At the risk of sounding like a voice from the Ark, the world of work has changed almost beyond recognition since I started my career. When the (once commonplace, now virtually inconceivable) concept of ‘a job for life’ worked well, it created an incentive for employers to provide long-term planning and training in order to develop the skills, experience and thinking of their employees.

ICI, for example, would develop their most promising recruits via two-year stints in different functions and businesses throughout the group, at the end of which they would settle (and usually flourish) in the area that provided the best fit, with the added bonus of first-hand experience in areas not pursued.

For individuals, this commitment from and to their company was mutually beneficial: provided all went well, your career progress was assured, and sometimes even if it didn’t, an in-house sideways shift might be possible.

Things have shifted pretty dramatically since that was the norm, and impermanence and lack of long-term commitment on both sides characterise the modern working environment. To be less rose-tinted about the past for a moment, not every employer would let you spend time gaining perspective and experiencing a range of roles before settling on one. People were often stuck in channels that weren’t right for them, and discussing or challenging this with colleagues in internal HR would have been considered risky.

Today, the responsibility for reviewing and managing career progress has effectively been deregulated, and sits squarely on the shoulders of the individual.

Naturally, this brings new challenges and freedoms: to do it properly, to sit down and really think about how to get what you want and need from your work at every stage of your life, you need objectivity, long-term perspective, clarity, commitment and the ability to provide an occasional ‘reality check’. (Does it need saying that you’re unlikely to get that from your company HR team, or even from talking to your friends and family?)

To help the people we work with accept, embrace and get the best from these challenges, we have been thinking about a chronological ‘storyline’ for our services, illustrating the fact that we can – and frequently do – support people as their needs change throughout their working lives through coaching, career management and outplacement services.

Here follows a shameless plug for our services:

In early career
At an early stage in their careers, young people seeking to establish themselves in the world of work, from post-school age through to mid 20s and early 30s, often feel at odds with their choice of career, and can be helped greatly by exploring what alternatives there may be to their future plans or established path. The programme, honed and developed around this early stage by Dr Elizabeth Reddish, is called Sons and Daughters. It focuses on helping young clients to achieve clarity, to get a clear sense of who they are and where they want to go, to consider all of their options and what has real meaning for them. She also helps them identify and articulate credibly what it is in their personalities, backgrounds or interests that’s most ‘marketable’.

At mid career
At mid-career stage, we have seen many people start to wonder whether they are using all of their talents and strengths, and whether a further stretch at work is in line with their aspirations. Maybe other things in life – such a children and interests away from the workplace – are beginning to take priority. Our Potential Evaluation Programme (PEP) has proved to be the ideal vehicle to enable people take stock, examine the ‘what ifs?’ and put interim plans in place. At this point many people stay put, and many others start the process of re-training for other career moves.

In midlife there is often major change, and many people experience a period of transition from employer to new employer, to self-employment and the beginnings of portfolio working, chiming with the increasing trend for working partly or completely from home. A bespoke, rather than process driven, Outplacement Support Programme helps people to assess their options and make the right decision upon entering the next phase of their career. Working in partnership with an experienced consultant throughout the programme, short, medium and long-term priorities and options are explored, and practical support given to drive career transition plans to fruition.

To fit in with this mid-term phase of transition, we have developed a very useful programme called First 100 Days, which provides practical advice and intensive support during those crucial first days in a new post, anticipating and addressing all the key issues involved in entry to a new senior position. Via the independent, informed perspective of an experienced coach, clients are helped to recognise and manage the challenges and opportunities that the new environment presents.

Later career
Towards the later stages of their career, many of my contemporaries have reached an age and stage in their lives where they have started to think of retiring from full time work, but are not ready to stop completely. With this in mind, we have developed Staying On, a programme for those who wish to stay in the working world. A “service with legs”, Staying On provides good ideas and very practical support focused on this career phase, and sets out to explore and introduce a very different pattern of work, such as a mixture of part time roles, NEDs, Trusteeships, job share, mentoring and, for many, pro bono activities. An enriching process, this programme enables people to consider in depth their talents, interests and needs as well as income, and seeks to address the issue of what people want to achieve but have not yet done.

This newly launched programme re-casts CVs to emphasise not just job titles or employers, but specific and generic skills applicable to new areas and roles of choice. It also offers intelligent and relevant introductions, as well as informed talks given by experts in their field. Staying On is for those of us who are over 50 or more in terms of age, but much younger in terms of outlook, aspirations and needs. Typically Staying On clients wish to earn a little, learn new things, travel and have more leisure time, though since we are all different, the programme is tailored to the individual in order to best support them at this potentially exciting stage in their lives.

Throughout the length of a career
Our Coaching Programme is designed to support individuals in enhancing their business performance in harmony with their current organisation’s culture and strategy. Tailored precisely to the client’s needs and objectives, each is a unique programme with an eclectic approach that utilises the most effective aspects of practical coaching and intuitive counselling, and is underpinned by analytical tools that corroborate or unearth areas in need of development. Led by Heather Greatrex, the programme provides expert support in identifying and resolving issues that act as barriers to success, and brings clarity by providing an independent, informed perspective on critical issues.

The Bvalco ‘Food and Thought Forum’ (discussion and debate for Chairmen, Board Directors and Co. Secretariat, December 2010).

Guests at the lunch were Martin Hayman (Restless Development), David Hollywood (Lavingdon Group), Anne Isaacs (Executive Action), Owen Jonathan (Pricewaterhouse Coopers), Peter Maynard (Old Mutual), Marie Smith (Barclays), Sir David Walker (Morgan Stanley) and James Paterson, James Bagge and Alison Gill of Bvalco.

Background

All firms must eventually experience the potential disruption of replacing the CEO, Chairman and other board directors. The extent to which the succession process disrupts firm performance and share price both in the short and medium terms seems, to a great degree, to depend on how well planned and executed the process is. The statistics of smoothly run succession processes indicate that there is room for improvement. A recent study of 2,500 publically listed firms found that 89% required an interim CEO for a period of more than 45 days, with interim CEOs described as being ‘a last resort’.

We started our discussion considering, why is succession so difficult to do well? Succession planning implies letting go:  of people, past strategy and practices. The ending can be planned, for example the end of an agreed tenure, or unplanned such as sudden illness or death. But more typically, succession happens when an ending creeps up. The awareness of the need for a change in strategic direction starts to dawn, the performance of the business becomes troubling, or there is a gradual change in personal circumstance of a board director which necessitates a change. Whichever way you look at it, succession (planned or unplanned), is a highly emotive topic which no one approaches neutrally. Considering succession raises a number of questions such as, ‘am I replaceable? If I need to be replaced does that mean I am now not good enough?’ As a result the natural human tendency is to avoid tabling the discussion. Even if discussion is tabled, there is often avoidance of driving the thinking through from options to firm conclusions. This dynamic of letting go is one which needs to be actively managed and worked through. Without proactive management decision taking may be delayed and may detract from the business of the board.

“Succession, planned or unplanned, is a highly emotive topic which no one approaches neutrally.”  

Is succession a transaction or a continuous process? The UK Corporate Governance Code presents board appointments alongside questions of director commitment and development, highlighting that these are connected issues.  The question arose, to what extent are the terms and language that boards use to consider succession potentially misleading and misaligned with these goals? 

The term ‘Nomination Committee’ is potentially misleading; nomination implies a transaction whereas in reality effective succession requires a balance between the need for continuity and the need for change and improvement. The implication is that to be truly effective, succession requires that boards think about changing a person, the skills or roles before a change is required.  A continuous, forward-thinking process is more effective than a responsive one. Succession planning done well, is most effective when it is a cyclical process, in which boards are engaged in a continuous process of succession. A ‘talent mindset’ is required for this to be effective. The phrase ‘talent mindset’, coined by McKinsey & Co (1997) is more typically associated with ensuring proactive development and management of young stars. Whilst youth might not be naturally associated with succession planning for boards, the philosophy that every board member is responsible for developing, renewing and proactively sourcing people based on capability, motivation and the strategic needs of the business holds true. Likewise, the view that having the right people, with the right knowledge and behaviour on the board can be as much a value driver for the board as other types of talent are in other layers of the organisation. Of course, the board cannot look solely for talent inside an organisation but must seek the right balance between those who know the organisation inside out and those who can bring fresh perspectives and independent challenges.  Included within an effective succession process therefore will be a view of developable skills, not just possible replacement people.

