This is hilarious. In my alerts, this just popped up and I had to share. Although if you listen to the words, I kind of doubt that the message had time to sink in with the G4S managers tasked with running the Olympics contract. lol –Matt
Check out the album here.
This is a great article. Professor Michael Roberto gave the heads up about this article and I instantly thought this would be some good stuff for leaders of all levels to check out. It is also some good advice for how management/leaders can gain Fingerspitzengefühl or a ‘finger tip feel’ for what is going on within their company or unit. Below is a quick background on the German term and I think it fits well with what is talked about in the article.
Fingerspitzengefühl is a German term, literally meaning “finger tips feeling” and meaning intuitive flair or instinct, which has been appropriated by the English language as a loanword. In German, it describes a great situational awareness, and the ability to respond most appropriately and tactfully. It can be applied well to diplomats, bearers of bad news, or to describe a superior ability respond to an escalated situation.
The word is enjoying a second life in the English language in military terminology, where it is used for the stated ability of some military commanders, such as Field-Marshal Erwin Rommel, to maintain with great accuracy in attention to detail an ever-changing operational and tactical situation by maintaining a mental map of the battlefield. In this sense the term is synonymous with the English expression of “keeping one’s finger on the pulse”. The mental image given is of a military commander who is in such intimate communication with the battlefield that it is as though he has a fingertip on each critical point, expressed in the 18th and 19th centuries as “having a feel for combat”. -from Wikipedia
I also agree entirely with Professor Roberto’s commentary on the article. That these are some concepts that leaders should be practicing in their formative years so that it becomes ingrained into their psyche and leadership style. Perhaps one day a reader here, that has taken these concepts to heart, will apply them to their command as a CEO of a company? Here is Roberto’s quote:
I think it’s a terrific list. Moreover, I think it applies to managers at all levels of an organization, not just at the CEO position. Front-line managers should also cultivate an objective sounding board, encourage dissent, and surround themselves with talented subordinates. In fact, if people engage in these practices early in their managerial career, they may be less likely to catch CEO disease if and when they rise to the top.
What also came to mind as I read through this thing is that the CEO of G4S, Nick Buckles, was probably the victim of some of this CEO-itis, or basically was lacking in any kind of finger tip feel for what was going on with their London Olympics security contract. The end result has been disastrous for him and the company, and it is still ongoing.
So here are the main concepts, and I will add some points to them that are relevant to this industry. Also note how many of these tie into the concepts listed under Jundism.
#1 Surround yourself with highly capable lieutenants.
This one is commonsense and you always want to bring folks into your decision making team that are smart and capable. But you also want honest folks who will give you the straight scoop. You do not want a team of ‘yes men’ who will never say no or fear giving their advice or opinion. You do not want clones of yourself either just because then you get situations within a team that leads to confirmation bias or group think. So pick your lieutenants wisely, and that goes from the shift leader looking for an assistant shift leader, all the way up to CEO’s of companies looking for a management team.
#2 Encourage dissent, discourage sycophants.
This one is great, and ties in well with #1 . You want folks who will be honest with you and genuinely care about the success of the company or the mission. You do not want yes men or folks willing to step all over others in order to get to a position– that has your ear. The CEO should ‘trust, but verify’ the quality of their management team. They should actively seek feedback and treat that as gold.
Those who are willing to dissent should be heard, and leaders should have respect for those individuals that actually came forward with an issue. A leader should interpret that as someone who cares enough about the company to actually step forward with a way to make it better.(the courage to do what is right) A leader should not look at that as a threat, or be driven by ego to the point where only they come up with the ‘good ideas’. Good ideas or warnings about issues in the company can come from anywhere and anyone, and it is up to the leaders to make sure they are listening and keeping open to that.
This definitely applies to shift leaders and small unit leaders. You should encourage folks to come forward with better ideas, and actually act on those ideas. (People will support what they help to create), so let them help to create a great team so they can feel part of the process.
#3 Regularly admit and fix your mistakes.
No one likes dishonesty and no one likes folks that do not admit to when they screw up. Take ownership of your mistakes and then fix them–and learn from them. (Continuously improve) yourself and the company, and don’t sweep this stuff under the carpet.
As a shift leader or project manager, this rule is very important. If you want folks to come up to you and admit some crucial error, then you as the leader must (lead by example) and show by your actions what that means. This process will allow for honesty to surface, which then leads to getting a better feel for what is going on with your contract or the company.
