Note: some of the linked articles below require an FT Subscription to read
When time management becomes a waste of time
How to simplify busy schedules – the bane (and status symbol) of many senior managers – has exercised time-management gurus and life coaches for decades. More often than not, their advice merely serves to re-affirm some basic rules that people already know but don’t apply.
‘The conclusions of recent research always smack of common sense’ says management writer, Andrew Hill in a recent FT article. ‘Schedule shorter meetings. Stay off email. Meet your team members and customers in person. Exercise. Stay off email. Get a good night’s sleep. Schedule time for spontaneous encounters, paradoxical though that sounds. Stay. Off. Email.’
Email is the big time-waster. It sucks up management time on issues better resolved by others. When the pace of incoming emails exceeds the time needed to read them and respond, it’s time to develop a rational and effective email delete policy.
As well as limiting the volume and modes of electronic communications, another enemy of well-managed time seems to be the ‘back-to-back’ meetings. They leave no time to reflect or plan. Pre-planning, says one CEO, is the key to an efficient working day.
For CEOs, the risks of back to back meetings is high. Research conducted by Harvard Business School’s Michael Porter and Nitin Nohria reveals that some 72% of CEO work time is spent in meetings, most lasting 30-60 minutes. That isn’t necessarily optimal, but it risks becoming a benchmark.
Of course, the research focuses on a certain type of male CEO. Other senior executives might work or live very differently. Indeed, how we live and work is ever-changing, and time management techniques are changing too. Electronic diaries are able to summarise our week’s work, calculating whether we are spending too much time with the wrong people. Apps can restrain our smart-phone addictions. Exercise trackers can tell us how long it has taken to reached our mileage goals.
But even if one can make reasonable trade-offs in our schedule, we don't always do so based on quality and impact of the scheduled event. How does one assess the true business benefits of regular deep thinking when there’s no obvious result to point to? What is the long-term value of attending an important family event, finishing a great novel or working out a little harder in the gym, when such activities exceed their allotted times?
Ultimately, CEOs must judge what counts most, works best and needs more time? In other words, within a few basic rules, perhaps it's better to let the CEO get on with it, and let everyone else judge by the results.
Trump, trade and the threat to business
If every generation must relearn what makes for a prosperous society, now is the time to make the case again for free trade. Following an acrimonious G7 meeting, the imposition of US tariffs on steel and aluminium, and threats to impose tariffs on $200bn worth of Chinese goods, policymakers and corporate executives now see a serious threat to the global trading regime. To view trade as a ‘zero-sum’ game not only ignores the interests of the protectionist country’s consumers, it also invites retaliatory measures from trading partners, thereby transferring the true costs to other sectors, and weakens the resolve of protected industries to restructure. The resulting drop in global growth hurts everyone.
The FT’s Tim Harford gets back to basics, unpicking ‘the topsy-turvy logic of Donald Trump’s trade tirades.’ He argues that the best case for the US is to ‘lose less heavily than some.’ He concedes that there may be ‘a case for “infant industry” protection — using trade barriers to shield a new industry from competition while it finds its feet’, but adds that it is the ‘fading industrial titans, not the infants, that usually manage to lobby for protection.’ The threat of trade barriers might conceivably work as ‘a narrow negotiating ploy,’ but Harford recalls the words of British economist Joan Robinson some 80 years ago that ‘it would be just as sensible to drop rocks into our harbours because other nations have rocky coasts.’
US companies are finally waking up to what might now be the biggest risk to business. The FT reports a change of mood in the boardrooms. Executives are no longer dismissing Trump’s position as crude electioneering. ‘A trade war between the two greatest economic powers in the history of the United States is very dangerous’ says Peter Quinter, chair of the customs law committee of the American Bar Association.
Can business lobbies defend free trade? In this FT video, How to Stop a Trade War, Robert Armstrong sets out the extent of the challenge. Trump won’t acknowledge the basic principles of free trade. The EU is divided. China uses trade deals to assert political hegemony in Asia and suck out foreign investors’ intellectual property. But some countries remain steadfast. Japan has kept faith with the TPP deal even after the US pulled out. Others refuse to be cowed, retaliating 'proportionately' with tariffs of their own. And even if the Trump administration still won’t back down, he won’t be in power after 2024 at the latest. So ‘push back, push forward and be patient’ Armstrong advises.