“The term ‘Nomination Committee’ is potentially misleading; nomination implies a transaction”

When might succession planning be inadvertently triggered? It was discussed that a strategic change of direction necessitates a review of skills on the board, although accessing the real thoughts that people hold at this time can be difficult.  Reviewing whether the board needs to change because of a shift in strategy is difficult for board directors to face – in a sense turkeys voting for Christmas. It is likely that every board member will hold a view of what skills are absent from and needed by the board, but accessing those views can be difficult. People are naturally reticent to propose that their own skills or those of their colleagues might not be needed.  External facilitation can be a useful tool to surface the views that directors hold, but cannot easily be expressed in open forum.  It is not so much that directors don’t want to express their views, but that finding the space to articulate them free of concerns can be difficult.  One-to-one discussion with a skilled facilitator enables individuals to surface and process thinking without the pressure of having to formulate a complete solution.

As well as external triggers such as a change in strategy, the more difficult to deal with are internal triggers.  In the situation where the dynamic of a board appears not to be working sufficiently well, a discussion of succession might be triggered. Locating inefficiencies in the board in terms of insufficient skills or lack of knowledge in one or more individuals is tangible and straightforward. Earlier address of what is not right with current board dynamics might be more effective than simply replacing people as a result of a crisis. Looking for new people often feels like an easier solution but looking at what is not right can often be a more sustainable solution. Locating problems in individuals is often seen as easier to deal with even when it is obvious that the problems might not lie in the individual but with the dynamic of the group. Changing one individual may shift the focus in the short term toward new relationships and give a sense of invigoration but may not necessarily solve the underlying issue.

“Early address of what is not right with the board dynamics might be more effective than simply replacing people.”

In what way might an orderly process become an overly cosy one? The chair’s role in maintaining an orderly process was stressed. There are intensely personal relationships behind the decision for chairs, CEOs or other board directors to join or leave a board. A well managed succession process will leave directors feeling valued and the organisation feeling confident and well led. Alternatively it has the potential to be the reverse. The role of the chair is crucial in consulting with and keeping shareholders, executive and non-executive directors informed and involved. The better this is managed, the more likely the process will be perceived as an orderly one.  Too orderly, however, might equal a cosy process and signify a conformist culture; a problem which has plagued Boards over time and one to which ‘outside elbows’ is often required to wake up and disrupt the tendency to stick together.

Self-selection breeds a tendency toward Groupthink and closes the group to influential factors outside of themselves. In the succession process there may be hostility toward the concept of new skills at the risk of compromising renewal, regeneration and innovation.  In this situation an apparently smooth process might not lead to a good outcome. Succession planning can become about massaging egos or gifting what has been earned rather than what is needed. A good process is not the same as a good outcome.

The topic of cosiness and self-perpetuation is one at the forefront of a history of financial crises. ‘Crony Capitalism’, was the description applied to the way in which Japan and Korea suffered in the 1980s and 1990s and is a term easily applicable to the most recent issues in the UK and Ireland. Boards chosen for their connections and the ability to smooth their way through business might be perceived to be an asset. However, we only need consider cases like the Guinness share-trading fraud in which executives with brilliant strategies and ideas ended up in prison whilst the ‘cosy board’, who schmoozed but failed to act, went unpunished.

The UK’s new Corporate Governance Code and the FSA have proposed and are serious about the value of external review as a mechanism to bring attention to the issue of self-perpetuation. Boards may not yet be serious about external review but the FSA and the FRC are, because the problem in self-assessment, is the self. With evidence that an outside lens is vital in breaking up cosiness, board members are wise to look for congeniality where appearance over substance matter. 

“Boards might not yet be serious about external review as a tool to break up potential cosiness but the FSA and FRC are because the problem in self-assessment, is the self”

Choosing the ‘right’ board members. The question of the complexities of selecting the right person was tabled. Even though NEDs are appointed by the Board on the recommendation of the Nominations Committee, and subject to approval of the shareholders at the AGM, is that sufficient to free the NED from the power and influence of the chair to be his own person? When replacing NEDs, the reasons for asking for a resignation may be about the balance of diversity on the board, or  that certain knowledge or skill gaps need addressing. However, there will also be intensely personal and relational reasons behind the decision. This highlights the need for transparency and honesty in the process. The selection and assessment of board directors is a topic that has received much attention, particularly since the recent financial crisis. Those in Significant Influence Functions (not just board members) are subject to review by the FSA, but one has to ask, what are they looking for and are they going about it in the right way? Research indicates that the most valid practices for assessment for competence and truly understanding a person’s strengths and weaknesses, involve multiple methods, multiple raters and multiple measures of a person over time. There are substantial differences in sophistication of how corporate businesses and partnerships measure individual capability and how effectively they do or don’t relate those measures to development or performance. Accounting Firms, for example, do not have formal board succession because the partnership has historically governed itself. As a result of the new Audit and Governance Code, firms are introducing governance arrangements and introducing non-executive directors.  Different firms have responded differently to the Code and selecting the right NEDs and inducting them to the ways of each partnership will have its own challenges.

“The most valid practices for assessment involve multiple methods, multiple raters and multiple measures of a person over time.” 

What do boards really need from NEDs? In the current literature there is a tendency for non-executive directors to be described in the negative – unchallenging, silent, passive, over-assertive, overbearing, collusive, submissive, and basically ineffectual.  A NED reacting to this may be equally unproductive, providing a troublesome, uncooperative, argumentative challenge that gets in the way of good board collaboration.  Originally the NED’s key purpose was seen as independence, the concept being that the NED would bring wider business experience from his/her understanding of different sectors.  However, what has tended to happen is that more specialist NEDs have been appointed with a view that deep knowledge of a business or sector is really required to truly add value.  With this approach the potential to truly ask ‘the stupid question’ is lost.  Questioning from the point of knowing versus truly not knowing requires a different mindset and skill, and typically elicits a different response.  Those with deep sector knowledge can question from the perspective of knowing. The extent to which a board requires knowing versus not knowing might vary depending on the level of risk associated with certain business functions and the degree to which the Chair and board is developed sufficiently to leverage these different dynamics. Passivity and the inability to be effective in the boardroom are rarely to do with skills but more often to do with behaviour and group dynamics. The key issue is not what the board is set up to do, nor how it is organized to do it, but how unconscious dynamics can limit its members’ ability to get things done.  To be effective boards need effective group process but they also need the behaviours required to ensure that the procedural elements deliver desired outcomes. Better understanding of behaviour and group process is vital for an effective board. With this in mind board directors selected for the right behaviours are as critical as those selected for particular knowledge.

“Questioning from a position of knowing versus not knowing creates a different dynamic.”

In what way can succession impact cultural norms?  Culture can be discussed from the perspectives of culture with a capital and a small ‘c’. Continent or country cultures are vivid, written about and offer distinctly different challenges. In Japan and China for example, NEDs do not challenge; this type of behaviour is not culturally acceptable. However, culture with a small ‘c’ is that which develops from the patterns of behaviour in the group. Governance frameworks and codes of conduct are structural frameworks aimed to help boards combat the cultural ‘norming’ process that takes place in any group. Strong cultures within the board will not easily be shifted, even by a change in personnel. Enduring patterns of ‘culture’ or ‘Culture’ require the group to work systemically to shift behaviour, process and structure.  The UK Corporate Governance Code is a structural framework around which culture can be addressed, but the influence of Culture and cultures will be strong restraining forces operating potentially in the opposite direction to that intended by the Code.  External facilitation can be a process by which discussion of cultural dimensions can be licensed and brought to the fore.

“Strong cultures within the board will not easily be shifted by a change in personnel.”

