Posts Tagged ‘attracting talent’

Who Owns The Client

Monday, September 22nd, 2014

When corporate advisory firms think of “ownership of the client”, we largely think in terms of “economic” (key account holder) or “legal” (the firm and its’ shareholders) ownership. Yet we largely overlook the fact that the Client increasingly “owns” the relationship with our key people and our firm today. Shouldn’t we first increase the potential that the Client’s interests are strongly aligned with that of the firm and its’ key employees if we are to profitably grow?

In an age where clients have greater access to competitor information, an ability to check the cost of services and an ability to establish the degree of a firm’s credibility (word-of–mouth) in a very brief time period, firms need to forget “customer-centric” rubrics or allow onerous regulations to supercede this priority.  They need to think of themselves as a “customer-owned” business that provides tremendous value and huge levels of excitement. What does that firm look like and what must we ask ourselves:

  1. Who are our ideal customers, why is it attractive to have a relationship with them and them with us?
  2. Our value proposition needs to succinctly state why we are the first choice of our customers. “We are uniquely positioned to provide _________________ (our target client) with unprecedented levels of _________ (results).”
  3. How do we best attract them to our business and our business best attracts them to our firm. Which marketing tactics are most effective and efficient for which customers? (networking, speaking, referrals)
  4. How do we best communicate with them in a time (service standards) and a manner (in-person, phone, email) that best suits them?
  5. How do we leverage technology to enable a more impressive relationship and rapid responsiveness for our customers’ existing (strategy) and anticipated needs (global expansion)?
  6. How do we assemble our people and client groups to accelerate, not hinder both the quality and speed of the interaction (resolution of an issue and/or transfer of skills and knowledge) with our firm and their dealings?
  7. How do leverage our success with our customers to reinvest in our firm and provide even more impressive outcomes (referrals, testimonials, case studies, learning experiences, joint promotional opportunities)
  8. How do we attract better quality employees who want to provide our customers with even more impressive results? (use our clients as evangelists for attracting talent from our competitors)
  9. How do we know the interests of our clients, our firm and our people are increasingly aligned? (unsolicited referrals, unsolicited requests, strong anecdotal evidence, client feedback)
  10. How do we know that a “stronger bond” with our customers is financially beneficial to the organisation? (increased repeat business, shorter closing times, negligible acquisition costs, lower labour intensity, higher profit margins, improved image)

Decision-making in advisory firms today remains largely driven by a need to satisfy the demands of shareholders and key people. Yet there is no more impressive way to appeal to those individuals’ self-interest than first, keeping the clients’ happy. Recognising that over time the clients you are minded to keep happy are the relationships that you want to “own” in future, not the “past”. When you hear someone talking about how we need to be more client-centric, escape the empty gesture and ask yourself, how do we fair with the above questions and where do we need to take action now?

© James Berkeley 2014. All Rights Reserved.

 

The Big Myth About Long Term Incentives and A Cultural Change In The Boardroom

Wednesday, August 13th, 2014

I admire risk takers. They perform an essential service for those in the business of transferring risk. Whether it is insurers assuming risk from their customers, reinsurers assuming risks from insurers, investment banks and institutional investors assuming risk from publicly traded businesses or bookmakers accepting risk from their customers. I think those that work in that arena are mostly following their passion.

What I detest are those that call themselves “risk takers” and who are running a business but actually don’t take any risk. In effect they are traders with no discernible “skin in the game”. They are asking for the respect that is accorded to someone, who puts their balance sheet at risk but are in fact quietly skimming a dollar, a pound, a euro or a yen off other parties who have the cojones to price and assume risk. All that I ask is that people are honest about their own “worth” and the value they provide (or dramatically) create for others.

The same applies with people in corporate organisations with over bloated egos, who demand the perks of entrepreneurs and shareholders with ACTUAL money at risk.  I am reminded of this when I see demands made of shareholders by top management  to support inflated long term incentive rewards, where there is visibly little or no personal risk (downside). So many of these arrangements set “targets”, which hardly stretch the executive to achieve a generous award. Complicit advisers happily create a pretext for toothless remuneration committees about the “need to attract world class talent that can produce results” and earn inflated fees, largely based on hourly billing. In other words, the longer they take to design, facilitate and implement a LTI arrangement the better off they are, in total conflict with shareholders’ interests, which best served by a quick solution. If the time, energy and effort was re-directed towards how top managers intend to produce results rather than reward results, shareholders would be exponentially better off. My point here is where is the accountability for top managers, Remuneration Committees, the plans they promote and the advisers they hire.

