Careers

Julia Rowan answers your management, leadership, and team development questions. Q. I get no feedback from my boss unless he’s unhappy about my work. I work hard and give the people on my team plenty of feedback, but I feel very unsure of myself. A. Of course, your boss should give you feedback. You could try to change him, but (and sorry for the cliché) the only person you can change is yourself. So, let’s look at what’s happening for you: your boss is not communicating with you and you are telling yourself a story (he doesn’t appreciate me, my work is sub-standard) that undermines your confidence. What if you trusted yourself and told yourself a different story? For example, ‘Isn’t it great that my busy boss can cut to the chase about my work?’ or ‘Isn’t it interesting that somebody that senior does not see the importance of giving feedback?’ These stories free you from feeling bad about your boss’s behaviour and allow you to be easier with the situation. Funnily enough, when we lose our anxiety, what we are searching for often manifests. As there is little communication, it could be an idea to write a short weekly email to your boss outlining, for example: Three main things your team progressed/achieved this week; Three main priorities for next week; and Issues impacting the team. That way, you build up a record of communication about progress centred on goals and priorities. Then, your boss will be aware of what’s going on and can respond if he chooses. On another note, it may be useful to pay special attention to your longer-term career development. Think about what you really want in the short- to medium-term (lead a team, manage a project, broaden your capabilities, specialise) and find someone who can be a listening ear. Also, focus on building relationships across your organisation to create a wider network of people who can support you. Q. I’ve just been appointed to lead the dream team. They’re hard-working and talented. But I can’t believe they gave me the job, and I wonder if I’m the right manager for them. A. If this team is experienced and motivated, they don’t need much direction – you could focus on coaching and facilitating the team, both individually and as a group. Here are a few things you could do: Develop your coaching skills. Coaching is a great way to build people’s competence and confidence through questioning and listening. It also helps the leader to work from a more strategic place. Help the team become more self-sufficient by locating and sharing resources and encouraging team members to share challenges and opportunities. Use your team meetings to challenge the team. Ask them where they want to get to – both individually and as a team – and start planning your way there. More importantly, you need to give that imposter syndrome the heave-ho. You got the job for a reason (if it helps, ask the interviewers why they chose you), but leaders need to develop a special blend of ‘confident humility’ – the confidence to acknowledge their strengths and the humility to keep learning. We do everyone a favour when we acknowledge our strengths; by acknowledging them, we make them available to others. Julia Rowan is Principal Consultant at Performance Matters, a leadership and team development consultancy. To send a question to Julia, email julia@performancematters.ie.

Dr Margaret Cullen explains the characteristics of good directors, which in turn contribute to board effectiveness and sustainable companies. Although there is no comprehensive definition, the Companies Act 2014 describes a director as “any person who occupies the position of director by whatever name called”. While under previous company legislation, courts recognised some practical differences in capacity, role, duties and responsibilities, the distinction between categories of directors is not widely recognised in the Act. It is within governance codes and guidelines such as the UK Corporate Governance Code, the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies, and the Central Bank of Ireland Corporate Governance Requirements for Credit Institutions that this distinction is made. Executive directors are those involved in the day-to-day running of the company. Non-executive directors, on the other hand, are not actively involved in the day-to-day running of the company. They are typically appointed because they bring particular expertise that can contribute to the company’s success and sustainability. Within the non-executive director element of the board, there are non-executive directors (NEDs) classified as non-independent directors and those classified as independent non-executive directors (INEDs) because they meet the independence criteria specified within the applicable code. NEDs can be further delineated into directors employed within the group to which the company belongs and those who do not work for the group but do not meet the criteria necessary to be deemed independent. A principle enshrined in many corporate governance codes is that at least half the board should comprise NEDs whom the board considers independent. Adam Smith wrote in 1776 that executive directors or managers of companies, “being managers of other people’s money, cannot be expected to watch over it with the same vigilance with which they watch over their own”, thereby articulating the classic agency problem. This agency problem and its solutions constitute the crux of the most articulated corporate