Shareholders, transparency and trust? Trust and transparency are central to processes of review and renewal.  Annual reviews often prompt discussions about succession because they are a time for reflection. The word ‘review’ conjures images of a backward looking process, but to be effective a review must set the stage for the future. The skill of a reviewer is to build openness and trust, and more importantly to stimulate the capacity and space for the board to think differently about itself, and what it needs to be best placed to lead the organisation forward. 

The extent to which shareholders are involved in the process is a source of considerable debate and one option is to invite them to sit on the nominations committees. This is common practice in Scandinavian countries but rarely happens in the UK.  Another is to consult with them and keep them fully informed. Striking the balance between transparency, trust and unfair disclosure is a balancing act that done well will reap rewards.

Succession in the boardroom –  in summary

1. Succession is an emotive topic which no one approaches neutrally. Embedding succession as an ongoing process within the business of the board reduces the risk of creeping crises.

1. The chairman has a key role to play in managing smooth succession of people and skills in to and out of the board. This requires the skills of trust-building along with a transparent process.

1. An effective succession process will include a view of developable skills, not just possible replacement people.

1. Beware of major external or internal triggers that herald succession as a rescue remedy. Early detection of and action on what is not right in board dynamics might offer a more effective and sustainable result.

1. All directors will hold a view of the skills and capabilities that are needed by or absent from the board but they may not be surfaced without the support of external facilitation.

1. When assessing potential board members, multi measures by multi-raters over multiple occasions is the most reliable way to assess competence and behaviour.

About Bvalco

Bvalco provides independent, formal and rigorous board review services. The UK Corporate Governance Code recommends that boards conduct a formal and rigorous external evaluation once every three years and a process of self review on an annual basis.

To support these requirements Bvalco offers the following services:

• The facilitation of a formal and rigorous external review of the Board using our unique multi-disciplinary approach.

• A confidential individual service for chairmen, board directors and company secretaries in support of improving board effectiveness through internal review.

The Bvalco Food and Thought Forum is an invitation only lunch hosted by Bvalco one Wednesday every month. The lunch runs for two hours from 12.30-2pm. A different topic relevant to effective board functioning is tabled for each event.  

Contact Details:

For further information about please contact us by email at katie.webb@bvalco.com

Address:

Bvalco Ltd
3 More London Riverside
London
SE1 2AQ

Telephone: 0207 444 5779

NOTE ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT

The themes expressed in this document emerged as a result of the discussion. The final paper was authored by the Bvalco team. The views expressed in the document do not represent the views of any one individual nor the corporations by which they are employed.

Date: TBA, May 2011.
Venue: Central London.
Facilitators: Hilary Danelian, Heather Greatrex and Nahdia Khan

Non-Executive Directors (NEDs) from the commercial world provide a great deal of benefit to government department and agency boards. Both WIG and Executive Action work with potential non-executive candidates, encouraging them to apply for roles, building their understanding and helping them tailor their experience to the public sector. However, the transition from one sector to the other can be daunting and is increasingly competitive.

With this in mind, we have created a one-day seminar that enables potential non-executive candidates to explore the culture, context, remit and key requirements of public sector NED roles, hear how others have fared in making the move, and learn how best to access and secure public sector NED appointments.

 
Content
The full-day seminar will incorporate seminar, panel and workshop elements on the following subjects:

• Introduction to the role of the NED in the public sector; scene setting and context; levels of governance required; differences between public and private sector NEDs; board structure
• Panel-style Q&A session with successful NED contributors from both thepublic and private sectors will be discussing what attracted them to NED roles, how they secured them and how they overcame any issues that arose
• Practical support on applying for roles, including who to apply to, how to approach them and the right kind of language to use
• Round table discussions on key issues such as the distinction between executive and non-executive roles and how they can work together, how a NED can contribute when an executive board is not performing, cultural clashes and the key skills of a NED
• Speaker session on the subject of why good NEDs matter to the public sector
• Networking opportunities and ongoing access to live NED roles from WIG and relevant networking events organised by Executive Action.

How this workshop will continue to be of benefit to you after the day

• where to look for non-executive roles
• which roles will be most beneficial to you
• how to maximise your effectiveness as a non-executive in the public sector

This workshop is for you if

•  you are a senior executive in the public or private sector
• looking to develop your strategic skills in your current role
• transitioning from the private sector to the public sector as part of a portfolio career

About the facilitators

Hilary Danelian: Hilary is a certified Coach, a qualified Myers Briggs Practitioner, a member of the International Coach Federation and a Chartered Fellow of the CIPD. For over 6 years Hilary has combined working for WIG with running her own career and executive coaching business. Within WIG she is Programme Director for the well-respected WIG Leadership Programme and is also a member of the WIG Executive Team. Hilary has facilitated action learning sets for over ten years. She has lived and worked in Cardiff for over eight years.

Heather Greatrex: Heather is Head of Career Transition and Coaching at Executive Action. A Chartered Accountant by background, she was a headhunter for 16 years with Price Waterhouse and Veredus, where she was an Associate Director. Since 2006, she has focused on developing her coaching skills, augmenting her practical experience with an MSc in Executive Coaching from Ashridge Business School. At Executive Action, Heather works with clients in transition across the private, public and not-for-profit sectors.

Nahdia Khan: Nahdia is Head of Executive Development. Running a core part of WIG’s cross-sector activities, she has been instrumental in developing a diverse range of cross-sector career development opportunities, which are flexible and can help current and future managers broaden their perspectives and develop new skills. With a dynamic team, that has constantly innovated to meet WIG member needs, Nahdia has set up a very successful cross-sector non-executive programme which has led to 130 appointments across Whitehall & Government Agency boards.

What others have said about this seminar

“Very valuable and enjoyable workshop” Lesley Wilkin - Managing Director UK, Hay Group 

“Excellent event, lots to learn, very well facilitated” Jerry Gibson – Director for London, ACAS

“Gaining an insight to being a NED – the ‘good, the bad and the ugly’ – provided me with the realit and challenges involved” Misti Melville – Group HR & Communications Director, Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd

Target audience

Senior managers from both the private sector (likely to be those researching or actively seeking non-executive appointments in the public sector) and from the public sector (likely to be looking for non-executive appointments in the not-for-profit or broader public sector).

Venue and timing: The seminar will be in central London and will run from 09:30 to 16:30

WIG Member and Executive Action Client/Alumni Fee: £700 + VAT per delegate. Non-WIG member and Non-EA Client/Alumni fee: £900 + VAT. The rates include refreshments, lunch and a comprehensive workbook.

How do I apply? If you would like to apply please complete our online application form at www.wig.co.uk; alternatively you can email nonexecutive@wig.co.uk with all your contact details for the attention of Rebecca Lyng.

When can I expect to hear? We will contact you to confirm whether you have a place. Joining instructions will be sent out by email within two weeks of the workshop date. You will also be sent an invoice by post.

How are applications evaluated? We aim to achieve a good mix of organisations and sectors to enrich the learning experience, offer a range of perspectives and maximise networking. Whilst we will give priority to those who apply early, we cannot operate on a strictly first-come, first-served basis.

Cancellation policy: No refund is payable if you cancel within 21 days of the seminar, although we will accept a replacement delegate if you are unable to attend.

Elizabeth Reddish developed the Sons and Daughters Programme after being approached informally by clients: “Several asked me if we also worked with young people. Their children had recently left university and were struggling to find direction or to get on the ladder. All parents know how tough it is to advise someone so close, or indeed to take advice from someone who knows you as intimately as a parent – after all, parent-child relationships are complicated enough at the best of times. They were, very understandably, looking for some informed and objective support.

“I’ve also found that in my private practice (as a psychoanalytic psychotherapist) and at the Tavistock Institute I see quite a number of people in their late 20s, earning very good money but deeply unhappy. Typically they are in law, accountancy or management consultancy, and were academic high fliers who have progressed very smoothly up to this point. For whatever reason, they have begun to question where they are in their lives, whether the profession is where they want to stay for the rest of their careers, and needing to weigh up the financial rewards versus other kinds of satisfaction.” According to Elizabeth, this process often leads to the conclusion that, having taken a well-worn path for the ‘bright but basically unfocused’, they’re currently doing something that isn’t what really inspires them.