Yes, there are the headline cases where institutional investors “push back” but they resemble a fisherman casting a rod, not a fishing net to eliminate the abuse. My suggestion? Any LTI plan and those engaged to advise or approve the arrangement must meet these criteria:

  1. No plan pays out any benefit for “performance in line with target expectations”. The Manager get his salary and benefits, nothing more.
  2. Where “performance is below expectations”, the Plan has a clawback provision against any other accrued executive pay or benefits  upto 20% of the total amount received, which is “at risk” for upto 36 months after leaving service with the firm or a date to be agreed
  3. Benefits paid out for “out-performance” are only paid to those achieving top quartile results and behaviours. Objectives, measures of success or progress and the value created in meeting or exceeding those expectations are conceptually agreed in advance with shareholders . They are transparent for all shareholders.
  4. No Adviser is allowed to bill hourly fees. Their remuneration is in the form of a value-based fixed fee providing a dramatic return for the organisation and fair and equitable compensation for the practitioner.
  5. No Remuneration Committee Chair or Board Member is allowed to serve more than one term. They can only sit on one Company committee, at any one time. They are only electable based on a combination  of expertise and experience directly linked to the existing and anticipated market needs of the business and their ability to attract managers with the requisite skills and behaviour. No jobs for the boys!

I confidently predict a dramatic improvement in business results with the application of greater focus and discipline and shareholder resolve to see their interests best served by these arrangements.

© James Berkeley 2014. All Rights Reserved.

The Ingredients of Luxury Success

Thursday, August 7th, 2014

Why do luxury brand launches reveal so little about the power of the brand and so much about the appropriateness or not of the people tasked with running the business? If the intent is to create a new market-leading customer experience, then we should first increase our own chances of identifying the “ideal leaders and employees” with the right skills (brand creation) and volition (open-minded, entrepreneurial). That is rarely accomplished by limiting the search to a big or established brand within the sector.

I was reminded of this a few months back with a wealthy Asian family, who have splashed US$140 million transforming  a luxury hotel business. Great thought has gone into the “ideal customer” and the sensory experience. Young, enthusiastic hoteliers abound alongside one or two seasoned luxury hoteliers. Yet impressive interiors, and a friendly welcome cannot masquerade the significant challenge drawing a well-informed, super-wealthy leisure and corporate crowd to an unfashionable corner of London with little obvious excitement on the doorstep.  Meet the hotel leader and the sales and marketing manager, and you are immediately struck by the massive disconnect between their “past” and their probable ability to transform the property’s immediate “future”. Particularly one highly dependent on maximising “premium” suite occupancy (creating a siren call not a whimper to the property). Dig a little further and you find their past success has largely come from a “market need” (leveraging an established luxury brand’s equity), a “competency” (attract and deliver a competitive luxury hotel experience) and a passion (understated elegance). When you are working in world-famous businesses or luxury brands those skills and behaviours make great sense. When you have a small brand in an experimental location seeking to attract highly discerning customers, you need an entirely different set of leadership skills and volition.

Key Tip: Just because an individual has been a “star” in a top-ranked business, don’t be blindsided by his or her “past”. Focus on your firm’s immediate future and ask yourself, what skills and behaviours do we need to achieve our desired results? If you are a young or largely unknown luxury brand that must punch above its’ own weight in order to attract your ideal clients, it is by exception, not the norm that you will find the “right” people in established businesses within your sector. Counter-intuitively, the longer the tenure they have spent in an established brand, the less their probable “worth” to you. 

© James Berkeley 2014. All Rights Reserved.

   

 

 

 

The Future of The Global Gaming Industry

Friday, June 27th, 2014

The Global Gaming Business is in the midst of unprecedented challenges with the convergence of market needs, technology, brands, products offered, methods of sale and distribution (casino, lottery, online, mobile and social gaming). James Berkeley has been joined by 9 gaming leaders to share their perspective on the future of the industry. Click here  http://www.elliceconsulting.com/pdf/The-future-of-the-Gaming-Industry.pdf

Next month, James Berkeley will be exploring these and other issues at the pre-eminent global gathering of industry leaders in Barcelona at the World Gaming Executive Summit http://www.wges.com You can read his thoughts in live blog posts from the event, interviews with key players and an event summary appearing here.