Why corporate leaders should reflect more seriously about AI.
Artificial Intelligence, it seems, is the overhyped technology of our age, says the FT’s John Thornhill in this podcast, ‘AI the new frontier.’ When Google’s CEO says that AI might have as profound an affect on human development as fire, one might be forgiven for dismissing the hubris. All a company needs to do nowadays is slap an AI reference on a presentation and, hey presto, they are seen as cutting edge. And yet, Thornhill and other experts ask if we might be underestimating the long-term impact of AI.
It wasn’t long ago that search engines, digital assistants, driverless transport, radiology scans, credit checks, for example, were on the wilder fringes of corporate strategy. Today, much of AI’s low-hanging fruit and talent has already been captured by the likes of Google. Algorithms have improved its ad systems and added immediate value. But even a simple definition of AI as the development of computer systems to perform tasks that humans normally do, have thought-leaders scrambling to consider the implications of everything from mass unemployment to the reconfiguration of our neural networks.
This greater seriousness has arisen because of three recent and converging developments: smarter algorithms, masses of data, and huge computing power. The impact is all around us, in our smart phones and other connected devices.
Ideally, AI should create endless possibilities of human augmentation. Healthcare is a case in point. Guided by the ‘three Ps’ - prevention, personalisation and precision- AI can assess what we eat, our stress levels, detect signs of heart disease, help manufacture bespoke drugs, and much more. But there are no shortages of dystopian visions either, from in-built bias based on poor data and design to low-cost drones with face recognition capabilities used for assassinations.
Amid all this there will be real business, political and regulatory challenges that executives must consider. Will the change wrought by AI be incremental or exponential, and how will society share the gains? Is a robot tax or a universal basic income the answer, or will robot owners take the lion’s share? Which jobs will go first –drivers seem particularly vulnerable—and what retraining and for what types of jobs will be available? How will surviving workers respond to be being bossed around by an algorithm?
There is also a geopolitical dimension to consider. AI is a strategic priority for China. It enjoys huge data sets, and weak regulation—the perfect setting in which to experiment. Tech companies are hoovering up the data, and AI is being weaponised through hacking and battlefield situations.
Few of us know what exactly is going on.
Asking the wrong questions about middle management
Andrew Hill, FT’s management editor, once again challenges assumptions about where true value in a company really lies. This time he argues that those who ‘delayer’ management levels do so at their peril. Following recent announcements from Elon Musk that ‘we are flattening the management structure,’ and BT that it was cutting 13,000 mainly middle management and back office jobs, Hill cautions leaders about the efficacy of flattening the management structure.
Those who reduce the links in the chain of command (or even try to abolish middle managers altogether) often just add extra workload to those who survive the cull, and encourages unnecessary tinkering by the CEO into his or her direct reports. Indeed, when GE’s former CEO Jack Welch took on 18 direct reports—countering the prevailing convention that these should be limited to around 7—he was in effect centralising power, according to one view.
Hill adds: ‘Leaders who fixate on structure may neglect more important factors, such as culture, competence, collaboration and customer satisfaction’. He refers to Stephen Denning’s The Age of Agile, arguing how ‘large organisations such as Microsoft or Spotify prosper not through hierarchy but by encouraging network connections and ensuring that “anyone can talk to anyone.’
The FT | IE Corporate Learning Alliance has also asked whether middle management is undervalued and misunderstood. Engagement, productivity, and institutional memory and more all depend to some degree on empowering and preserving the integrity of the middle manager. Much of the problem comes down to a misunderstanding about his or her distinctive role.
As David Bolchover writes, there is a vital difference between what the manager does and what the leader does. The latter sees their role in inspiring others and influence a working culture through what they say and do. It seldom involves direct contact with the team. On the other hand, ‘management involves dealing with other people’s messy realities, finding out what makes them tick and solving personal and workplace problems.’ Plenty of research suggests that company performance and engagement is determined more at this level than any other in organisation; senior leaders might therefore be less hasty when considering whether to discard it.
Gig Workers of the World Unite (…on a WhatsApp group)!
The FT’s new ‘Big Picture’ podcast series discusses the important trends shaping today’s business world. The latest, must-listen episode, The Changing World of Work, might be of particular interest to HR and learning professionals, as FT writers Sarah O’ Connor, Emma Jacobs and Martin Sandbu reflect on how the traditional employer-worker relationship is ‘coming apart at the seams.’