I imagine with this G4S deal, folks were not willing to admit to mistakes at some point along the line. Because if the CEO of the company only found out about the condition of a poorly run high profile contract like this, only days before the media found out and blew it up, then that says to me that some folks were not keeping upper management in the loop. Or upper management was told, but no one wanted to pass it on. Probably so that their leader(s) they were sucking up to would get the impression that all is well and they are ‘on top of it’. pffffft. In the end, not saying something about it or acknowledging that there was a problem, has led to an even bigger problem.
#4 Treat every employee with respect.
This is a no-brainer as well, but CEO’s all the way down to Project Managers seem to screw this one up. Especially in this industry. Our group is filled with Type A personalities who sometimes think it is appropriate to demand the same respect they got when they were in the military or police or wherever. Actions speak louder than words, and in this industry, it is not about what you used to be, but what you are right now.
Private industry also requires a different type of leadership than what was required in the military or police. When PM’s or others fail to shift gears and recognize this new reality, they quickly learn the errors of their ways. Especially when contractors make the mass exodus from a contract because they were poorly treated or disrespected. Remember, at will contracts go both ways, and contractors will just leave. There is no law requiring folks to sit there and take that kind of abuse.
The other one that project managers especially screw up is ‘leadership by email’. If you are thousands of miles away and sending out emails to folks on contracts, and you have not paid special attention as to what is said in those emails, then PM’s can do massive damage. They can be insensitive to the particulars of those who are fulfilling the contract in some war zone, they can sound gruff and out of touch, they can actually offend by saying the wrong things, etc. It all leads to the one thing, and that is having respect for those that you are leading out there. If you cannot show that respect in person in that war zone, then at the very least you should work hard to show respect in your emails as you sit in the comfort of your office.
Besides, those emails are permanent records of communications. If a disgruntled contractor had received a horrible letter filled with disrespectful items, then that thing could be used in future actions against that sender or the company. Or if a leader wrote an email while they were drunk or during a really stressful time period in their life, then like a bullet leaving a gun, that email is effectively doing damage. It does it’s damage well after it was sent and could passed around all over the place. Subordinates will show others these emails, and have proof of how little the company cares or how horrible a leader is. So sending nasty-grams like that are incredibly damaging to a program and the culture of a company. Don’t do it, and always watch what you say when you communicate with subordinates.
Treat them with the same respect as if you were face to face with them, and use positive reinforcement versus the negative. And don’t lie or keep folks in the dark, because that can be damaging as well. Especially if folks find out through other means that a leader has purposely done those things.
#5 Find an objective sounding board outside the office.
This last one is a good one. Find someone or a group that will keep you grounded. On contracts, it could be a loved one or a friend(s) you talk with via skype. Or if the job is at home, then maybe you have a group you can connect with that is outside of your gig.
Or, if you are on a contract, then find someone there that you can confide in and talk openly. In the military they call this a battle buddy, and not only are they important for watching your back in a war zone, but they are very helpful for when you need to vent about stuff on the contract and mission. Especially if you are a shift leader or PM, all the way up to CEO.
It is extremely helpful to be able to just talk freely and not worry about command presence or being the guy in charge. To have someone that you can just be a normal joe around and use them as a sounding board is great. Leaders are human too, and you definitely cannot be an island. With that said, I imagine Nick Buckles is venting in private with his ‘sounding board’, and especially after the monumental stress of responding to this crisis every day.
You also need a sounding board at the CEO level, just so you don’t get into the idea that you are superior or the company is untouchable or will never fail. One of the comments in the article over at where this was originally published said that CEO’s need someone whispering in their ear, much like the Roman whispering slave during Roman Triumphs. These guys followed behind generals telling them how immortal they were, as a part of the ceremony. (The words that the slave is said to have used are not known, but suggestions include “Respice te, hominem te memento” (“Look behind you, remember you are only a man”) and “Memento mori” (“Remember that you are mortal”-wikipedia).
Pretty cool and let me know what you think? If you are a CEO or former CEO, or if you have had experience at any level of leadership in a organization, I would love to hear your thoughts on this stuff. –Matt
Nick Buckles, CEO of G4S.
Finding a Cure for “CEO-itis”
By JOANN S. LUBLIN
July 12, 2012
Warning: You could be at risk of contracting “CEO-itis.”
An affliction of arrogance that plagues many people picked for powerful posts, its symptoms include a tendency toward isolation, belief that you’re smarter than others, preference for loyalists, aversion to changing course even in the face of failure –and love of royal treatment.
It appears to occur when promising managers reach the corner office or other C-suite spots. Once infected, once-successful executives often underperform and put themselves at great risk of early exits, experts say.
