While a lot of attention, and quite rightly, is focused at stopping this awful behaviour in our schools, there needs to be more focus on bullying in the workplace.
Unfortunately, bullying in the workplace is now a lot more subtle and psychological but can just be as devastating. It can start with the smallest of actions but slowly it grows to undermine the individual, and not necessarily to their face, but briefing of their peers and senior colleagues, so that a cumulative drip effect becomes an avalanche, and before you know it you have been isolated by the political machinations of an individual.
The PRologist has heard of a terrible case of the bullying of an entire PR team and The PRologist was of a mind to out the individual concerned but the worst effect of bullying is that when it is brought out into the open, the person doing the bullying usually keeps their job and the person bullied ends up leaving, sometimes with some compensation but with a scar caused by the corporate ignorance of many HR leaders and managers.
More needs to be done to address the bullying manager, bullying should not be condoned or rewarded and more bullies should be sacked and made an example of.
There are a number of excellent employment lawyers who recognise the impact of workplace bullying but often the financial cost of taking a corporation to tribunal is too much for an individual or a family to face. The PRologist has found out that some home insurance policies will provide legal guidance and where necessary financial help should litigation be necessary.
Often though the mere whiff of an individual prepared to hire a lawyer is enough to rally the HR team into action.
The PRologist supports all work being undertaken in schools to stamp out bullying but shame on the corporate world for not doing enough to seriously out the bullies. If you think you’re being bullied you probably are.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Good news for BT shareholders
All BT shareholders I am sure will join The PRologist in congratulating Peter Morgan, the BT Group Director of Communications, who is currently conducting a review of PR agencies. He is doing this because BT is spending too much money on PR. So has Peter Morgan just joined and in the heady heights of the first 100 day plan? No, Peter Morgan has been at BT for nearly five years!
The article in PRWeek states that “Morgan denied the review was a direct response to worsening financial conditions”. Why? That would make more sense, as one conclusion that could be arrived at is that it has taken him so long to realise that BT are paying too much out to agencies.
Unfortunately this behaviour is all too familiar. Why is there so little trust and respect between the in-house PR team and the PR agencies? When the going gets tough the PR Heads get going on their ‘agency reviews’ – it’s easier to get rid of an agency to demonstrate cost cutting than it is to strip bear an in-house team. Rather than shoot from the hip, the role of the head of PR is to ensure that value for money be had all the year round for all time and they should be in a position to defend the spend on any agency they use to the Board. It’s Good Business.
The relationship with a PR agency should be through both the good times and the bad times. If the relationship is managed in a professional, transparent and diligent manner, evaluating the work that is carried out and providing feedback then this would never happen. The PRologist remembers stripping out an agency in the first 100 days that had consistently charged a six figure sum year on year with little value delivered and replaced it with a smaller, nippier filly. The results were astounding and long lasting.
However, the issue also reminds The PRologist of an overheard story of a Marketing Director in Coq d’Argent talking about the companies she worked at – for no longer than 18 months. When asked she said “Well, when I first join I am in the honeymoon period so I am allowed several months to get to grips with what is going on. Then once I have done that I then do an agency pitch and sack all the old agencies and get new agencies in which takes a few more months. Then the new agencies take a while to be briefed and brought up to speed and of course I get schmoozed a lot. By the time the first campaigns have been delivered and the evaluation starts coming in – it will then have been 18 months since I joined so I have to leave before they realise how incompetent I am!”
The article in PRWeek states that “Morgan denied the review was a direct response to worsening financial conditions”. Why? That would make more sense, as one conclusion that could be arrived at is that it has taken him so long to realise that BT are paying too much out to agencies.
Unfortunately this behaviour is all too familiar. Why is there so little trust and respect between the in-house PR team and the PR agencies? When the going gets tough the PR Heads get going on their ‘agency reviews’ – it’s easier to get rid of an agency to demonstrate cost cutting than it is to strip bear an in-house team. Rather than shoot from the hip, the role of the head of PR is to ensure that value for money be had all the year round for all time and they should be in a position to defend the spend on any agency they use to the Board. It’s Good Business.