“I work hard to help them (and sometimes their parents too) see that they don’t need to panic. Plenty of very successful and happy people spend years trying out alternative paths.”

In thinking about what Executive Action could design specifically for people at the start of their careers or in its early stages, Elizabeth focuses on helping them to achieve clarity: “Helping young clients get a clear sense of who they are and where they want to go is critical. To be really valuable the programme needs to consider all of their options, to discuss whether their choice of tertiary education was really relevant (or would be, if they’re at an earlier stage), and what has real meaning for them. We also need to help them identify what it is in their personalities, backgrounds or interests that’s most ‘marketable’. Learning to articulate this in a credible way is a massive step forward.

“For some young people, presenting themselves well in a professional environment is a serious challenge, as they don’t have the experience to identify the right ‘tone’. Enabling them to attain this, and to talk confidently and appropriately about themselves comes from allowing them space to consider their options with an independent listener, and to start gaining confidence in their direction. You can’t come across as genuinely confident, self-assured (and a promising potential employee) until you actually feel it.”

Case study 1: Too Many Options?

A 23-year old confident networker with a very successful university education behind her came to see Elizabeth saying that she wanted to start her own business. From an entrepreneurial background, she knew that there was plenty of family support and many contacts available if she knew what avenue to pursue, but her lack of focus about what kind of business was beginning to undermine her confidence.

After the first meeting, Elizabeth realised that this client was at an earlier stage of the process: she actually needed to learn about other businesses first, to test the water by working in an environment that gave her insight into companies at an early (but not start-up) phase. Her anxiety about where to start and having too wide a choice of business type and sector needed to be set aside until she had learnt more about the challenges that follow the ‘bright idea’ stage.

“We concentrated in our meetings on finding and honing her approach to companies of the right size and at the right phase of development, using Executive Action’s research and writing resources. We talked extensively about what she had to offer them and what she wanted to learn from them. 

Within two months she secured a role in a small company whose future was reasonably well assured.  We made sure that the role was one in which she would gain useful skills and experience and that the culture of the company supported the development of its staff.  We have arranged to ‘take stock’ and review her progress in twelve months’ time.

Case study 2: Where To Start? 

A 22-year old who had tried and given up on a degree was very much lacking in confidence when he came to see Elizabeth. The course had been very academic and, although he had a strong aptitude for the area in which the course was based, he needed help to see that the applied (rather than theoretical) aspect of the subject was where his interest and talent genuinely lay.

“At the beginning, his thinking was very confused about what to do next as all his energy had been channelled into something that didn’t work out for him. We talked long and hard about where his abilities lay. These conversations revealed a mild dyslexia which was leading to lack of confidence in writing and face-to-face presentations.

“Our work together pulled out what he was good at and it emerged that his quick mind , skill with figures and enjoyment in working one-to-one with the public made him an excellent candidate for re-negotiating contracts with clients on the telephone. Focusing on the positive in this way enabled him to develop a narrative around his aborted university career and to help him present it confidently enough for people to focus on his skills and potential.

“He is now happily and successfully working in a small-scale but growing finance company. He’s learning about the business and utilising his innate feel for numbers and strong telephone manner in an environment that makes the most of what he is good at and enjoys.”

I was recently on a discussion panel for job seekers with my Microsoft colleague Heather McGough.  A participant asked a question about resumes and like many recruiting types, Heather told the group that she does not like skill-based resumes. 

And it got me thinking.  I see skill-based resumes all the time.  I’ve never really given them a second thought.  I look at them and I scroll down through 3 paragraphs of skills to find the actual experience.  I’ve never really stopped to acknowledge this fact: I HATE these resumes! 

I bet you’ve seen the ones I’m talking about.  They are often only one page in length, beginning with a category like “Skills” or “Qualifications” or something similar.  In this category, everything is listed that the applicant has done in his or her entire life in the hopes that one of their key words will grab your attention or at least the attention of your search engine.  Near the bottom of the page, you will find the employment history, complete with company, title, date… and nothing else. 

It’s no secret that recruiters use a series of keywords to track down potential candidates.  Particularly in the technical world.  We look for certain tools and we often move on if those tools are not found on the resume.  Technical resumes often include a section of skills at the top.  But, it’s two or three lines before moving into the experience.  This is a great practice that highlights the keywords for our search, but then quickly jumps into the meat of the information: the actual experience.

However, when I simply see a ton of “skills,” I don’t know where this knowledge was obtained.  Through real world, hands on exposure?  Was it learned in school?  An internship?  Maybe this person watches a lot of Discovery Channel and saw a documentary? It’s awesome that you have sales experience!  From where?  At McDonalds selling happy meals? What were you selling when you exceeded your sales goal?  You worked at Starbucks.  Awesome!  In the store or in the corporate office?  Is that where you learned your “customer service skills?” 

A recruiter is left with a lot of questions.  On one hand, perhaps this is a way for an applicant to potentially open a door and talk to a real person.  As a recruiter, the only way to get more info on some of these questions is to pick up the phone.  I might just do this.  Or… I might be busy and rushed and I might feel like my time is better spent calling this next person whose resume is more clear. 

ProvenResumes.com makes an argument in favor of skills-based resumes.  They say that funky experience on a chronological resume will turn off a potential employer.  They give the example of Sharla who was a full time teacher doing part-time sales.  Apparently, Sharla was hired at Microsoft through her skill based resumes.  For the record, I don’t know Sharla.  But, I am willing to bet that the recruiter needed to dig to find this information rather than clearly seeing on her resume that Sharla, “generated an income of $30,000 from part-time sales.”  They also refer to people attempting a job change.  But, a person doesn’t magically become qualified simply because they alter the format of their resume.   

So, this trend needs to die. I don’t know who started it, but I question if they were a recruiter.  I want to know what you’ve done and where you’ve done it. Period. I don’t want fluff. I don’t want fudging. The manager and I will decide if your skills translate. We won’t be fooled by an attempt to disguise a person’s lack of experience by burying their background in “Skills.” Give me a solid chronological resume, any day. And recruiting friends of mine? You better be preaching the same…

A classic all skills/no chronology CV; can you see why this might irritate an impatient recruiter?

From minority to mainstream

Over the last 12 months or so LinkedIn’s profile has grown from being something that you might have joined out of curiosity to being perceived as a vital component in a networker’s and jobseeker’s tool box.

In July 2010 it was valued at $2.26 billion¹ and the number of members currently sits around the 75 million mark². One result of this recent popularity is the amount of enquiries that we at Executive Action have received; voicing concerns, seeking clarity and reassurance over LinkedIn’s purpose and advice on how best to utilise its benefits whilst avoiding its pitfalls. After speaking to various clients, contacts and colleagues about this matter I began to feel that many people’s anxiety stemmed from a fear that, by not being a part of LinkedIn or not completely understanding its workings or having the best, most eye-catching and up-to-date profile they would be missing out on unsurpassable opportunities that are unique to LinkedIn. This caused me to consider the benefits and downfalls of LinkedIn and to put together various tips and guidelines on how to promote yourself whilst competently navigating the site.

Why people join

The clearest advantage of LinkedIn is that it makes you visible; when people search for you on the internet you and your career history will appear within seconds, making networking more immediate, less troublesome and non-intrusive. Additionally, a LinkedIn profile is a more organic, interactive and forward thinking version of your CV and the chance to obtain recommendations provides a valuable opportunity to advertise what your colleagues think about you, rather than a purely subjective statement of ‘I’m good at this job’ typical of a CV.

However, these aspects can be double-edged. Whilst you want to be more conspicuous to recruiters and potential companies, you don’t want to over-expose yourself and devalue your CV. Nor do you want your profile to be irritatingly interactive or inappropriately open.
An effective means of combating these traps would be to avoid any temptation of updating your status with non-work related information and by limiting your profile to include your important career highlights, whilst saving the detail and flesh for your less frequently distributed CV. Remember; you are advertising yourself to other professionals with the aim of networking by following connections up with more information or a personal meeting. Revealing all your cards at once is not beneficial.