governance theory: agency theory. At the heart of agency theory is the assumption of managerial opportunism: that managers are motivated solely by self-interest, not by moral obligation. Thus, agency theorists advocate for monitoring devices, incentive mechanisms, and checks and balances to ensure managers do not abuse power to the detriment of shareholders. INEDs are one such mechanism. The conceptual underpinning of corporate governance codes around the world is the need to respond to this agency problem. Therefore, it is not surprising that principles related to INED representation on boards and INEDs chairing board committees are typically front and centre in these codes. Interestingly, agency theorists assert that the sole objective of a company (de facto the board) is to maximise returns for the shareholders. However, this assertion is inconsistent with directors’ duties under common law. There are, of course, alternative theoretical perspectives that articulate more positive assumptions on the character of managers – stewardship theory, for example. Although they advocate for INED representation on corporate boards, stewardship theorists’ advocacy relates to the advisory and guidance dimension that INEDs bring to the board rather than the need to protect the company from managerial misconduct. Anyone who has sat in my corporate governance class will know that I sit in this camp. I say this not because I am naive as to the propensity for poor behaviour within organisations. On the contrary – we have seen enough corporate governance scandals over the years to know that unscrupulous and greedy people can do bad things. However, for every scandal, thousands of companies survive, prosper, and make significant contributions to society and the economy. I hope that the current gusto in relation to company purpose and environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria will further influence companies’ societal and environmental footprint to the benefit of all. Sometimes, companies make headlines for a breakdown in controls or sub-optimal risk management rather than any deliberate attempt to defraud the company or customers. Unfortunately, the distinction between the former and the latter is not often made clear by – or to – stakeholders. NEDs are not involved in the day-to-day operations of the company. The entire board should work hard to create a governance framework (across the company and in the boardroom) bespoke to company context, where accountability is created and the board receives the information necessary to do its job. The board is entitled to rely on the integrity of information emanating from within this framework once it has no reason to suspect that the people providing this information are not fit and proper. Wilful blindness to inappropriate behaviour is, of course, not acceptable. If I start as an INED from a position of professional mistrust, however, I am starting from an impossible position. Trust must be at the heart of the board/management relationship. Therefore, the leadership qualities of the CEO/executive directors and the company’s culture are hugely influential on the standards of corporate governance within. INEDs must bring an appropriate balance of trust and professional scepticism to the boardroom. By taking on a pseudo devil’s advocate role, INEDs add an extra governance dimension, enabling the board to make effective collective decisions and/or determinations based on the information to hand that is considered in an honest and responsible way. Getting this balance right is the hallmark of a good director and requires INEDs to understand what being non-executive truly means. Stakeholders must also understand this. Readers of this article will be familiar with the long-standing debate on whether auditors should be viewed as watchdogs (who bark if they see something suspicious) or bloodhounds (who search for something suspicious). Confusion about this distinction serves to undermine the audit process. Equally, considering the collective responsibility of a board, the non-executive nature of INED roles needs to be understood for what it can – and should – entail. To quote my mentor and colleague, Professor Niamh Brennan, it’s “nose in, finger out”. Agency theorists look at corporate governance practices and behaviours through the lens of the agency dilemma. This is an abstraction at the level of the company and its governance structures rather than board behaviour. While recognising the different lenses that categories of directors bring to the boardroom (for example, the knowledge that comes with day-to-day executive involvement versus the information asymmetry attached to being non-executive), the most effective directors demonstrate objectivity and independence of mind. As so much governance is done outside the boardroom, this objectivity across executive directors and executive committee members sets companies up for long-term success. It manifests itself in executive meetings and discussion forums where challenge and debate are encouraged, management information is scrutinised, tactical and strategic opportunities and threats are acknowledged, alternatives are considered, and decisions requiring board approval and areas that would benefit from board-wide input are identified. In short, the executive directors and executive committee can go a long way towards setting the board and the company up for success. Apart from their specific