 

Who Owns The Client

Tuesday, March 25th, 2014

In many advisory firms, economic ownership of the business rests in the hands of a few key client-facing people. Legal ownership rests with shareholders, partners or some other ownership construct. I regularly observe acquisitions, whether it is an entire advisory business, the acquisition of a new advisory team or portfolio of clients, where the overriding investment of management time and focus pre-deal, during the deal and post- the deal is on the legal ownership. Rather like the yacht dropping anchor and docking in the marina, the crew’s energy and effort goes into securing the yacht (the business) with a firm hold on the anchor and the guy ropes. That is effective so long as the yacht doesn’t break free of its’ moorings, it can withstand changes in the weather, the wind and the tide and the crew are constantly vigilant about other yacht movements near the yacht.

In certain jurisdictions (California, Middle East, China and so on), non-compete and legal remedies are largely ineffective when trying to restrain a key producer or group of individuals moving to a competitor. In Europe and in certain countries with more employer-friendly attitudes to economic ownership and upholding legal rights over intellectual property, these remedies are more effective albeit for a limited duration (0-12 months).

When these fissures in the relationship between the acquired and the acquirer happen in more liberal jurisdictions on a frequent basis and with the same companies, you have to ask the question are management asleep at the wheel or are they simply failing to apply good judgement? This week’s announcement that global insurance broker AON are suing Alliant for a second such sizeable breach in California in two years, and an increasing uptick of lawsuits in North America, Western Europe and Asia as international advisory firms within the insurance market gear up for growth and expansion reminds us that far too many firms are dependent on legal remedies.

Faced with limited legal remedies, what can and should top management do when considering acquisitions:

1. People leave bosses, not businesses. Does the direct report of the key individuals you are acquiring possess the skills and volition to successfully integrate those people into the firm? Do they have the right set of tools (technology) and support available to help the newly acquired people hit the ground running? Are their own rewards and recognition aligned with the pre-deal business goals or the new business goals for the combined team (is it clearly a “win-win” or a “win-lose” relationship)? Are managers in the acquiring business held accountable for the right behaviours, not just the results (individual performance)?

2. People leave the “acquiring” firm because the firm failed to meet or exceed their expectations. Promises are made pre-deal, which in many competitive situations are geared to a point where they are highly improbable and unrealistic. Both parties in the “deal frenzy” are so focused on the rewards (personal or corporate), they don’t spend enough time reaching conceptual agreement on the best way to produce results (“we’ll work it out when you are on board”). Most relationships fall apart not because the logic didn’t make sense rather the emotional objectives of the acquired party are left unfulfilled. If you don’t invest sufficient time building a trusting relationship and eliciting pre-deal what the personal objectives of the newly acquired individual, team or business owner is and how you can best meet them during and post-deal, don’t be surprised that an insurmountable fracture arises in your relationship a short way down the track.

3. The management team of the acquiring business must understand their own limitations. They cannot motivate the newly acquired resources, any more than they can motivate their own colleagues. It is their direct responsibility to create an environment in which those individuals, their customers and their people can foster.  What they can and must do is show respect for everyone’s past accomplishments. They must judge their own self-worth and contribution on their ability to apply their own past experience into a more impressive future for the newly acquired people and business (increased productivity, unprecedented growth, happier customers, increased career opportunities, greater profit, lower attrition etc.).

The next time a prospective producer, a sales team or a business owner walks into your office, invite them to sit on a comfortable sofa, offer them a drink and remind yourself that they represent a wonderful opportunity, not a threat. Place yourself in their shoes, how can they leave the room more comfortable and excited about not just the rewards but the “journey” of realising their own personal aspirations within your firm than when they walked in an hour earlier, no matter what you ultimately decide to do together. Succeeding with that simple step, may dramatically increase your success in holding onto your most prized assets more than you ever imagined.

© James Berkeley 2014. All Rights Reserved.

Investing in Talent that is Locally Connected and Globally Aware

Monday, February 17th, 2014

Ellice-Consulting5-150

For Country Managers seeking unprecedented success attracting the brightest and best people, James has observed it is the beliefs and action of leaders rather than excessive pay that are the catalyst for success in the best companies. Hear a rapid fire of pragmatic steps you can apply tomorrow in your Company in support of growth and expansion around the globe.

Attracting and Retaining and Nurturing Talent

Thursday, January 23rd, 2014

Ellice-Consulting5-150

Creating an appealing workplace that attracts the brightest and best people doesn’t have to involve HR policies and lavish pay. Listen to three lessons from James’s best clients, who have got it right through setting clear accountabilities, making intelligent use of managers’ time, and incentivising the right behaviours in their frontline people.