Although most employees continue to enjoy traditional jobs, the rise of a contingent workforce (which the FT | IE Corporate Learning Alliance wrote about here) is changing the employment landscape. In the UK, a huge growth in self-employment has come with temporary contracts on a ‘paid-per delivery basis,’ characterised by agency work and zero hours’ contracts, without pension or job security. The podcast notes a bifurcation of the jobs market in southern Europe too, with 80% of jobs in France, for example, having great employment contracts while the rest struggle with poor pay and protection.
The UK gig economy now accounts for some 4% of the total workforce. For those with specialist knowledge, this can be both flexible and profitable. But most are ‘lousy jobs’ making deliveries or taking care of the elderly. They come with heightened performance anxiety, lack security, and deter essential elements of normal jobs, such as taking a holiday. Worse, such jobs don't always offer much flexibility, especially when it comes to childcare. From Hollywood actresses to London bike couriers, employment risk has shifted back to the employees. To put it another way: who do they complain to when their rights are abused?
Gig work is often compared unfavourably with relatively stable manufacturing jobs. But the latter weren’t always secure either. Many of their benefits were introduced as a result of fierce industrial struggles. Similar unionisation battles may lie ahead for gig workers. Although it might be easier to organise like-minded, culturally united groups of workers on a factory floor, doing the same for gig workers isn't impossible. Instant, mass communication allows disparate workers to talk to each other through a simple WhatsApp group. The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, for example, recently won pay rises for 90% of cycle couriers. However, today's collective bargaining involves a different mindset from that of old-school, 1970’s trade unions.
Government can play a part in creating a new balance of power. The podcast asks whether the introduction of a basic universal income might allow the most vulnerable workers to negotiate with an employer without risking total destitution. Or would unscrupulous employers see this as a way to avoid paying a living wage?
Long hours and media overload: lessons for today’s stressed executives
The FT revisits the curse of the time-poor executive. It’s easy to be cynical about such concerns. Boredom is probably a bigger concern for office workers than long-hours and high pressure. Moreover, plenty of research demonstrates the diminishing and eventually negative returns to long hours.
Unfortunately, the message about the counter-productive consequences of over working doesn’t always get through—and the result can be toxic. Brooke Masters, the FT’s new comments and analysis editor, refers to an alarming email sent by a banker to junior analysts. He had been walking around the New York office at midnight and found 11 staff members still working at their desks. ‘Given that new [projects needing] staffing continue to flow in and you are all very near capacity,' the banker wrote, 'the only way I can think of to differentiate among you is to see who is in the office in the wee hours of the morning.’ The implied message: work all night or get fired.
Rather than disown the manager’s comments, the bank declined to comment - and this following a 2015 suicide of an employee, after which the bank had promised to introduce more flexible working.
Arguably there’s a degree of choice involved in working excessive hours on Wall Street or in other competitive environments. Such a choice was exercised by cricketer Zafar Ansari who announced that he was giving up the sport after achieving his childhood ambition of playing for England. As Michael Skapinker, FT columnist and executive editor of the FT | IE Corporate Learning Alliance points out, the 25-year old Ansari, who boasts a double first in psychology and sociology from University of Cambridge, didn’t retire because he deemed cricket to be insufficiently stimulating. Rather, ‘he realised he was just not competitive enough.’ He couldn’t match his team-mates’ hyper-competitive spirit.
Being hyper-competitive isn’t always the right thing to be, even for the most ambitious high fliers whether in banking, sport or other field. The demands of a job can change as one’s career progresses. When put in charge of others, you can no longer be their mates. You must ‘take tough decisions that may hurt individuals but are necessary for the organisation.’ You may need that ‘splinter of ice in the heart.’ Crucially, you must act within an ‘atmosphere of fairness, of decent respect for the effect their decisions have on people’s lives,’ a point clearly lost on the aforementioned New York bank. Ultimately, the ‘very best understand when they are not right for the job.’ It isn't necessarily a sign of lack of ambition. However, it takes real self-awareness to come to that conclusion.