The relationship with a PR agency should be through both the good times and the bad times. If the relationship is managed in a professional, transparent and diligent manner, evaluating the work that is carried out and providing feedback then this would never happen. The PRologist remembers stripping out an agency in the first 100 days that had consistently charged a six figure sum year on year with little value delivered and replaced it with a smaller, nippier filly. The results were astounding and long lasting.
However, the issue also reminds The PRologist of an overheard story of a Marketing Director in Coq d’Argent talking about the companies she worked at – for no longer than 18 months. When asked she said “Well, when I first join I am in the honeymoon period so I am allowed several months to get to grips with what is going on. Then once I have done that I then do an agency pitch and sack all the old agencies and get new agencies in which takes a few more months. Then the new agencies take a while to be briefed and brought up to speed and of course I get schmoozed a lot. By the time the first campaigns have been delivered and the evaluation starts coming in – it will then have been 18 months since I joined so I have to leave before they realise how incompetent I am!”
Monday, 23 March 2009
Local Government Association says...
Like the sketch from Little Britain, the LGA says no to 200 words which they want banned in their use from councils. Some of them will be very familiar to those that play bulls**t bingo in meetings – like “blue sky thinking” and “thinking out of the box” but the majority of them are part and parcel of any business or management book, and The PRologist is at least relieved that council workers take the time to read books to further their development.
But what is the purpose of the list? Will every person that works for a council have a list with them that they have to check against banned words? Will a special version of Microsoft Word be installed that will eliminate these words and replace them with suitable alternatives?
Of course not. The answer lies in a quick Google search. A press release ahead of Plain English day was released by the LGA on 11 December 2007 entitled Councils help battle for plain English and a list of 100 words were published that should not be used. So how effective was this wonderful piece of PR in changing behaviours? 0% - as all 100 words appear on the list of 200 words!
The conservative side of The PRologist would suggest that actually this has nothing to do with changing behaviour but just a rehash of a PR idea which did not work the first time.
I am sure the LGA does some very worthwhile work but this piece of PR leaves a sour taste in the mouth and gives the impression of yet another government quango wasting taxpayers money.
What would have been of more benefit is lobbying behind the scenes to raise the standards of communication and for people to receive training and be educated in improving their communication skills. Let’s have solutions rather than deliver a poor PR stunt which probably had the PR team in a fit of giggles. At least, The PRologist hopes the PR team had a laugh over it – if they didn’t we’re really in trouble. Next time though PR team why don’t you just stand up and be counted and say it’s a shit idea – oops is that a banned word? The PRologist has just seen an advert for a BBC 2 programme on Speech – the lost art of oratory. Here here…
As a previous Prime Minister once said “Education, education, education”. However, The PRologist’s computer would like the last word on this matter. Computer says… “No”.
But what is the purpose of the list? Will every person that works for a council have a list with them that they have to check against banned words? Will a special version of Microsoft Word be installed that will eliminate these words and replace them with suitable alternatives?
Of course not. The answer lies in a quick Google search. A press release ahead of Plain English day was released by the LGA on 11 December 2007 entitled Councils help battle for plain English and a list of 100 words were published that should not be used. So how effective was this wonderful piece of PR in changing behaviours? 0% - as all 100 words appear on the list of 200 words!
The conservative side of The PRologist would suggest that actually this has nothing to do with changing behaviour but just a rehash of a PR idea which did not work the first time.
I am sure the LGA does some very worthwhile work but this piece of PR leaves a sour taste in the mouth and gives the impression of yet another government quango wasting taxpayers money.