domain of experience, INEDs bring an extra layer of objectivity (with the balance of trust and professional scepticism referred to earlier) to the board to contribute to collective board effectiveness. Group NEDs bring the group perspective (on strategy and risk appetite) and related challenge, requiring equivalent objective mindsets of other board colleagues. This is particularly important, as group NEDs must always act in the interest of the local company. While much is made of the concept of non-executive director independence related to a schedule of criteria, I have always argued that independence of mind across all aspects of governance and all categories of directors is critical to board effectiveness and sustainable companies. There are, however, other behavioural characteristics critical to board success. Several years ago, in the process of designing a governance programme, I had a brilliant discussion with another colleague of mine, Frank Ennis – an experienced independent non-executive director – on what makes a good director. We had previously agreed on the importance of independence of mind (the first ‘I’) for all directors. We explored the importance of technical skill, experience and knowledge to contribute to collective board strength, but determined that it is how these skills are harnessed rather than the skills themselves that are key. We landed on the second ‘I’, intelligence, referring to the capacity of each director not to allow anyone to insult theirs. This second ‘I’ reflects and extends beyond the professional scepticism discussed. Finally, we reflected on corporate governance failures related to fraud and deliberate, inappropriate actions by those in charge and questioned the lack of integrity. We also remembered a keynote speech made by Warren Buffet at Columbia Business School in 2009 when he observed: “Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if they don’t have the first, the other two will kill you. You think about it; it’s true. If you hire somebody without the first, you really want them to be dumb and lazy.” Thus, the third ‘I’ became integrity – never, ever compromise yours. We were mindful, of course, that living by the three ‘I’s can sometimes lead to a fourth ‘I’ in the form of isolation, but we agreed that this is a price worth paying. Dr Margaret Cullen is Founder and Principal of Think Governance Ltd. This article was written in collaboration with Frank Ennis FCA, independent non-executive director.

I have so much work to do to grow my practice, but I keep getting sucked into day-to-day stuff. I have employed some good people, but the problem hasn’t gone away. Time management gets a bad rap because people think it’s all about to-do lists and tasks. In fact, it’s about strategic decision-making: there is never enough time to do everything, so we need to choose. Urgency creates a compelling gravitational pull, and you need to create an alternative centre of gravity by focusing on added-value work. The next time you find yourself sucked into operational issues, reflect on what is missing (for you or your team). Is it: Something about relationships? Think about patterns, trust, introductions, network. Something about infrastructure? Think about technology, systems, processes, templates, supplies, check-lists. Something about development? Think about information, knowledge, skills. Something about approach? Think about attitude, planning, reflection, focus. Spending time in these four areas allows you to build capacity. But we work on them one at a time, so choose one ‘fix’ that is achievable but would make a big difference, such as training your staff or creating a database. When that’s done, choose the next one. Above all, plan the week ahead on Friday afternoon and look at your week with your ‘capacity building’ glasses on. What opportunities arise? Overall, I’m happy with my team. They are good performers and we get on well. I have one particularly good person on my team; he’s clever, hard-working, and great with clients. The problem is his relationship with the rest of the team. He seems to look down on them. At team meetings, he is obviously multitasking. He never says anything offensive, but his eye-rolls and head-shakes speak loud and clear. I don’t want to lose him, but he is having an impact on morale. This is a familiar story: the high performer with poor behaviour, the rest of the team feeling undermined, nobody talking about it. Hoping the behaviour will go away is not going to work. Anybody could walk. Actually, this guy is clearly communicating with you – just not in words. You need to get curious about why this is happening; it’s great feedback for you. Find a good time to play his behaviour back to him (use “I notice” to describe behaviour and be careful not to judge). Invite him into a conversation with open, solution-focused questions like: What might be a more useful response? What might be useful for the team to hear? What would you like from the team? Such questions will help him explore the impact of his behaviour and take responsibility for changing it. As time passes, if you notice more supportive behaviour from him, quietly acknowledge it. If the poor behaviour continues, you may need to be more direct and ask him to behave differently. Julia Rowan is Principal Consultant at Performance Matters, a leadership and team development consultancy. To send a question to Julia, email julia@performancematters.ie. 