In June, John Figueroa quit after 17 months as chief executive of Omnicare Inc. “He believed he accomplished the goals established by the board,” the nursing-home pharmacy operator announced.
But Mr. Figueroa also acted imperiously, ignored suggestions from colleagues, and made extensive personal use of the corporate aircraft, according to people familiar with the situation.
In short, the CEO title went to his head, one informed individual says. McKesson Corp., Mr. Figueroa’s prior employer, had recommended him as a collaborative team player, another person remembers. Omnicare declined to comment.
This is a really bad deal. lol I mean G4S really screwed up on this one, and this is one of those deals where all other PMSC’s and contractors are watching and wincing. I know I am.…
As to why this was such a screwed up deal probably rests upon a poorly written contract, and poorly managed recruitment/vetting effort–because of a poorly written contract. Everything from the appropriate amount of time to do this, to resources, and anything else that could have and should have been included in this contract. And pay is the one thing that the company should not have played games with. Check out this quote:
A former police sergeant who signed up to work for G4S at the Olympics has told how he withdrew his application over fears the recruitment process was “totally chaotic” and the firm was simply looking for cheap labour.
Robert Brown, who served for 30 years with Kent police, claimed he knew many other retired officers who had decided against working at the Games for the same reasons.
He said he had been given verbal commitments that staff would be paid £14 an hour, but that the contract he received said he would be entitled to £6.05 an hour for working outside the venues, and £8.50 for working inside the stadium.
“It is actually very sad,” Brown said. “I was looking forward to working at this historic event, but it would have been a waste of my time. The public needs to be aware of this.”
All I have to say is that if you mess with pay and break promises like that, then of course no one is going to sign up. When the final report comes out as to what exactly happened, I would be curious as to how many experienced security guys said no thanks to this one because of pay?
What is equally sad is that in one breath they attracted former police officers like the one in the quote and yet jerked him around on pay, and in another breath they sent this memo out looking for other police officers to help save the contract. Unreal….
G4S has got a £284m contract to provide 13,700 guards, but only has 4,000 in place. It says a further 9,000 are in the pipeline.
G4S sent an urgent request on Thursday to retired police asking them to help. A memo to the National Association of Retired Police Officers said: “G4S Policing Solutions are currently and urgently recruiting for extra support for the Olympics. These are immediate starts with this Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday available. We require ex-police officers ideally with some level of security clearance and with a Security Industry Association [accreditation], however neither is compulsory.”
The other one that came out was the vetting and recruitment of folks with no security background, and how chaotic and dumb that process has been. How embarrassing? I guess the G4S Facebook Page on this deal is littered with complaints from applicants on how terrible and inefficient the process has been. Like I said, the devil will be in the details of the contract signed and how this was managed, and the report that comes out on this will be very revealing. I understand G4S’s share price has been negatively impacted, and their reputation will take a huge hit because of all of this. How they deal with this crisis and the impact on the company will be interesting to watch.
If anyone from the company, or anyone that has experienced the recruitment process described has any insight as to ‘why’ this might have went so wrong is invited to share their comments below. –Matt
Edit: 07/12/2012– Apparently G4S had some issues with the computer program running the show. Kind of weak if you ask me, and that sounds like management trying to blame technology for their poor leadership and organizational skills. That and they under bid everyone else by %25. Here is the quote:
* An insider said the root cause of the problem with G4S was its internal computer system which had failed to calculate staff rostering.
* G4S won the security contract with Locog after submitting a tender at least 25 per cent lower than any other, which would have been hugely attractive to a British Olympic movement paranoid about going over budget.
Britain Adjusts Security Plans in Tense Countdown to the Olympics
By JOHN F. BURNS
July 12, 2012
With 14 days to go before the opening of the Olympic Games — and more than 2,500 days since the Games were awarded to London in 2005 — the British government acknowledged on Thursday that it had been forced to deploy an additional brigade of troops to save its security plan from falling apart.
To cries of “shambles” and “international embarrassment” in the House of Commons, the government of Prime Minister David Cameron said it had issued an emergency draft for an additional 3,500 troops, many of them just returned from Afghanistan — on top of 13,500 already committed for the Games — after broken commitments by a private security company. The government will now field a total military force of 17,000, who will outnumber civilian security details at Olympics venues by more than 2 to 1.
