Change & Internal Communications : Internal communications, Leadership, Consulting, Culture

Blog stats: Ferrabee's most popular and most commented

David Ferrabee — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:11:00 GMT

Today, Saturday 16 February 2008, this is what the numbers look like on David Ferrabee's Change & Internal Communications blog.

Started: 21 May 2005

Readers as of today: 282,785

Number of blog posts (articles): 289

Comments: 447

First edition - Collectors' Item

David Ferrabee — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:41:00 GMT

LONDON -- You may have seen that I said I'd be publishing a book a few months ago. Well, it's ready.

You can buy it right now by clicking here.

It is over 200 pages. Fully indexed. It includes the 180+ blogs that I have written here over the last 2 years. They are gathered by chapter, with a new introduction written for each.

I think it's all quite cool.

Why buy it now? Because for the next few days you'll have a first edition.

And as such it is sure to be a collectors' item. ;-)

A further edition will be pulled through to Amazon shortly, and that will have an ISBN and other things.

In the meantime, with your help I am sure I can clean up some of the text. And I hoping to add more testimonials to the back cover. (All entries welcome!)

Thanks to those who have read and contributed to this blog. You're in here too. (In spirit at least.)

/df

BP & EMI - more in common than random letters of the alphabet

David Ferrabee — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:22:00 GMT

I usually try to avoid writing about specific companies. Not least when I know the companies. And I know great people at both of these places. And they are equally, but different, iconic British companies.

Lord Browne of Madingley was said to be the greatest businessman outside the US by Fortune magazine. (Seriously, what kind of a category is that?!)

So what do they have in common?

Well, they're both getting the stuffing kicked out of them this weekend of January 13-14, 2007. And it looks set to continue.

But more importantly they both have business issues that are broadly "people issues". Both needing the kind of help we've seen others get successfully: help connecting people to what the business is trying to do... managing change... adapting to it... making the most of it.

Let's start with EMI.

The business has been popular for analysts to kick around. One of those companies that grumpy people point to as a sign of some malaise.

But it's actually a brilliant business with a really rich history that most of us can relate to. The difficulty is that it is a collection of smaller businesses. Each label has it's own management. It's own back office functions.

There are many arguments for this: keeping entrepreneurial culture, focus on service and the small company ethic... But let's be honest. That's got to be a bit of an anachronism these days. There is so much to argue for bringing things together. Not least the professionalism of the service.

And what about a company run by music fans. Isn't that a bit like a train company run by trainspotters? The business is changing. It's not about AOR and talent spotting anymore. It's about MySpace and downloads. But that doesn't mean it's not got legs.

The people who work at EMI need to learn to adapt to a changing environment. They're still doing the same stuff. They just need to know how to do it in different ways.

BP is the same... but different.

The papers say everyone knows they need a "cultural change that will run through the group."

Just as many business journalists talked about Browne as a rock star for many years, they were equally able to turn around and declare him a liability with stunning speed. In the media opinions are contagious.

The common issue that EMI and BP share is that markets and marketing are catching up with them. Their markets are changing. People in key business areas are making greater demands. The media is pointing them out as wounded antelope.

And they also find themselves behind the eight ball on a marketing front. They cannot convince skeptics that they are anything other than in a defensive position. And all their attempts to turn that around are hampered by the perception.

Finally, you have to ask yourself where this comes from. How does a business get itself into this position? And how does a business turn things around?

Your people.

I know my view is too simple for many. But it helps that it's most often true.

/df

That's no way to treat a former employee: Litvinenko

David Ferrabee — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:33:00 GMT

It's just not cool to radiate your former employees. Although it is not specifically prohibited in the employee handbook, it just seems so heavy handed.

I guess you could argue that if you work in the secret service this is the kind of way things play out. You don't just get a pension check and an invite to the AGM.

I heard this week about some serious post-job harassment. One of my old colleagues left a firm recently and was called a few weeks later and threatened. "If you take up work with that company (that already rejected us) we will sue you," said the 12-year-old bully who runs the firm.

And so my friend backed down.

"I don't want to get sued."

It didn't matter that 3-4 other people had recently left and taken their clients. The boss knew someone who he could harass, and took advantage of it.

I think this is something that I may have been working up to talk about for a while: management cowards.

Some days I am one. My colleagues will know those day. (And some are frighteningly comfortable pointing it out!)

Managers can do the hard work of looking after people... Or they can wait until it all goes horribly wrong and just lodge some radioactive material in their colon.

Not management at it's finest. But effective.

So, Litvinenko is not the poster-child for how to manage former, or departing employees. But at least it is public and the people involved are being held to account. Putin and others are all being named and shamed today – at least.

No such luck for your average business bully and incompetent or short-sighted business managers.

Why bother managing people properly? How can being decent to employees possibly affect my business success?

Those are often questions that provides comfort for busy managers. What kind of economic advantage does this provide me?

Here's the thing. Go to the websites of the big four accountancy/ consultancies and you'll see something relatively new: alumni pages. (KPMG, PwC, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and here.)

They have realised that keeping former employees sweet does a few important things:

It keeps your former employees connected to the company's future
It allows them to build on the base (and colleague connections) built at the firm
It gives former employees status that means something to them
It brings them back to you -- potentially reducing recruitment costs massively

This last item is quite possibly the most important. There's a great quote from Lyndon B. Johnson that I love. It's a bit rude, but it goes like this:

"It's better to have them inside the tent, pissing out, than outside the tent, pissing in."

Employees are the same way. The accountancies know the value of it. And they know how money is made.

Give me your stories, good and bad, about relations with former employers.

/df

var sc_project=2066480; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_partition=19; var sc_security="de77421e";