Julia Rowan answers your management, leadership, and team development questions. Q. I did really well at the beginning of the lockdown, but it’s beginning to feel like a struggle. We worked hard before, but COVID-19 has added at least 15% to our workload. I’m trying to remain positive and upbeat with my team, but I feel I’m running on empty. There is so much in this short question – the pressure to be positive, the desire to mind your team. And I appreciate how important it is to be positive, but what kind of positive? Leaders often want, with great intention, to protect their teams – from negativity, from too much work, from politics. The problem is that the leader then takes on the dual burden of protecting and being positive. That’s exhausting. You manage a team of adults. Trust yourself to be real with them. You don’t want to be relentlessly negative (‘everything is awful’), but unrealistic positivity (‘everything is awesome’) is not doing anyone any favours. You can be positively realistic (‘it’s harder with COVID-19, let’s talk about how we cope with that’). Not having to pretend will allow you to show up more authentically, and that gives permission to others to be authentic. I generally find that when teams are allowed the space to express how difficult things are, they find solutions and ways forward. Not having to pretend releases creativity. By being realistic, you have not stopped supporting the team – you are supporting them in a more useful way. I’m a huge fan of journalling to become aware of our drivers and then put them to good use. Positivity, perfectionism, and people-pleasing are drivers I come across all the time. Becoming more conscious of them helps us to channel them more usefully. Q. An experienced member of my team continually asks for direction. The quality of their work is good, but I have to spend a lot of time briefing them, checking, and so on. I’m not sure how to address this or whether I should just let sleeping dogs lie. My first response to this question is to ask whether your team member’s need stems from their ‘will’ (confidence, motivation) or their ‘skill’ (ability). You tell me that the quality of their work is good, so my guess is that their skill is okay, and the issue is confidence. There is also the possibility that they are simply in the habit of asking you. The next time this person asks you for input about a task, engage in a different kind of conversation and provide a different kind of support. Ask questions that allow them to access their knowledge and experience and build on their strengths and achievements. If there is a genuine lack of confidence, be sure to reassure and give positive feedback. You need to prepare for this because on a busy day, it’s very easy to get bounced back into the usual way of doing things. Write out some good questions in advance. I often advise leaders to respond carefully when asked a ‘How do I…?’ question and reflect on what the person asking the question truly needs: is it advice, confidence, or permission? Julia Rowan is Principal Consultant at Performance Matters, a leadership and team development consultancy. To send a question to Julia, email julia@performancematters.ie   

Julia Rowan answers your management, leadership and team development questions. Q. I do my best to bring my team together on calls, but it’s a one-way street with me doing all the talking. In general, we all get on well enough together. How can I get everyone to contribute? First of all, congratulations on noticing this (not all leaders do) and wanting to change it. Team meetings are often the only time the whole team is together, and they are a vital tool for building the team you want. There are many reasons for silence and non-participation at meetings, but you say that team members get on well. So, I wonder if you and the team have fallen into a pattern where you call and run the meeting, share information, get through business – and they sit and listen. Think about how you want your team to develop. Do you want colleagues to be more proactive? More collegiate? More strategic? Then, reflect on how you use the team meeting to achieve that. Changing established patterns takes time and discipline. Prepare great questions to ask your team – a great question leads to a great discussion and doesn’t necessarily have a ‘right’ answer. It would help if you also let go of the pressure to talk. This is a tough habit to break, especially when there’s silence. Invite the team to share their experience of the team meeting – what they find more and less valuable or how the team meeting could be more useful. Working from home provides you with a great reason to do that, so give the team some notice and invite them to share what they like and what they don’t. Listen to the feedback without responding, other than to say “thank you”. Explaining and justifying sends a clear message that we’re not really listening. Then, act on the feedback and check-in after a few meetings. Ask about what has improved and what still needs work. This reaffirms the idea that talking about how we work together is good. Q. One member of my team is outstanding at most of his job, but poor in one aspect. I’ve given