What would have been of more benefit is lobbying behind the scenes to raise the standards of communication and for people to receive training and be educated in improving their communication skills. Let’s have solutions rather than deliver a poor PR stunt which probably had the PR team in a fit of giggles. At least, The PRologist hopes the PR team had a laugh over it – if they didn’t we’re really in trouble. Next time though PR team why don’t you just stand up and be counted and say it’s a shit idea – oops is that a banned word? The PRologist has just seen an advert for a BBC 2 programme on Speech – the lost art of oratory. Here here…
As a previous Prime Minister once said “Education, education, education”. However, The PRologist’s computer would like the last word on this matter. Computer says… “No”.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
The Ryanair Factor
Over the weekend many of you will have seen the story that Ryanair are considering that customers will have to pay for a pee. The comments from Michael O’Leary have generated huge amounts of coverage and most of it from a very objective standpoint would feel it is negative. Indeed for those caught out at Kings X – 30 pence is a great investment or the McDonalds across the street is free!
However, The PRologoist feels that actually it is a smart move by the Chief Executive because the subliminal message this story carries - which will last longer than the initial outrage in the press - is one that supports the core statement for Ryanair – that they provide cheap flights, and in the current economic climate then even more of us fall into the category of wanting cheap flights!
Ryanair’s PR strategy has played up to these strengths and they have taken on the establishment to great effect, but they do have to be careful in their targets as another story in the same week has probably not made them any friends in the blogging community.
The blogger, Jason Roe, claimed to find a bug in the Ryanair website that meant flights were displayed at £0.00 cost. Subsequently in the comments section a couple of Ryanair staff took exception to this claim in terms that may even make Michael O’Leary blush.
The final comment from Ryanair came from Stephen McNamara, their Head of Communications, with:
"Ryanair can confirm that a Ryanair staff member did engage in a blog discussion."It is Ryanair policy not to waste time and energy corresponding with idiot bloggers and Ryanair can confirm that it won't be happening again."Lunatic bloggers can have the blog sphere all to themselves as our people are far too busy driving down the cost of air travel".
One of the clearest statements on a position The PRologist has ever seen. It is a shame that he does not go into politics, it would certainly make it more interesting! However his attitude is disappointing – does he not realise that companies that engage with their most vociferous bloggers can actually learn from them and improve customer service thus increasing profits negating the need even for PEE R men.
However, The PRologoist feels that actually it is a smart move by the Chief Executive because the subliminal message this story carries - which will last longer than the initial outrage in the press - is one that supports the core statement for Ryanair – that they provide cheap flights, and in the current economic climate then even more of us fall into the category of wanting cheap flights!
Ryanair’s PR strategy has played up to these strengths and they have taken on the establishment to great effect, but they do have to be careful in their targets as another story in the same week has probably not made them any friends in the blogging community.
The blogger, Jason Roe, claimed to find a bug in the Ryanair website that meant flights were displayed at £0.00 cost. Subsequently in the comments section a couple of Ryanair staff took exception to this claim in terms that may even make Michael O’Leary blush.
The final comment from Ryanair came from Stephen McNamara, their Head of Communications, with:
"Ryanair can confirm that a Ryanair staff member did engage in a blog discussion."It is Ryanair policy not to waste time and energy corresponding with idiot bloggers and Ryanair can confirm that it won't be happening again."Lunatic bloggers can have the blog sphere all to themselves as our people are far too busy driving down the cost of air travel".
One of the clearest statements on a position The PRologist has ever seen. It is a shame that he does not go into politics, it would certainly make it more interesting! However his attitude is disappointing – does he not realise that companies that engage with their most vociferous bloggers can actually learn from them and improve customer service thus increasing profits negating the need even for PEE R men.
Monday, 2 March 2009
A banking nightmare...
For the first comment piece it would be remiss not to talk about a subject that has dominated the news headlines over the last six months or so. The demise of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group and the Lloyds TSB / HBOS merger or should it be .. takeover, have been generating different news headlines every day for the last couple of months. The saga, alas, is unfortunately going to continue for the next few months putting many thousands of innocent people and their families in a position of unrest.
