Dame Anne Owers, the Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales, said today that a number of prison managers had moved out “difficult” inmates because they were worried that their presence would negatively impact their inspection.

It seemed especially farcical because, apparently, it would have had no impact if the prisoners had stayed.

“The presence of those prisoners wouldn’t have affected our inspectors assessment at all,” said Dame Anne.

“Sadly for the many staff and managers who had worked hard to improve the two prisons, their efforts will inevitably be overshadowed by these events,” she said.

“This is deplorable, not only because of the effects on individuals, but because of the underlying mind-set that prisoners are merely pieces to be moved around the board to meet performance targets or burnish the reputation of the prison.”

What really struck me about Dame Anne’s comments was her concern that this would have a damaging impact on moral for the staff and lower level managers, and provide a negative example to them.

Continue reading "Even prison managers sometimes fiddle"

David Rubenstein, co-founder of Carlyle Group, the private equity firm, said last week that his industry ought to consider adopting a new name to describe what it does more accurately. How about “change capital”, he suggested. I am not sure that this is a good idea. If Mr Rubenstein thinks the word change will be less provocative than private equity, then he is likely to be disappointed.

Change is everywhere in business, and people tend not to be very happy about it. But it is not just nostalgia, or laziness, that causes the negative reaction. Change is rarely managed well.

What do managers get wrong about change? There is quite a long list. They underestimate how long it will take to get people to accept change. They fail to recognise how difficult it is to spread the message that change may be necessary or unavoidable. They do not understand what change feels like beyond the boardroom or the top management table. And, having finally got the organisation to accept the need for change, they forget to explain that the new direction or mission may change again, and possibly quite soon.

The remainder of this article can be read here. Please post comments below

The Royal Mail and its unions are at loggerheads. Again.

I moved to the UK in 1997 and like a letter that never reaches its final destination, turmoil in the organisation is one of the business stories that has been a constant throughout the time I have lived in the country.

Every year, it seems to have lurched from crisis to crisis: successive bosses have said that the service needs to modernise or die; unions and workers battle them back in negotiations, claiming that ‘modernisation’ is a code word for gutting the organisation, cutting jobs and reducing salaries to disastrous levels; and the government, publicly at least, seems keen to stay out of it as much as they can (though I have to say, Lord Mandelson’s statement on the decision by the CWU to strike - “Candidly, I think it is suicidal” - did strike me as extraordinarily strident).

Continue reading "The Royal Mail - the saga that never dies"

• Cabinet to slims down for Sarkozy - Lucy Kellaway wrote about the balance between private health and employers earlier this week, but I’m not sure how many managers can get away with this. I especially liked his apparent suggestions he “told at least one would-be appointee to drop some weight and change his hair style if he wanted the job”
• Google paid a $1bn premium for YouTube - an interesting admission from Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, that the company paid $1bn more for YouTube than it was worth simply to make sure no one else could outbid it (Hat tip: The Browser)
• Success stories in bad times - Ok, so the headline writer employed a bit of hyperbole (do Twinkies qualify as a success?) and it’s a bit US focused but chocolate chip cookies are certainly a silver lining to any recession

I’m a bit late on to this but last week Jerome Kerviel, the “rogue trader” who is accused of losing French bank Societe Generale €5bn, was interviewed on French television.

The video on France 2’s Objet du Scandale is revealing partly because of all the talk at the G20 and, in the UK at the Labour party conference, of the need to curb bankers’ bonuses or at least restructure how they are paid out. Kerviel’s broader point is that there isn’t any point; whatever rules are created, clever people will find a way round them.

But I thought his other comment on the nature of his former job as a trader pointed to a wider issue that doesn’t seem to be attracting quite as much discussion. “It’s a job that makes you a bit crazy, an addict. They push you to take risks,” he said, referring to the culture of his former workplace.

Continue reading "Jerome Kerviel: curbing bonuses won’t work"

Humour and charm are a surprisingly powerful combination as a means of ascent in life. I have met a number of entrepreneurs who have built fortunes on the back of their wit and general popularity – and not much else. They disarm us with self-deprecation, we enjoy their company – so why wouldn’t we want to do business with them? Of course, it all has to be done well; sycophancy and flat jokes do not weave the same spell.

Continue reading "Leaders who use charm to reach the top"

On Wednesday, for one day only, several thousand of the unemployed and unemployable will make their way into UK workplaces. Most will have exceptionally low IQs and will be capable of following only the simplest instructions. Many also will have halitosis and be inclined to behave with inappropriate friendliness or sudden hostility. Continue reading "Letting the office go to the dogs"

When it comes to battling with the competition, where do you draw the line? Is all fair in love, war and business?

The key text for believers in ruthless competition is probably Hardball: Are you playing to play or playing to win?written five years ago by Boston Consulting Group’s George Stalk and his ex-BCG colleague Rob Lachenauer.

For these two, a hardball approach means “creating discomfort for others and tolerating it in yourself”. Not that you should consider doing anything illegal – of course not. But there is a moral and legal grey area (a “caution zone”) which, the authors argue, is “rich in possibility”. A smart leader will recognise where to draw a “bright line” in this zone. He or she “lets everybody know when they’re getting close to it, and takes corrective action as soon as anyone steps over it”.

The remainder of the article can be read here. Please post comments below.