him lots of feedback – positive feedback about what he does well and honest feedback about where he needs to improve. He always listens and agrees, but nothing changes. This is common, and it sounds like you’ve fallen into a comfortable pattern: you give feedback, he listens, nothing changes, you give more feedback, and so on. Patterns can take on a life of their own, but they need to be broken if they’re not working. You must change the pattern. Instead of (yet again) giving your team member feedback on the one aspect of their job they are poor at, say: “John, I’ve given you feedback about (aspect), and I notice that (aspect) is continuing. Can we talk about why that’s happening?” This leads you to quite a different discussion. When giving feedback, it’s useful to describe (e.g. “your report was two days late”) rather than judge (e.g. “you don’t care about this project”). This is difficult as our brain automatically interprets (judges) behaviour and concludes what it means! So “you don’t care about this project” may appear to be the truth, but it’s not – it’s your story. The truth is that the reports are late. Paring back from judgement to description takes preparation. Julia Rowan is Principal Consultant at Performance Matters, a leadership and team development consultancy. If you have a question, email julia@performancematters.ie

‘Employability’ refers to the skills, knowledge, experience and personal qualities needed to gain and maintain fulfilling work during an individual’s career. In this article, Dr Mary E. Collins discusses the importance of employability from an employer’s perspective and provides practical strategies to help organisations focus on the issue, whatever their size. Over the past year, the employment market has experienced extreme volatility. Certain sectors have been hit particularly hard, with tens of thousands of jobs in the hospitality and tourism sector the first to feel the full impact of the COVID-19 restrictions. In other sectors, there has been a spike in job openings and, indeed, an employment boom due to the global pandemic. Research from Glassdoor has shown that coronavirus-related job postings have increased in recent months: government, pharma, healthcare and non-profit sectors in the US have all tripled their hiring efforts in response to the coronavirus outbreak. The trend is similar internationally. In Ireland, we have seen increased job vacancies in health, IT and communications, logistics, procurement and insurance. Professional services employment trends remain stable. One certainty in this dynamic, volatile employment market is that talented people always have choices. In fact, the war for talent heated up in the past year with the explosion in remote working. Many roles that were once limited by geographical location can now be fulfilled from anywhere with decent broadband connectivity. What is ‘employability’? The Institute of Employment Studies in the UK defines employability as the “capacity to move self-sufficiently within the labour market to realise potential through sustainable employment… for the individual, it depends on the knowledge, skills and attributes they possess, the way they use those assets and present them to employers.” Employability is the ability to be employed from three perspectives: Gaining initial employment: the ability to get started in a career, leveraging education, careers advice and so on to ensure one has core, marketable skills. Maintaining employment: the ability to keep a job and make transitions between new roles within the same organisation, adapting to new job requirements. Obtaining new employment: the ability to succeed in the labour market and manage employment transitions between and within different organisations. The business case There is now a strong business case for employers to make explicit commitments to employees about supporting them in becoming, and remaining, employable; that working with the organisation will make them more employable for future roles. We have seen a cultural shift whereby younger generations look to their employers for purpose and meaning in an increasingly unpredictable world. Employers who care about their people’s future employment opportunities demonstrate a commitment to the broader ‘covenant’ between employer and employee. The younger generations in the workplace are generally known as Millennials or Gen Y, who were born between 1980 and 1998, and Centennials or Gen Z, who were born from 1999 onwards. These generations hold the balance of power in recruitment, so employers must be aware of their expectations. A new approach is required to attract, engage, and retain them. This includes the provision of: Good work/life balance; Work arrangements with flexible locations and hours; Clear personal development routes; Clear promotion opportunities; Meaning and purpose in work (making a meaningful contribution to society); Support around personal wellbeing; and Commitment to their employability. Some commentators on the future of work predict that Gen Z will change jobs 15 to 20 times in their careers. Regardless of age, the concept of ‘a job for life’ is practically redundant and most people will hold positions with a variety of employers over the course of their working lives. Increased flexibility in working patterns means people need to be prepared to change jobs. It also means better opportunities. Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) will replace many roles, while new roles are emerging that never existed before. Employability should be a core element of your employer brand, defined by CIPD as “a set of attributes and qualities – often intangible – that makes an organisation distinctive, promises a particular kind of employment experience, and appeals to those people who will thrive and perform best in its culture.” The CareerEDGE Framework of Employability Developed by Lorraine Dacre Pool and Peter Sewell in their 2007 article, The Key to Employability: Developing a Practical Model of Graduate Employability, the CareerEDGE Framework of Employability suggests that once individuals develop the essential EDGE components (experience, degree subject knowledge, generic skills, and emotional intelligence), this paves the way for the development of the “higher-order” areas of self-efficacy, self-confidence, and self-esteem that are critical in developing employability. Investing in people’s employability The challenge is for employers to focus on investing in the employability of individuals rather than maintaining roles that could eventually become redundant, thereby prioritising an inclusive and lifelong approach to skills development. Using the CareerEDGE Framework, here are some practical steps for employers to consider. Career development Provide access to mentors in the organisation, as this is an excellent way to support development at all stages of employees’ careers. Have career development conversations at least once a year as part of the performance management process. Seek external opportunities for coaching and mentoring from relevant government agencies, professional bodies, and initiatives (for example, the 30% Club Mentoring Programme to improve the female talent pipeline).  Experience A core part of supporting employability is providing appropriate work experience to support personal and career development. Every role should include some ‘stretch’ assignments, which are work projects that provide growth opportunities and challenge in a supportive way. Where possible, allow employees to work in different parts of the business to gain new and diverse work experience. Degree subject knowledge, understanding and skills In the CareerEDGE Framework, this refers to the knowledge and technical skills a graduate gains from their degree course(s) relevant to their career trajectory, and upon which they can continue to build their employability. Employers must support their staff in their continuous professional development and ensure progression to higher levels of attainment. Opportunities to sponsor and co-fund educational activities should be encouraged as a core element of supporting employability. Generic skills Dacre Pool and Sewell present a set of generic skills that employers expect to have been developed in graduates (see Figure 1). Employers should seek ways for employees to develop in all of these generic skills. It is important to note and record skills development as part of the performance planning process. Emotional intelligence Emotional intelligence (EQ) continues to grow in impact and importance. Daniel Goleman defines it as “the capacity for recognising our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships”. Employers can support EQ development in the workplace by ensuring that leaders are role models in terms of self-awareness, managing their emotions, showing empathy, flexibility, and – crucial in these times – demonstrating resilience and optimism. Most leadership development programmes incorporate some element of EQ skills development. Self-assessment profiles, such as the Emotional Capital Report (see www.rochemartin.com), can be useful when working with a coach or mentor to develop these core skills from an early career stage. Dr David Foster, Director of Career Development and Skills at University College Dublin and Director of the UCD Careers Network, takes a holistic view of employability. “We’ve used the CareerEDGE Framework at Careers Network as a model for about five years now, and it’s been great as we aim to enhance students’ self-confidence and self-efficacy in all we do. We feel self-confident people can better unlock their mental energies and abilities to negotiate their personal and professional development, which we think leads to employability.” In conclusion, employability is core to the contemporary covenant between employers and employees and has become an important facet in attracting, developing and retaining talent. Even in recessionary times, talented graduates and professionals have choices, especially in a world that has embraced remote working. Focusing on supporting the employability of employees at all stages of the career lifecycle will greatly add to a positive culture where people want to give their best and stay longer, even if it isn’t a job for life.   Dr Mary E. Collins is Senior Executive Development Specialist at the RCSI Institute of Leadership.