However, The PRologist wants to look at a different angle, which concerns how the new Lloyds Banking Group will move forward in the next months and ironically the parallels that can be learnt from the RBS takeover of NatWest.
Despite RBS’s current standing, the takeover of NatWest is a classic case study of how to merge two banks and reap the benefits. RBS, some would say, was ruthless once the takeover was complete and moved rapidly to reduce the amount of uncertainty among staff. As the victor, RBS swiftly removed the top layers of management within NatWest, with only a couple of exceptions, and the NatWest culture was to all purposes dead and buried.
This was a vital step in the development of RBS, because it quickly established who was in charge. It cleared the decks for a new culture to emerge and while it appeared ruthless to the NatWest staff who lost their jobs and there was undoubtedly talented individuals made to leave the organisation, for the foot soldiers that remained behind it showed that the organisation was moving forward at speed and that the responsibility for the failure of NatWest lay with their senior management team – not them.
If you talk to RBS and NatWest staff about the culture of the new organisation after the takeover, they will both say that it was neither the same as the old RBS or the old NatWest but it evolved from the strong culture of the old RBS, which at that time was an efficiently run and lean business.
The RBS values were good and a great base to start but it had to evolve as it was now a much larger organisation. Some would say that the further expansion of RBS with the takeover of ABN AMRO meant that the business and culture ended up being stretched to the limits and that confidence turned to arrogance but for several years after the NatWest takeover; there was a confidence about the bank bred by that culture.
Now, the only people who were right to take the business forward, were the RBS senior management. If RBS had decided to divi up the senior roles between RBS and NatWest staff, then the signals that it would have sent to the external market and internally to staff would have been confused.
Which culture are we using, RBS or NatWest? What processes will we be using? What values do we hold? What is the vision? You can imagine the boardroom meetings at various senior management levels being divided among the old RBS and old NatWest lines, leading to further division and destroying the business.
Now look at the current state of Lloyds TSB and HBOS. The PRologist deliberately opened with the ambiguous statement “takeover / merger”. If you have read reports over the last few months the words are interchangeable but the reality to most people is that Lloyds TSB took over an ailing and poor performing HBOS.
Lloyds TSB was the strong, well performing bank and by taking over HBOS it was going to turn around the mistakes of the past. So have the Lloyds TSB executive removed the HBOS senior management in a clinical but necessary move to get rid of the poor culture that led to HBOS being on the brink of nationalisation?
The answer is a definite “No”. At the Board level, it is a mainly Lloyds TSB affair with one or two exceptions. But The PRologist’s sources within the organisation say that at the next couple of layers down then the roles are being divided out equally between Lloyds TSB and HBOS – and in some cases the lion’s share are going to HBOS.
What signals does that send to the markets, and to staff about turning around a bank that is 43 per cent - if not more by the time this goes live - owned by the Government and reported a £10bn loss for 2008?
For Lloyds TSB staff, to see your bosses and colleagues lose their jobs to HBOS counterparts must be particularly gutting. Who won the takeover? Which business is meant to be the better run? What will happen to my job if they think HBOS are better than Lloyds TSB? Many of these staff will also be shareholders in the company and as well as seeing their share value diminish by over 80 per cent, they face an uncertain future and a culture from which they were proud and confident to one that looks messy and ill-defined.
Lloyds TSB staff in Scotland have already had a kick-in the teeth with the early announcement that the brand would disappear in favour of the Bank of Scotland brand. Ponderings by The PRologist would surmise that the Lloyds TSB brand was the better liked in Scotland but that the Bank of Scotland has the licence to print money – perhaps more of a draw to the executives
So will the HBOS staff be jumping for joy? Well the senior executives and management who survived most definitely will be. They will start to think they are invincible, surviving what most commentators would assume is certain redundancy, now who will dare to challenge their old ways? Of course they will pay lip-service to their new masters, but for the people that they manage then it is business and old HBOS culture as usual.