Join LinkedIn, sit back and wait for the offers?

If you make LinkedIn your sole means of networking or job hunting you can detrimentally narrow your focus. When applying for jobs you must think of your sector and target audience. There exist other sites that may be more fruitful for your specialism. For example the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has a networking site that is particularly useful for those working in HR. Moreover, LinkedIn will only work so long as recruiters and networking contacts regard the site as useful; over the next few years it is likely that there will be an increase in such social networking sites, and it important to choose the most relevant one for you.

LinkedIn is an excellent research tool that can be utilised in preparation for an interview, job application or simply to help you find the details of someone you want to connect with. However it is not the golden chalice for job hunters that it is advertised to be; it is not guaranteed to find you your next best role and it is unlikely that you will miss out on enviable opportunities if you are not on the site every day. Recent statistics published by Top-Consultant state that in a poll of over 1,000 candidates, whilst 45% of candidates say they regularly use LinkedIn, only 5% have actively responded to a job advert placed on social media sites like LinkedIn³. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that it is jobseekers rather than employers that put value in social media as a means of finding employment.

The reality of social media is that it is regarded as a way of being seen by recruiters or contacts, rather than actively finding a new opportunity. So it may be that LinkedIn is best utilised as a passive means of job hunting: set up a professional profile, make some key contacts and then consider it as a secondary method that should be updated and checked every week or so. Don’t spend too much time on it – but conversely don’t ignore it completely.

Using LinkedIn: The basics

• Use an email address (preferably not your work one) that you check regularly to avoid missing out on updates and networking notifications.

• Pick a password that you will remember – an obvious one but it can be annoying if every time you login you are thwarted at the first hurdle.

• LinkedIn is without spell check and other formatting options, so check your spelling in Word and then copy and paste any text across, and if you want to draw attention to specific words you can use the CAPSLOCK to do so.

Your profile

Once you have signed in you will be directed to your LinkedIn homepage. LinkedIn gives you the option of importing your CV to your profile. I would advise against this. As I mentioned earlier, your LinkedIn profile should be a sound-bite, a taster: you want to be able to control how much information is available. Near the top, toward the left is the Profile button and you will have the option to Edit or View it. This is where you can really sell your professional skills, but keep it simple and uncluttered.

• Headline: you can advertise a summary of your skills and interests in the highlighted section at the top of your Profile (for example: ‘CEO, Entrepreneur, interested in Green Energy) by clicking on ‘Edit’ located next to your name and typing your blurb into the Professional Headline section. This will be the first thing people see when they search for you, so it needs to be concise yet interesting and forward-looking. Inspect other people’s headlines for guidance and inspiration.

• Current position: If you choose not to write a headline this information will be the first thing people see on your profile. Put yourself in the best possible light without embellishing and if you are using abbreviations in your job title or company name, ensure that they are recognisable rather than alienating. When entering these details you will also be able to include a Description of your role and the company. Restrict it to the most important responsibilities (remember this is not your CV) and do not saturate it with statistics.

• Summary: This is your opportunity to really sell yourself and to add an extra, more personal, dimension to your profile. The Summary section is akin to the profile in your CV but it should be more forward thinking: this is what I have been doing in my current role, these are my skills, this is how they are transferrable and here is what I am interested in doing in the future. LinkedIn gives you the option of writing up to 2,000 characters – but don’t feel that you have to fill all that space. It is better to be succinct and snappy than vague and indirect. See what other people have written and think about how you want to portray yourself and to whom. It is also a good idea to write it in Word, check the spelling and then paste it in.

• Previous positions: Do not put down every role you have ever had. Remember you want to advertise your skills whilst saving some information for your CV and any face-to-face meetings you may have. As with the ‘Current Position’ you will be able to include description of the role and company.

• Picture: Photographs are an excellent means of personalising your profile, grabbing someone’s attention and making you memorable. Ensure that it is flattering yet professional; something akin to the picture on your company website.

• Recommendations: You obtain a recommendation by requesting one from a contact. Think carefully about who you should ask for this as they will have to write a paragraph about your skills and you want someone who can promote you in the field in which you are looking to advance: a recommendation about your surfing skills may be fun but not always useful for networking or job hunting purposes!

• Education: If it was a long time ago, restrict the information to your University and any later qualifications. Details of your primary and secondary schools are not helpful unless you wish to be contacted by fellow alumni.

Your best connections

Although you can import all of your contacts from your chosen email account (perhaps the easiest way of connecting with people) it can lead to difficulties. Few can say that they want to be in touch with everyone in their email address book, not everyone should be invited to connect with the same bland message and you cannot always be sure that their details are correct.

My recommendation is to type in the names of people you know well, your current and previous colleagues, connect with them first, then look through their contacts see if you want to connect with any of them, and then work through your email contacts slowly. This is your opportunity to target your approach, so do not just send out a blanket invitation to everyone you know. Moreover, if you stagger your connections over time your profile will always look current and up to date.

There are many other elements to LinkedIn that can boost your profile and make it look more current: by ‘following’ various groups or companies that you are interested in, or linking with relevant websites or a twitter account your profile can be more personal, informative and dynamic.

For more information on how best to use LinkedIn contact Ineka Hall on ihall@executive-action.com or 0844 8044 399.

References
1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/jul/28/linkedin-2bn
2 http://press.linkedin.com/
3 http://www.recruitmentmediablog.com/wordpress/2010/03/linkedin-just-how-good-is-it/

 I thought that the most valuable way to advise you on how to get Non-Executive Directorships (NEDs) would be to give you advice from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. So I chose from Executive Action’s ex-clients two people who have been successful in landing two or more NEDs and have asked them to give some practical tips on how they got there. I also asked another ex-client to tell his story in order that I might tell it to you.

To put these ideas into context, I think it worth flagging up the differences that exist between public, third sector and  private sector Boards and the way they operate and,  in part, the different skills they seek from  their NEDs. In my mind, there is a great deal of difference between the role of a NED on a quoted FTSE board, the role of a trustee on the board of a charity, the role of an NED on the board of a privately-owned business and the opportunity to contribute to Whitehall boards.  

To illustrate these differences I have chosen different examples and some views  from the public sector.

My first example, Jon, is a highly successful businessman, a ‘tooth and claw’ capitalist, a main board director of a PLC and, currently, non-executive chairman of a very large, high profile, privately owned business. He’s also on the group board of a FTSE 250 company. When I asked him for his top tips, he typically answered without reference to notes (or indeed time to prepare his thoughts) with the following:-

1. Have a clear and concise CV (in his case, Executive Action did the job)
2. Network amongst all the head-hunters, especially Hanson Green who specialise in NED appointments.
3. Wear out shoe leather walking around town talking to everybody.
4. Examine your own personal network and identify sponsors to speak to.
5. Be clear in your own mind what kind of company you are interested in; give examples, name names “I am interested in Café Direct” – especially to head-hunters.
6. Be clear about your own skills – what you have to offer.
7. Be realistic in your expectations –FTSE 100 boards are not always the most fun.
8. Be patient. Companies don’t have opportunities right away.
9. Be prepared to say “no” – if you are not sure, don’t  do it.

My second example is a successful executive who has combined her ‘day job’ with an NED. Outside her full-time role, you might describe her  as a social entrepreneur, and her NED experience to date is in the 3^rd sector.

“During my time at EMI I represented the company by sitting on the finance committee at both the BPI and PPL.  Being involved with industry bodies within my field was a good way of getting some initial non-executive experience and gaining an understanding of the workings and governance framework for non executives.

“I have a keen interest in the role of education in supporting individuals to achieve their full potential. I was asked during my time at EMI whether I would like to get involved in the Teach First mentoring scheme. Teach First is an organisation who train and fast track high calibre graduates into inner city schools , the aim being to support young people in schools to achieve their potential. I mentored a science teacher during her first year at a large inner city girl’s school. I found the experience of working with her during this time incredibly rewarding and educational.