The government move came after what some infuriated Olympics officials described as overly hopeful and ultimately misleading exchanges involving organizers, the government and the G4S security company in recent months. This week, G4S officials finally conceded that the company was far behind — by a head count of several thousand — in its contract under the Olympics’ billion-dollar security plan to produce more than 10,000 fully trained, security-cleared guards.
“We have had some challenges on workforce scheduling this week, which we have discussed with Locog [the organising committee] and expect to resolve soon,” said the spokesman. “At no time was security at the Olympic Park or other venues under threat.”
G4S said the problems related to scheduling issues and getting people in the right place at the right time, but the firm said it was confident it would have sufficient trained and accredited guards by the time the games begin.
The company said it was always part of the contract that the security workforce would be in training until the last week of preparations. The Guardian understands that this was an issue that emerged during contract negotiations. It would have cost more to train the guards earlier. Under pressure not to further increase a security budget that has doubled to £533m, the government agreed to the “just-in-time” approach.
This is one of those classic cases where a company is approached to deliver a service that is right on the line of ‘possible/but difficult’. And of course the client wants to pay £284m and have the guards trained and delivered the last minute, versus paying the £533m and doing this right. Not a lot of room for error in this deal.
Now what has to happen is G4S has to deliver or they will be getting a black eye on this one. The client will be sweating this thing all the way up until the end, and will certainly get a black eye if this security is not delivered. I certainly hope it works out for all the parties involved, but usually when you compromise because of cost, you end up paying some kind of price in the end…. –Matt
London 2012: concern mounts over potential shortage of security guards
Private security firm G4S still needs to train and accredit 9,000 more guards, according to security sources.
Robert Booth
8 July 2012
G4S is contracted to supply 13,700 guards to protect Olympic venues.
The private security company being paid nearly £300m to guard the London 2012 Olympics has yet to fully train or accredit thousands of security guards needed to protect the games from terrorist attack, it has emerged.
Ministers are anxious that with three weeks left until the opening ceremony, only half the guards needed to guarantee fully staffed patrols of the entrances to venues and carry out other security duties are ready to start work.
The home secretary, Theresa May, has stepped in amid growing concern that additional military personnel may be needed to make up the shortfall. It is understood May called senior G4S executives on Friday after the firm failed to supply enough staff for patrols last week at venues in the Olympic park in east London.
G4S, the private security contractor hired to supply 13,700 guards, still needs to train and accredit about 9,000 guards, according to a security source familiar with preparations. Organisers believe G4S needs at least 19,000 security guards to fulfil its £284m contract, which requires 10,400 licenced guards and 3,300 students. The extra guards are needed as a buffer when staff fail to turn up or fail security screening. G4S will also manage 7,500 military personnel and 2,500 volunteers.
“We have been long-term optimistic about the police and short-to-medium-term pessimistic about the police for many years. Our view was, look, we would never try to take away core policing functions from the police but for a number of years it has been absolutely clear as day to us – and to others – that the configuration of the police in the UK is just simply not as effective and as efficient as it could be.”
I have seen this quote and others in several places and it is causing a little bit of a stir. But along the lines of what I was talking about with my prior post, there is some serious cost saving and efficiency benefits by privatizing this stuff. The problem is explaining the process to the public, and battling biased media or unions that only benefit from the current system.
This quote was the other one that I liked.
Taylor-Smith said “budgetary pressure and political will” were driving the private-sector involvement in policing but insisted that the “public sector ethos” had not been lost.
“I have always found it somewhere between patronising and insulting the notion that the public sector has an exclusive franchise on some ethos, spirit, morality – it is just nonsense,” he said. “The thought that everyone in the private sector is primarily motivated by profit and that is why they come to work is just simply not accurate … we employ 675,000 people and they are primarily motivated by pretty much the same as would motivate someone in the public sector.”
That is awesome he said this, and as a security contractor, I feel the same way. I am sure other contractors out there feel the same too, and bravo to Taylor-Smith for speaking his mind on this. –Matt
G4S chief predicts mass police privatization
Private companies will be running large parts of the police service within five years, according to security firm head
Matthew Taylor and Alan Travis
Wednesday 20 June 2012
David Taylor-Smith, the head of G4S for the UK and Africa, said he expected most UK police forces to sign up to privatisation deals. Photograph: Guardian
Private companies will be running large parts of the UK’s police service within five years, according to the world’s biggest security firm.
David Taylor-Smith, the head of G4S for the UK and Africa, said he expected police forces across the country to sign up to similar deals to those on the table in the West Midlands and Surrey, which could result in private companies taking responsibility for duties ranging from investigating crimes to transporting suspects and managing intelligence.
Powered by WordPress