Andy Hornby receiving a consultancy role with the new Lloyds Banking Group is hardly a condemnation of failure but continues to give mixed signals about what this organisation is about.
Eric Daniels stated that appointments would be from both teams below his Executive team in an article in The Times in December 2008 but The PRologist feels that his rationale “our colleagues have to feel this is a good place to work” will be as reassuring as his claim at that time that “we are in a position to do this deal because we have a strong balance sheet and strong funding... we came to the conclusion that we can fund it very comfortably. We are taking on additional risk but we think it is very manageable.”
His claim in that same article that “the culture of both banks is pretty similar” has been pretty much blown apart by former HBOS employees talking about the strong, cut-throat sales culture and product advocacy while Lloyds TSB has been a lot more conservative and until now has been about customer relationships – hence the constant promotion about being the “most trusted bank” in the UK.
If anyone thinks that by picking the best people for the best jobs and tapping into the talent of old HBOS is being prudent then they are living in a utopian world not the real, harsh, business world – where there is a winner and a loser. It would appear that some of this talent from HBOS jumped ship and were poached by Benny Higgins at Tesco Personal Finance before the takeover.
Lloyds Banking Group is now a huge super-tanker and as everyone knows stopping them is one hell of a difficult job so turning them around is even harder. The first 100 days are vital for the course that is set in any merger/takeover and it would appear to The PRologist that the Group are going in many different directions but perhaps not the right one and it will take a lot of effort to turn it around.
Ironically, one of the most important people in turning this around is the veteran HBOS communicator, Shane O’Riordain, who is Group Communications Director. It will be interesting to see firstly, whether he has any empathy with his Lloyds TSB colleagues and secondly, on what lines will his senior team be composed of.
If it is a wholly HBOS affair then The PRologist fears that the next few months nay years will see the Group trying to manoeuvre around several icebergs – only to crash into one in the dead of night. But America has always been welcoming to lost souls - another story entirely.
However, The PRologist wants to look at a different angle, which concerns how the new Lloyds Banking Group will move forward in the next months and ironically the parallels that can be learnt from the RBS takeover of NatWest.
Despite RBS’s current standing, the takeover of NatWest is a classic case study of how to merge two banks and reap the benefits. RBS, some would say, was ruthless once the takeover was complete and moved rapidly to reduce the amount of uncertainty among staff. As the victor, RBS swiftly removed the top layers of management within NatWest, with only a couple of exceptions, and the NatWest culture was to all purposes dead and buried.
This was a vital step in the development of RBS, because it quickly established who was in charge. It cleared the decks for a new culture to emerge and while it appeared ruthless to the NatWest staff who lost their jobs and there was undoubtedly talented individuals made to leave the organisation, for the foot soldiers that remained behind it showed that the organisation was moving forward at speed and that the responsibility for the failure of NatWest lay with their senior management team – not them.
If you talk to RBS and NatWest staff about the culture of the new organisation after the takeover, they will both say that it was neither the same as the old RBS or the old NatWest but it evolved from the strong culture of the old RBS, which at that time was an efficiently run and lean business.
The RBS values were good and a great base to start but it had to evolve as it was now a much larger organisation. Some would say that the further expansion of RBS with the takeover of ABN AMRO meant that the business and culture ended up being stretched to the limits and that confidence turned to arrogance but for several years after the NatWest takeover; there was a confidence about the bank bred by that culture.
Now, the only people who were right to take the business forward, were the RBS senior management. If RBS had decided to divi up the senior roles between RBS and NatWest staff, then the signals that it would have sent to the external market and internally to staff would have been confused.
Which culture are we using, RBS or NatWest? What processes will we be using? What values do we hold? What is the vision? You can imagine the boardroom meetings at various senior management levels being divided among the old RBS and old NatWest lines, leading to further division and destroying the business.