“The work with Teach First increased my awareness of some of the challenges facing the education system and made me aware that my commercial experience and expertise of working in the private sector could support educational establishments in the capacity as a non exec.

“I started to investigate the finance and change management requirements of educational establishments and how NEDs work to support this. I had a number of conversations with people within my network who were NEDs or trustees of educational establishments, had worked in the education sector, or with charitable bodies supporting youth development.

“My conversations led to me being approached to apply for a Governor role with Richmond Adult Education College – I was subsequently appointed a Governor and also serve on the audit committee.”

In summary, her experience would indicate the following for transition to NED roles:

• look for non executive roles with organisations where you have empathy and an understanding of what they are trying to achieve
• gain experience of non executive roles by volunteering for roles within your industry
• speak to people in your network who are NEDs to get their perspective on being an NED (time commitment, governance, challenges, and skill-sets)
• talk to your network about possible opportunities
• review vacancies in newspapers and on websites and target applications
• tailor your CV and personal statement to fit in with the organisational requirements.

Finally, let’s consider one man’s review of his journey into NEDs whilst still holding down a high level executive position.

“Networking – I was very active in this area while working with Executive Action. I made myself fairly visible, in a targeted way, but I would also be out evenings three times a week, plus lunches and other informal chats.  It wasn’t a natural thing in my position – particularly for someone in a ‘functional’ role – but it really is critical. 

Publicity – I did a lot of presenting and quite a few articles; also quite a bit of work with the Treasury Association.  The end result was that I became reasonably well known as competent /an expert in the area of financial risk and, particularly, pensions.  I guess, therefore, one point would be that if you have a particular competency and want to leverage it to get a non-executive role, you need to make sure people know you have it – and the presentations/articles were a piece of that, as was the networking.

“To articulate it better: in the process of making oneself ‘visible’ its important to portray the skills one has that would fit well with a role you might be looking for effectively to the audience. The Actuarial Standards board role came from a headhunter’s telephone call. Technically there was a public body type application form to complete. The point is that there were enough headhunters and others out there who knew I was expert in this area for me to get the call. Without the groundwork, I might not have picked up on it otherwise.

“The Cabinet Office audit job was different. I saw the role advertised, then spoke to Executive Action to see if you had any contacts in WIG (the Whitehall & Industry Group). Obviously, my name put forward by someone like Executive Action, who can effectively reference me, is always a big positive in trying to get to the interview stage.  We had been talking about looking at the public sector for a non-executive role – on the grounds that since I wasn’t currently on a listed Board, a private sector NED would be more difficult to obtain.

“That’s more or less what happened. It comes back to the basic principle that the best way to get into the process is for someone else to be saying you are the person for the job; it’s a question of making that happen. I have participated in some working groups as well – one for the UKLA, one for the ASB and one for the IASB – all of which have probably been helpful for personal credibility, whatever the subject matter.”

Something I have found very useful in helping individuals in the clinical (psychoanalytic) setting is acknowledgement of the negative side of human nature: grandiosity, envy at other people’s creativity, rigidity, withholding information and other kinds of behaviour which result in undermining our own work and that of other people. Eight years ago, I joined Executive Action and started bringing this understanding to my work to the individuals that I coach and mentor in a business setting.

One observation I have made of the multitude of personality and other psychometric tests informed by psychology (as opposed to psychoanalysis), is a distinct focus on the positive and a distinct absence of the negative. Yet we have all experienced the tiny but potent non-verbal gestures by which individuals express their anger, jealousy and competitiveness in the work-place: the e-mail giving a change of time or venue for the meeting which ‘doesn’t arrive’, important reports not ‘cc’d’ to one crucial person, even the personal mug that mysteriously ‘goes missing’. It’s run of the mill stuff that we experience every day, but why do we not have a framework for understanding and thinking about it?

It is worth considering the stories of two individuals I worked with in a business setting, where a focus on negative, unconscious aspects of their behaviour towards others was the only way of achieving a positive outcome to their problem. Without realising it, these two individuals had become ‘negative stakeholders’.

The first was a man in his mid-20s working as a legal assistant in an established, corporate environment. The brief was given to me by an HR Director at her wits’ end who said that this young man, who had previously performed very effectively, was consistently getting facts wrong, withholding vital information and so on. He wouldn’t acknowledge this reality in spite of the evidence. She had met with him three times to discuss the issue to no avail and now he had developed a debilitating stammer. Two sessions held with me outside the work place resolved the problem; the key change was his own acknowledgement of his destructive behaviour. It emerged that he knew something was wrong, but until someone could make sense of why he was behaving in this way, i.e. give it a rationale, he was stuck – unable to acknowledge it because he couldn’t articulate it.  If the correct and timely intervention had not been made, he would have been made redundant on the grounds of incompetence, with serious implications for his future career, not least because he would not have able to explain what had happened, and would therefore more than likely repeat the pattern in a new context.

The second case is that of a woman in her 30s who referred herself. Working in a much smaller company, having previously been very successful in the area of business development, she was failing to secure new contracts and was also undermining her colleagues’ efforts to do so. This behaviour was threatening the very existence of the company and she knew it was only so long before she would be fired. Six sessions (which again, I held outside the workplace) enabled her to make sense of what she was doing in the context of her whole personality (i.e. including issues in her personal life) and gave her understanding, which relieved the problem and enabled her to curb the destructive behaviour. Not only would lack of the correct intervention have jeopardised this professional’s career, it would also have lost the company an excellent executive.

Returning to the psychological tests and the curious fact that they don’t seem to encompass what is, after all, common sense, why do we apparently seek to disguise the more destructive side of human nature and what are the implications on a bigger scale? It seems that we do acknowledge it in the ‘group setting’: that is, looking at whole companies rather than individuals. After all, the very lucrative skillset known as ‘Change Management’ implies that people’s response to change is often negative and requires consummate experience and skill to be driven through successfully.

So there seems to be an understanding that in this particular context, groups of people can be ‘negative stakeholders’. But isn’t ‘change’ the stuff of everyday office life, and aren’t groups of people made up of individuals?  This suggests to me, and it is borne out in my experience, that it is just a question of scale. You might say that a good HR Director will refer difficult individuals for special help, or that a conscientious individual in difficulties will seek out the appropriate support. But what if that individual isn’t conscientious, doesn’t have a good line or HR manager and/or worse still, is at the top of the hierarchy?

Research by Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon of Surrey University (‘Is Your Boss a Psychopath? The Guardian 18^th April 2005) considered whether there was any overlap between the personalities of business managers, psychiatric patients and hospitalised criminals (psychopathic and psychiatrically ill). There were some extraordinary findings: three of eleven personality disorders were actually commoner in managers than in disturbed criminals. The first was ‘histrionic personality disorder’, entailing superficial charm, insincerity, egocentricity and manipulativeness. There was also a higher incidence of narcissism: grandiosity, self-focussed lack of empathy for others, exploitativeness and independence. Finally, there was found to be more ‘compulsive personality disorder’ in the managers, traits of which include perfectionism, excessive devotion to work, rigidity, stubbornness and dictatorial tendencies.

What are the implications for the employees of such an individual if they occupy the role of MD or CEO?  Board and Fritzon’s work clearly shows how the behaviours of one person in a sufficiently senior position can permeate the entire company culture.

All this is not to imply that ‘destructive behaviours’ need simply weeding out – that if the individual is removed, all will be well.  Extreme examples apart, it is a question of understanding and transformation, rather than negation.  Destructiveness is the underbelly of creativity (how often do we hear it said that some of the most successful criminals could have made exceptional police detectives?).  It is my belief that to ‘weed out’ destructiveness is to throw the baby out with the bath water, to rob the company of its creative potential. My experience shows me that the creative process is one that confounds many people, who, when involved as team players, mistake obstacles for failure. It is only a short step from there to accusing their leaders (behind their backs of course) of incompetence, and from there to the creation of ‘negative factions’ common to dysfunctional working cultures: ‘IT isn’t talking to Finance at the moment’, ‘Central Services doesn’t see why Sales should be getting bonuses’ etc.

