How is Brexit currently mirroring most corporate change?
Theresa May and her trusted team (the Board) are currently spending a lot of time behind closed doors, with little outcome. The people (your people), know that change is on the horizon, they know it needs to happen by a certain date, but nothing is happening. People want to know how it might impact them, their work and their families, but nothing.
But just how good are we at adapting to change, modifying our habits, or expanding our minds, especially as we get older? The answer is that we’re pretty good at it if we choose to be.
Not long ago the prevailing scientific powers believed that we are born with a brain that undergoes great change in infancy and early childhood, but then prunes down to the executive organ we have throughout our lives.
We conducted a Q&A interview with Paul Heywood, Founder and Managing Director of Halcyon Life, regarding resilience programmes and employee engagement.
1. Could you introduce yourself and what you do?
I am Founder and Managing Director of Halcyon Life. Previously, I was IT Director at 3i, a FTSE100 Private Equity firm, and at the law firm Fieldfisher. I have also held senior positions at Allen & Overy, WHSmith, L’Oréal, EY and Ford Motor Company.
Mark De Stadler from Dale Carnegie discusses the main drivers of employee engagement. He discusses Dale Carnegie's research in this area, and the outcome which identified 3 key areas for employee engagement:
Mark discusses how the relationship with your immediate supervisor is the most influential on employee engagement, emphasising the importance of training and developing brilliant managers to encourage your employees.
The Retail Banking industry is under immense pressure. Disruption from Fintech, a history of misselling scandals undermining customer trust, ever new regulation and internal costs that keep rising while employee engagement remains low.
To combat the rising tides, most banks try a combination of heavy investment in technology, internal restructuring, closing branches, and automating activities to reduce costs.
The results are a mixed bag.
All too frequently we think of projects in terms of schedules, requirements, budgets, resources and the like. We plan meticulously for them and hold onto the axiom that failing to plan is simply planning to fail. But how many of us actually plan for the human side of a project – the social, emotional and responsive elements of a project?
Let’s face it, we’ve all been in situations where (despite meticulous planning) we hear or say something along the lines of “Hmm! That’s not what I was expecting”, “Oh! I thought you meant this” or “Sorry! I wasn’t aware of that”.
Growing up we are taught (and throughout life we observe) what is frequently referred to as the Golden Rule. For many of us it started as (and maybe still is) the phrase "do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, and while the exact wording is flexible the central message is common to all.
In principle, the concept champions a two-way, reciprocal and mutual relationship between two or more parties.
This indeed is a very admirable idea, but it has a fundamental flaw that is amplified when brought into the workplace.
In 1943 Abraham Maslow first brought his Hierarchy of Needs theory to the world in which he looks at what motivates individuals.
He claimed that people are motivated by things and circumstance that range from basic survival up through up to the ability to reach and achieve one's full potential.
That sounds like something which could be applied in the workplace to elevate employee's motivation from simply being there to get a paycheck all the way up to performing at a very high level...
...and actually, enjoy doing it.
I'm going to argue here that many organisations using HR analytics to improve their people programmes are fooling themselves.
Let me explain: evidence-based HR analytics relies on a model something like this:
HR programme --> Competencies --> Employee performance --> Org performance
That is, you invest in workforce programmes to increase employee competencies ("the how") which in turn delivers increased employee and organisational performance ("the what").
Have you ever responded negatively to a text or a written message?
I have.
Nine times out of ten I’m able to stop myself from responding.
But then there is that odd time where I do respond. I ‘flash’ and although it feels good for about ten seconds I almost always regret it.
Why do we do this?
Professor Steve Peters explained why we do this in ‘The Chimp Paradox’ where he explained about the three parts of the brain.