Similar lessons might apply when we do get to relax. This is especially true when it comes to our obsessive consumption of media, as described by the FT’s technology writer Jonathan Margolis. He refers to the ‘panic-inducing’ amount of content and streaming services we feel obliged to consume in our downtime. Some cope by expertly multi-tasking; others decide to delete Facebook and Twitter to cut down on the number of stories they need to read. Bizarrely, ‘some people listen to podcasts speeded up...up to five times the normal rate, rendering artfully produced programmes to Donald Duck on helium.’
As with overwork, the impact of trying to consume too much knowledge too quickly is usually counter-productive. As one perplexed consumer noted: ‘One way or another, I get a lot of information each day. It’s just weird that I’m not smarter.’
Corporate lessons from WPP after Martin Sorrell
What can business learn from the resignation of Martin Sorrell, CEO of WPP? His departure from one of the world's biggest media agencies touches on many important learning and development and corporate transformation issues. As well as strategic questions such as the efficiency of conglomerates and the limits of an acquisition-led growth strategy, executives can also learn much about ‘founder versus manager’ confusion, and difficulties around succession planning. Many of these issues are touched upon in the FT’s continuing coverage.
Having acquired shell company WPP in 1987, Martin Sorrell used it as a vehicle for an acquisition-led growth strategy, buying up iconic industry players such as Ogilvy & Mather, Young & Rubicam, Grey and J Walter Thompson. WPP soon became the world’s largest advertising agency. As FT’s management writer Andrew Hill observes: Sir Martin was ‘the advertising industry’s most tenacious, most outspoken and — not to be forgotten — most successful conglomerateur.’
However, his leaving is also a tale of corporate over-reach in an industry undergoing its own change. An enterprise that took 33 years to assemble now looks set to unravel. WPP’s PR assets and its data investment unit are prime candidates for disposal. ‘WPP’s particular ill, as with Napoleonic France, is imperial over-reach,’ say FT Lex writers. ‘Removing the conglomerate discount and reducing the debt that goes with it could substantially lift WPP’s market valuation.’ Hill notes that ‘the conglomerate model Sir Martin pioneered is under strain.’ Over the past 18 months, WPP share price has fallen by one third, as the top advertisers such as Procter & Gamble cut ad spend.
As a corporate learning case study, Sorrell’s departure is sure to provide numerous insights into succession planning made difficult by a domineering CEO. Although he retains only 2% of the group, he was often viewed (and paid) more like a founder/owner. Analysts described him as ‘the glue that bound much of WPP together.’ As Hill notes, ‘the real test of Sir Martin’s legacy will be the durability of the structure he oversaw, without him to oversee it.’ The outlook for his successor isn’t promising (not helped by the fact that Sorrell’s contract contained no non-compete clause). To put it another way, ‘WPP chairman Roberto Quarta kept three succession options in his top drawer: “run over by a bus”, a two-year plan and a four-year plan.’ The first option seems most relevant.
Opportunity-cost calculations require honesty about our motivations
FT columnist, Tim Harford, highlights an important, yet often misunderstood, aspect of consumer behaviour—the opportunity costs of our purchasing decisions. The concept is relatively simple: every spending decision can be set against the alternatives that we forego. Yet how often do we consciously and rationally assess such a trade off? ‘We would make better decisions if we reminded ourselves about opportunity costs more often and more explicitly,’ writes Harford.
As behavioural scientists point out, ‘individuals neglect information that remains implicit.’ Our brains are far from trustworthy. ‘We think we can summon to mind a clear image of a tiger,' says Harford, 'but asked to draw a tiger we start to struggle. It’s the same with opportunity cost’ he notes. ‘We spend money simply out of habit or instinct.’
This is a significant point for L&D professionals, as well as executives especially in marketing. An essential problem of any opportunity cost equation— one that Harford does not address directly—is that it’s hard to calculate when we ignore the true value we ascribe to our purchases. This may be because we fail to identify it precisely enough or simply because we haven’t admitted to it. The reason why one might spend hundreds of dollars more on a stereo system (an example Harford uses) may not be because of its higher quality, but because the buyer hopes that it will impress friends. More honesty is needed.
Yet so much marketing is geared to reframing those motivations that lie behind purchasing choices. Advertisers often play on subconscious desires, as the FT’s Jo Ellison points out acidly about a certain soft drink. The murky reasoning underscoring our purchases makes it hard to assess the alternatives realistically.