In considering the link between individual psychic processes and institutional processes, I have come to believe that the reason we disregard ‘negativity’ to such an extent is due to a mistaken belief that if ignored it will go away, or even that if ignored it doesn’t exist. I propose a less blinkered approach to the destructive drive and its manifestations, and suggest that offering focussed coaching to key individuals not only helps them to avoid personal catastrophe, but also serves to access the creative potential in themselves and the businesses and organisations of which they are a part.

Elizabeth Reddish is a consultant with Executive Action and also a qualified psychoanalytic psychotherapist. She previously spent fifteen years in the film industry, culminating in the role of Head of Marketing for the British Film Institute.

In my role as Business Writer at Executive Action, I work primarily with clients on rewriting and redesigning CVs (and other documents) in order to present them in the best possible light.

But before I get to work editing or reworking, I sit down with our clients for a detailed (and frequently fascinating) comb through their past, working from early life through to the present day. Together we plot their career progression – for some a straight line, for others a maze of dead ends and short-term reversals before arriving where they are today. I am always interested to see where they started life, where they went to school and, by rights, what accent they might be expected to have. It’s a generalisation, but true in my experience, that few senior people carry more than a trace of a regional accent. 

(I must confess that as a child, I was frequently threatened with elocution lessons in order to banish my south London twang – ‘ain’t’ and ‘aks’ for ‘isn’t’ and ‘ask’ were standard pronunciation at my primary school. Once secondary school had knocked that out of me, I was typical of many of us from the South East in thinking I had no accent at all. My partner, from Stafford, with a family firmly rooted in the black country, was very amused by this).

You might expect these more enlightened times to have spelt an end to the practice of ironing out your native accent to further your professional prospects, if it doesn’t happen to be Received Pronunciation (RP). Listening to old BBC programmes (the digital station BBC7 is a goldmine) is like hearing broadcasts from another world: it’s hard to believe that vowels were ever that clipped.

While some regional accents on radio and television are now very common, maybe parents’ anxieties about limited career options for children with strong accents are well founded. There’s plenty of research to suggest that many prejudices persist.

A study in 2005 sponsored by the Aziz Corporation found that businesspeople who spoke with an Indian or Asian accent were considered to be “hardworking” or “reliable” by 69% of their peers (compared with just 24% with a Liverpudlian accent).

Research in 2008 at Bath Spa University into dialect and perceived intelligence found people with the distinctive nasal Birmingham twang were seen as significantly more stupid than those with a Yorkshire accent. This was despite a general trend in which regional dialects have become more respectable. The Yorkshire accent was rated as the most intelligent-sounding, beating RP for the first time.

Researchers asked 48 volunteers to look at photographs of female models while listening to recordings of women with different accents (Yorkshire, Birmingham and RP) describing their lives. They were then asked to rate the pictured models for intelligence, giving them marks out of 10. Volunteers were also asked to give an intelligence rating when no voice was played. To avoid participants being influenced by appearance, models of roughly equal attractiveness were chosen for the photos, and the accents attributed to them were mixed up.

While accent did not change perceptions of the models’ attractiveness, it had a significant impact on whether or not a particular model was seen as intelligent. The average intelligence ratings given by the study participants, out of 10, were: Yorkshire: 6.71; RP: 6.67; silence: 5.99; and Birmingham: 5.6. (Yes, that’s right. Less intelligent than silence).

Dr Lance Workman, who led the research, concluded that times had changed since RP was seen as the language of the elite. “Thirty years ago 10% of the population went to university. If someone had RP you’d probably think they had gone to university. Today, 44% of young people go to university, and I think there’s been a shift in what we expect from somebody who is educated. There’s been this change from elite education to mass education.

“Yorkshire is no longer associated with collieries and 1980s industrial unrest. Its residents are now perceived as ‘wise, trustworthy, honest and straightforward’. I think something special has happened in Yorkshire, with the closure of the mines, people are no longer associating Yorkshire with ‘trouble at pit’. Leeds has a lot of money and is a buzzy place.”

In 2010 things are no better. Holiday company sunshine.co.uk conducted some research that concluded that 76% of airline passengers would feel ill at ease if the pilot spoke with a Brummie twang. According to the poll, the Birmingham accent ranked just above the Liverpudlian as the most likely to cause discomfort to air passengers on the aircraft PA.  81% of air passengers said they would feel most reassured by classic RP, with Edinburgh (72%) and Newcastle (65%) ranked as the next most soothing.

What is it about the Birmingham accent particularly? It contains relatively few specifically local words that might alienate an outsider (although my partner’s family frequently manage to bamboozle me); it’s not guttural sounding, nor is it particularly difficult to understand. Maybe it’s the slight downward intonation that leaves people feeling flat.

Another theory is that the promotion of arts and humanities above science and engineering (the latter historically at the heart of Brummie culture) taps into an old snobbery about commerce and trade, reinforced by ideas about which cities are ‘cool’ (i.e. anything to do with the media, arts, music, etc.) spelt out to us in the media, arts and music.

Yorkshire, of course, has historically had a strong association with heavy industry, but also with, ahem, parsimony. This can be perceived as a business advantage: First Direct sited its customer service centres in Leeds and Hamilton after research showed Yorkshire and Scottish accents were most closely associated with financial prudence (although their research did pre-date the recession).

Because our accent is one of the key aspects of the first impression that we make on strangers, our (usually subconscious) desire to side-step the stereotypes is completely understandable. The fact that so many professional people curb their original dialect means, however, that those individuals that don’t really stick in the mind. The ‘elevator pitch’ for a job seeker – a quickfire summary of who they are, what they’ve done, what they can do – can be enhanced by something as distinctive as an accent. At least it may make them memorable. And being the candidate who plays against the stereotype – an effusively warm and generous-spirited Yorkshireman, for example – who also reinforces the positive aspects of typecasting – plain speaking and honest – can be a powerful combination.  

On a personal level, positive or negative associations with individuals tend to overcome vague received ideas about regional characteristics. Which probably explains my mysteriously warm feelings towards Adrian Chiles, flying the flag for the black country burr in an otherwise Brummie-free media.

Introduction

As Baby Boomers, our generation were pioneers who paved the way for others – we threw ourselves head first into new things. We did all the things that our parents were too afraid to think about, things that even the kids of today can only dream of doing.

But the sad truth is that, although cosmetic surgery can erase the wrinkles, the consequences of growing older remain the same. The wealth of opportunities that Boomers encountered in their early career have now been replaced by what some have described as the last bastion of legal prejudice in the workplace – ageism.

The Reality

In life, there are certain reality checks that let you know exactly how old you are at any particular moment in time. There’s the time in your twenties when you realise that you have to start working at shifting the side-effects of junk food and alcohol. And that point in your early thirties when staying in suddenly becomes the new going out and your friends start having babies. It’s frightening to think how time just passes us by, especially when we spend the majority of our working life trying to save time.

And there lies another one of those reality checks: the amount of time we spend at work and the extent to which we use it wisely. One of the standard questions we ask candidates at interview is to talk through their career and experience to date in roughly 20 minutes.  A career spanning 30 odd years condensed in a whirlwind 20 minutes! Some are so traumatised by the scale of the task that they panic, skip large chunks from their story and do it in 10. Where did all those years go? Consigned to history and filed away under ‘insignificant’. What a waste. Some leave the interview confused. “Did that really happen? Did I really waste 6 years of my life in that rubbish job, working for that lousy boss, earning crap pay and working all hours God sends for nothing? Did I really achieve a big fat zero between the years of 1988 and 1994?” ….sadly, it happens.

And what about that other classic interview question “where do you see yourself in 5 years time?”. There was a time when your average Baby Boomer would have looked forward to answering that one. It was a chance to demonstrate ambition, to articulate plans, goals and dreams. Not any more. It’s now the question that most Baby Boomers dread to answer; after all, who’s going to be interested in what I’m doing in 5 years time? Will  it be all unfulfilled ambitions, Saga holidays, collecting antiques and a daily dose of Countdown!

