The Power of One," set against a backdrop of hatred that was taking root in the country in which he lived and indeed across the world in 1939, the main character Peekay embarks on an epic journey through a land of tribal superstition and modern prejudice where he learns the power of words, the power to transform lives, and the mystical power that seems to sustain him even when it appears that villainy would rule the world. The message being that one man can make a difference. But, no - this is not a post of someone's epic journey, but rather it poses the question "if villainy did rule the world of business, what form would it take?"

One word - "Greed." History is littered with stories of corporate leaders that have wrecked havoc upon companies because of their greed. They chased executive payloads that were simply obscene. Generally, we can often see and smell such greed because, like a festering wound, it is there for all the world to see. And generally, we are able to act on it. But what if that greed is not so obvious to us? What if it is so subtle that we actually support it through our acceptance of it, because we know no better?

Allow me to explain by way of a recent event. A leading supermarket chain approached a supplier and said that it was going to remove all of its products from its shelves. The Chain knew that this would lead to a major loss of revenue to the supplier which it could not recover through other channels. But, to its credit, the supermarket chain did offer a life-line. The supplier could reduce the impact of the loss in revenues, if it co-packed those same lines under the supermarket's private label. However, should the supplier refuse to do so, it would be out of all its stores within 4 weeks.

What is the motivation here? There is only one that I can see - Greed. The supermarket may argue that it wants better margins (and I have no problem with that). Better margins means more profits; more profits means bigger payloads and bigger payloads means ....!

I do not have a problem with companies chasing margins. They need to to survive and certainly we work with many of our clients to improve their margins. I just don't like the way this particular supermarket chain went about it. May be it's just me, but I found this whole thing distasteful. The decision was not driven by any consumer research. It was not driven by any lack of advertising or promotion support on the part of the supplier. Neither was the decision driven by product quality or distribution issues. Rather, it was simply a supermarket chain flexing its muscle (because it knew it could) and saying, "I want what he has," and then using its power - the Power of One - to get it.

I still shop at its outlets. But I do not buy its private label.

May be it's me and may be, I am being a touch paranoid and villiany is not taking root in my local supermarket aisles - and may be, just may be it isn't greed - but I would love to know your thoughts.

ian   

'Never Mess with the Little People'

There is an old saying 'Never mess with the little people!' I get somewhat miffed when the leaders of companies think that the company is bigger than the people who work in it. The following comment is from a Chairman of a particular sports club who, after he unceremoniously and without warning dumped the coach of some 27 years and after the coach had made a comment in the press as to the method of his sacking: "I told him:'Don't destroy your own brand out of personal bitterness. In the end it will bite you and not the club. The club always survives. The institution survives and the individuals suffer.'"

The Chairman goes on to explain that the reason they had to move on the coach quickly was because another coach had become available and " ....we didn't want to be at the back of the queue."

Whereas I tend to agree with the sentiment that 'personal bitterness' is not a good weapon, the Chairman's implied arrogance that the institution is better than its individuals hits a raw nerve. No institution is better than or superior to the individuals that work within its walls (Just look at Communist Russia) and if its leaders think that it is - then they are horribly wrong and shouldn't be leading the organization.

So, I say - 'never mess with the little people' for they may be alot bigger than you think.

Finally, a quote that I came across which I hadn't heard before: 'It's just another splinter in the bum as you slide down the banister of life.' (Darren Beadman: record-making jockey after he was suspended for 7 days by stewards in the UK for excessive use of the whip on his horse at Ascot.) I wonder what his horse would say??

ian