Now look at the current state of Lloyds TSB and HBOS. The PRologist deliberately opened with the ambiguous statement “takeover / merger”. If you have read reports over the last few months the words are interchangeable but the reality to most people is that Lloyds TSB took over an ailing and poor performing HBOS.
Lloyds TSB was the strong, well performing bank and by taking over HBOS it was going to turn around the mistakes of the past. So have the Lloyds TSB executive removed the HBOS senior management in a clinical but necessary move to get rid of the poor culture that led to HBOS being on the brink of nationalisation?
The answer is a definite “No”. At the Board level, it is a mainly Lloyds TSB affair with one or two exceptions. But The PRologist’s sources within the organisation say that at the next couple of layers down then the roles are being divided out equally between Lloyds TSB and HBOS – and in some cases the lion’s share are going to HBOS.
What signals does that send to the markets, and to staff about turning around a bank that is 43 per cent - if not more by the time this goes live - owned by the Government and reported a £10bn loss for 2008?
For Lloyds TSB staff, to see your bosses and colleagues lose their jobs to HBOS counterparts must be particularly gutting. Who won the takeover? Which business is meant to be the better run? What will happen to my job if they think HBOS are better than Lloyds TSB? Many of these staff will also be shareholders in the company and as well as seeing their share value diminish by over 80 per cent, they face an uncertain future and a culture from which they were proud and confident to one that looks messy and ill-defined.
Lloyds TSB staff in Scotland have already had a kick-in the teeth with the early announcement that the brand would disappear in favour of the Bank of Scotland brand. Ponderings by The PRologist would surmise that the Lloyds TSB brand was the better liked in Scotland but that the Bank of Scotland has the licence to print money – perhaps more of a draw to the executives
So will the HBOS staff be jumping for joy? Well the senior executives and management who survived most definitely will be. They will start to think they are invincible, surviving what most commentators would assume is certain redundancy, now who will dare to challenge their old ways? Of course they will pay lip-service to their new masters, but for the people that they manage then it is business and old HBOS culture as usual.
Andy Hornby receiving a consultancy role with the new Lloyds Banking Group is hardly a condemnation of failure but continues to give mixed signals about what this organisation is about.
Eric Daniels stated that appointments would be from both teams below his Executive team in an article in The Times in December 2008 but The PRologist feels that his rationale “our colleagues have to feel this is a good place to work” will be as reassuring as his claim at that time that “we are in a position to do this deal because we have a strong balance sheet and strong funding... we came to the conclusion that we can fund it very comfortably. We are taking on additional risk but we think it is very manageable.”
His claim in that same article that “the culture of both banks is pretty similar” has been pretty much blown apart by former HBOS employees talking about the strong, cut-throat sales culture and product advocacy while Lloyds TSB has been a lot more conservative and until now has been about customer relationships – hence the constant promotion about being the “most trusted bank” in the UK.
If anyone thinks that by picking the best people for the best jobs and tapping into the talent of old HBOS is being prudent then they are living in a utopian world not the real, harsh, business world – where there is a winner and a loser. It would appear that some of this talent from HBOS jumped ship and were poached by Benny Higgins at Tesco Personal Finance before the takeover.
Lloyds Banking Group is now a huge super-tanker and as everyone knows stopping them is one hell of a difficult job so turning them around is even harder. The first 100 days are vital for the course that is set in any merger/takeover and it would appear to The PRologist that the Group are going in many different directions but perhaps not the right one and it will take a lot of effort to turn it around.
Ironically, one of the most important people in turning this around is the veteran HBOS communicator, Shane O’Riordain, who is Group Communications Director. It will be interesting to see firstly, whether he has any empathy with his Lloyds TSB colleagues and secondly, on what lines will his senior team be composed of.
If it is a wholly HBOS affair then The PRologist fears that the next few months nay years will see the Group trying to manoeuvre around several icebergs – only to crash into one in the dead of night. But America has always been welcoming to lost souls - another story entirely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)