It’s all made worse by the fact that the majority of Boomers don’t feel that they’re getting a fair crack of the whip in interviews because of their age. Unfortunately, many in our society make 50-something job hunters feel as though they’re on the scrapheap – cast off as being untrainable, inflexible, weak and, in the most severe cases, senile.  What’s worse, there’s evidence that suggests ageism is now affecting those as young as 35.  Imagine that: on the career scrapheap by 40!  It’s a depressing thought that there are people willing to ignore a lifetime of work experience because of your age.

Employers try to weed out older employees for a variety of reasons. There’s the opinion that older workers are perceived to be less committed to their jobs than their junior colleagues, simply because of the view that the latter’s non-marital status and anxiety to get promoted sees them more willing to work an 80-hour week. They’re seen to be hungry and determined, whereas the older of the two is perceived to be coasting or treading water.

So, a third of 50-year-olds don’t work; many are pushed out of jobs and some jump with inducements. Some retired early assuming they’d get another job – only to meet discrimination in recruitment. Most men aged 60 to 64 used to work but now half retire before 65.

Those out of work in their 50s find it hard when dealing with the realities of job hunting. For many 50-somethings, the experience is similar to re-learning how to ride a bicycle. Many have been with one organisation for so long that they have forgotten the art of job hunting. They need a refresher on how to market their skills and abilities and how to overcome a new set of barriers in their attempt to get back into work. 

Bosses often seem to fear that an older worker will cost more in salary, pension and occupational health insurance than a younger employee and may be ill more often. They worry about integrating older workers if they have a predominantly younger workforce. Some believe that older workers will not be up to speed with new technology and that they will be less flexible in their thinking and less able to move around the country.

So, ageism does exist …… but is it all doom and gloom?

The Future

Once 50 was seen as ‘over-the-hill’ but the demographics are changing: 50% of Britain will soon be over 50. Our generation is approaching retirement age as fewer younger workers are coming into the workplace. Medical advances mean that expectations of what 60 and 70 year olds can achieve have risen, and the well-documented pension crisis has only served to make matters worse.

No matter how you look at it, workers of all ages, particularly those in their 30s and 40s, are suddenly waking up to the fact that they may have to work well beyond the traditional 65 if they want a comfortable retirement.  Research predicts that the number of people working past retirement age will rise by 63% by the year 2020 and that the numbers working between 50 and retirement age will rise to 73% of this age group. The bottom line is that organisations are being forced to change their ideas when it comes to recruiting people over the age of 50.

The benefits of a 50-something workforce

So how does all this translate to the world of job hunting? The truth is that older workers tend to make the best employees. They’re generally more loyal, more committed, more punctual, more worldly wise and able to deliver, are less prone to get upset and take offence, and are more empathetic than their younger counter parts, particularly when they deal with clients and members of the general public, as my consultants do on a day-to-day basis. Never mind the stereotypes – the fact is that you’re likely to retain someone in their 50s longer than someone in their 20s.

Organisations are also waking up to the fact that it makes financial sense to employ older people. Nationwide Building Society, for example, estimate that they save around £5 million per annum due to the high retention rate fuelled by the loyalty and credibility of their older members of staff. It actually turns out that older workers cost companies less in benefits than younger ones because they have fewer dependents and are ‘less’ likely to take time off work to visit the doctor.  They also seem to be ‘more responsible’.

Moreover, organisations are slowly being forced to realise that there is a huge amount of talent, experience, commitment and entrepreneurial vigour in the fastest growing demographic in the UK. The over-50s have 30% more disposable income than the under-50s and they possess 80% of private wealth. They are largely free from the burden of mortgages and children, and they are an audience without conditioned purchasing habits.

Job hunting for the 50-something

Let’s start by stating the obvious: a heck of a lot about an individual’s employability lies in the art of selling, marketing and, in effect, reputation management. When you think about it, what you do throughout your career is market yourself to prospective recruiters and employers.

But part of the problem remains the attitude of the 50-something crowd towards finding a new job. From experience, we know that many are defeated even before they begin, by believing in the stereotypes that others have created – you play into the hands of those cynics by believing that you are slow to grasp new ideas, unadventurous and unwilling to make sideways or downward moves.

Unfortunately a new job isn’t going to materialise out of thin air and land in your lap – stop feeling sorry for yourselves and do something about it! You’ve got to believe in yourself: look yourself in the eye and ask that killer question ‘If I was the interviewer, would I employ me?’

Typically, as a 50-plus applicant, you will probably need to work harder during the recruitment process if you want to get the job. There’s a game to be played here and you have to deploy the necessary effort, hard work and right tactics in order to win.

And if it still doesn’t work?  If your skills and experience still don’t get you the job that you’re looking for?  Take your talents somewhere that they’ll be appreciated and where they can flourish.

Some hints & tips

In terms of getting an interview in the first place:

Do – Get as much information on the organisation and the role as possible. If they offer you an opportunity to receive or obtain more information about them or the role, grab it! Speak to your friends, ex-colleagues and contacts, search the internet and old journals for information

Don’t – be put off by bad ads or poorly put together information packs, by the types of words used in job descriptions and person specifications attached to roles

Do – ring up for the informal discussion if offered, though think about your approach (not something naff like “can you tell me more about the job please?”)

Do - offer a trade: say that you’ve seen the ad; got the briefing/information pack [if there was one]; you might be interested in the role; if I tell you more about myself, background and experience, can you tell me if you think I might be appropriate; any hints/tips in terms of applying for the role; and is now convenient for a discussion in the first place?

Do – project energy, enthusiasm and a progressive attitude

Do – follow the response instructions to the letter

Do – look for the right kind of organisation; the strongest indication of an organisation’s sincerity when expressing their interest in hiring older workers is their track record of hiring older workers

Do – address the appointment criteria, point by point, without being robotic

Do – in your supporting statement/covering letter, bring some breadth, depth and personality to the application

Do – talk in your supporting statement about where you can engage with what they are looking for

Do – turn what will otherwise be a two-dimensional application into a three- dimensional person

Do – put yourself in the position of the employer/recruiter and think about any anxieties they might have; tackle these anxieties, not aggressively, but assertively. That doesn’t mean you have to apologise about your age but it does mean showing extra focus, care and attention

Don’t, above all, be put off – if you think you can do the job, have a go – but remember to do all the above when you do

 At the interview:

Do – look the part and don’t forget we live in a society that is, in many ways, very superficial. So project an energetic, positive attitude. Be lively and awake. Try your best not to look haggard and worn out. Sit up, look relaxed and make eye contact. You want your interviewer to know that you are at ease working with lots of different people

Do – be careful what words you use and don’t use terms that make you sound like an old codger; don’t refer to the younger people in your office as ‘kids’ or ‘the youngsters’!

Do – be able to cover, within 10 to 20 minutes, all the highlights of your career and be honest without selling yourself short. Don’t apologise for spending a long time with one organisation. Instead, say that because of the variety of projects that you’ve handled there, it’s actually been like working at several different organisations

Do – think in advance of all the key synergies between what you have achieved in your career to date and where there is a fit with what this role is looking for

Do – be able to answer sensibly why you potentially want to make a move and the reason for your interest in this role

Do – research carefully in advance and thus be able to give candid perceptions of the organisation if asked, and of the way the role that you are applying for is configured

Do – be prepared and able to handle a technical interview by someone who really knows the ropes with regard to the role you are applying for

Don’t – waffle or lie

Do – be ready to handle the softer bits of the interview, and give answers about your style, personality, life balance, etc.

Do – be able to answer honestly about your availability to take up the role and what remuneration you are seeking

Do – be ready to answer honestly if there are any other jobs that you are pursuing at an advanced stage that might impact on the timetable for this job

Do – have the courage to speak up if, on reflection, you think you gave a bad answer to a question, or there is some additional reason why you may not have given your best performance

Hamish Davidson is Chairman of Davidson & Partners; Bambos Eracleous is a consultant with Odgers Interim. Contact Hamish at hamishid@googlemail.com or 07932 698 807.

Contact Executive Action for more detailed research / interview coaching services.

Copyright January 2010