One might pay vast sums for, say, a wristwatch. The choice may be justified by the time-piece’s aesthetics, technical complexity or superior timekeeping, as this FT letter-writer claims. Any opportunity cost calculation would therefore pit the alternatives against those stated benefits. But the true value of the watch might lie in an indefinable pleasure associated with a brand image or a sense of exclusivity that derives from the high price itself. In that case, the trade-offs are harder to calculate, and less likely to be made. It all lends support to Harford’s argument that thinking harder about opportunity costs would help us make better decisions. It might also reveal something new about ourselves.
Regulators take on tech companies, but will consumers wise up?
If your company is not already aware of how and why regulators are cracking down on tech companies, and what this might mean for your company, then several FT articles and opinions should become essential reading. The FT analyses why Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has been under fire over the use of Facebook data; why Uber has halted its self-driving cars following a pedestrian death, and new EU taxes on tech giants. Perhaps most important for HR and marketing are the new EU privacy rules due to come into force on May 25th.
Even before the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica revelations, the EU had been drafting its tough General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that will affect marketing, HR and other business functions, and even business models. The new rules will mean that any breaches of EU citizens’ data can result in fines of up to €20m, or 4 per cent of a company’s annual turnover (whichever is highest). This compares with the maximum fines imposed for privacy breaches in the UK of £500,000.
Any company collecting or processing personal information will have to gain clear consent from consumers on what it is doing with their information. When it comes to using data for political purposes, as the Cambridge Analytica issue has highlighted, personal information can only be used for limited purposes, for example, by political parties or campaign groups compiling newsletters or electoral lists. Despite the EU lead on the issues, privacy advocates still fear that Europe’s authorities will lack the resources to enforce them properly.
Real change will probably require more than just regulatory intervention. Consumers also need to understand what’s at stake. FT columnist Merryn Somerset Webb urges social media and internet searchers to value their data as highly as their pension assets. The difference between Facebook and Google on the one hand and financial services on the other, she writes, is that the assets held by the former are not stocks and bonds but personal data. Yet ‘if customers actually knew how much they were paying for their ‘free’ online services, they might be less enthusiastic about signing up for them.’ This realisation may be one big reason why Facebook, Google and Amazon shares all fell hard this week, she says. As Apple’s chief executive Tim Cook recently noted in relation to Facebook: ‘If our customer was our product, we could make a ton of money.’
Putin, political risk and the fall-out for business
For executives looking to get a better grip on political risk, Russia is always a good place to start. Over the past quarter century, the country’s twists and turns provide plenty of useful risk lessons. Perhaps the greatest shock to foreign investors—from the biggest banks to the smallest importers—came in August 1998. It was the moment when the chaotic reforms of the immediate post-communist period led to an economic crash, bond default, and a 75% rouble devaluation, paving the way for authoritarian rule.
The rise of President Vladimir Putin, whose 18 years in power now exceed that of any Soviet leader except Joseph Stalin, has created a new set of political risks. The President’s assertion of domestic control has inevitably led to political projection abroad. Rising tension regarding Russian influence in the West, especially following the recent spy poisoning scandal in the UK, could lead to another important inflection point, that should give investors pause for thought.
Many of the issues are covered in the FT Collections ‘How do you solve a problem like Russia?’ Philip Stephens, the FT’s chief political commentator writes: ‘The attempted murder of Mr Skripal cannot be seen in isolation. It is part of the pattern that includes fostering corruption in the former communist states of eastern and central Europe, fomenting instability in the Balkans, the spread of fake news and disinformation, and financial support for populist extremists.’
Gideon Rachman, the FT’s Chief Foreign Affairs commentator, notes that ‘much stronger measures aimed at Russian business and finance’ will affect the many ‘rich Kremlin-connected individuals who use London for both business and pleasure.’ But he asks how Brexit might affect the UK’s willingness to take a tough stance against an important non-EU trading partner, and whether the UK’s western allies will come to her defence?
Lex columnists argue that ‘London is the main overseas capital-raising venue for Russia, but other financial centres could be used. For now, financial markets regard the threat as minor; Russia is busy planning a new eurobond sale.…Similarly, the appetite for trade sanctions is limited. The UK is one of Russia’s smaller trading partners and estimates that less than 1 per cent of its gas comes from the country.’ It adds that ‘the UK can do more by targeting individuals.’
Retaliation against UK investors in Russia might follow. Political risk strategists will have to consider how, when and why they might be affected as the latest international spat plays out.