Comment

Julia Rowan answers your management, leadership and team development questions I feel I need to constantly prove myself, meaning I work very long hours. I spend hours drafting reports, checking other people’s work and preparing for meetings. I’ve been aware of this for a long time and my boss and others tell me that I don’t need to do it, but I don’t seem to be able to change. First, it’s important to acknowledge that changing our behaviour and habits can be really difficult. For you, it sounds like there is an unaddressed fear (possibly unconscious) at play here.  A great way to become conscious of what is unconscious is to write about it. Whether you feel very stressed or just a bit anxious, stop what you are doing and write about what is happening and how you are feeling. Then keep writing and see what comes up.  You are not attempting to analyse or rationalise what is happening—you are simply describing it to see what thoughts arise.   Over time, your fears will come out in your writing. Our fears can seem ridiculous—”people will laugh/I’m letting the side down/they’ll find me out”—so we hide the fear, letting it have all the power.  By getting the fear down on paper, we lessen its power and then we can interrogate the fear—”when is the last time people laughed at me/I let the side down?”.   In my experience with clients, they don’t have any examples. In fact, they will often come up with examples of the opposite: “people took me seriously, I was complimented for my contribution”.  If acknowledging and addressing the fear through writing doesn’t enable you to change your habits, it may be worth talking to a professional to help you through it.  I am heading up a cross-functional project team which will have high-level impact. People turn up for meetings, the discussions are constructive and polite, but there is little or no follow through. Everyone is very busy, but getting this project over the line is one of my key objectives and I worry I might fail. Many factors could be causing this blockage, including people’s core responsibilities, personal motivation, support for the project objectives, commitment to the project, team norms that have been formed, or your chairing style, etc.  I suggest that you organise a meeting to examine the progress on this project, face-to-face, in a nice room. This gives you the opportunity to have a very open discussion with the team. You need to lean into the reality of what is (and is not) happening and get very curious. Leave any hurt or defensiveness aside. The usual ‘stop, start, continue’ approach may be useful to get the conversation going. Make sure to pay attention to what is working. This gives people the psychological permission to address what’s not.   You may need to go a bit deeper and explore some of the issues mentioned above, which may feel awkward. Design the process so that people feel safe answering the questions—getting small groups to explore questions, for example, or providing post-its and pens for people to write. Even if you feel a bit hurt by some of the feedback, lean into it.  If the project is paramount, getting support from HR or a professional could be useful either in helping you to prepare or in running the session for you. Julia Rowan is Principal Consultant at Performance Matters, a leadership and team  development consultancy. Email questions to julia@performancematters.ie

Western perceptions of Central and Eastern Europe are shifting, sparking far-reaching change inside NATO and the EU. Judy Dempsey explains why The European Union is changing, and so is NATO. While these changes may not be immediately discernable, they will have repercussions for EU policies, not just in relation to Ukraine and Eastern Europe, but also Russia.  And they will have a lasting impact on NATO, as it focuses increasingly on defending the Baltic States and other Central European members. Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine is the catalyst for these shifts, which have several aspects, not least those rooted in the historical and political differences between Western and Central Europe.  The Soviet totalitarian system was imposed across Eastern and Central Europe after 1945, while their Western counterparts benefited from reconstruction efforts under the Marshall Plan.  Western Europe built this part of the continent on the foundations of prosperity, democracy and a peace project embodied by the European Steel and Coal Community, the precursor to the EU.  It wasn’t until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, that Central Europe came back to Europe. The dream of a Europe “united and free” was finally realised, in theory at least.  And herein lies the basis for another shift brought home by the war in Ukraine. Central Europe has never trusted Russia’s intentions, whether in Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, or Ukraine.  They warned their Western European counterparts about the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, how Germany’s dependence on Russian gas would give the Kremlin a geostrategic weapon to divide Europe, and how Russia’s first invasion of Eastern Ukraine in 2014 would not stop there.  All the while, several West European countries played down such fears, even suggesting that the Central European attitude towards Russia was outdated and just plain anti-Russia. It was time to move on. Poland and the Baltic States can now confidently say “we told you so” following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine invasion, his use of energy to threaten other countries and his ambitions to prevent Ukraine and other countries in the region from pursuing a democratic, pro-European path. These shifts are having an impact inside both the EU and NATO. Successive French and German leaders who forged very close ties to the Kremlin have had to change their perception of Russia’s trajectory.  Since 1989, these two countries have viewed Eastern Europe through the prism of Russia, as if neither was a truly independent sovereign state.  This perception has finally faded as Berlin and Paris now see the defense of Ukraine as being vital to European security—and vital for Ukraine’s survival as an independent, sovereign country. This has strengthened the backbone of the EU in terms of sanctions against Russia and support for Ukraine.  Perceptions of Central Europe have also been essential to NATO’s new emphasis on Northern Europe.  Russia’s war in Ukraine has persuaded Finland and Sweden to join NATO—a move that strengthens the alliance, but also halts, for the moment, the EU’s ambitions for strategic autonomy.  The war in Ukraine has exposed the EU’s lack of common security and defense culture, which explains why the Central Europeans have become even more “Atlanticist” as they seek to bolster the defense of Europe.  Their next task—their biggest policy shift—will be working out how to integrate Ukraine and Eastern Europe into the EU and NATO. And that’s a whole other chapter. Judy Dempsey is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe and Editor-in-Chief of Strategic Europe

ISQM1 has created a valuable opportunity for firms to embrace technology and data management for greater efficiency. Liam Mullane explains why Like Christmas, the 15 December deadline for implementing the International Standard on Quality Management 1 (ISQM 1) has come and gone.  Now, you need to turn your attention to ensuring the System of Quality Management (SoQM) you have designed is operating effectively.  It’s also a good time to look back at all the controls you have designed as part of your ISQM1 implementation and identify any potential opportunities there may be to optimise these processes.  But first, let’s look at one of the significant changes introduced by ISQM1—your firm’s Risk Assessment Process (or RAP) for designing, implementing and operating your SoQM.  The RAP will potentially have led to a significant increase in the number of formal controls your firm needs to implement, monitor, and test.  This new requirement is also iterative, resulting in firms adjusting their SoQM for the new quality objectives and/or quality risks identified. This process gives rise to other opportunities to enhance your SoQM on a yearly basis, including “embracing technology” and “data management”. Embracing technology Most firms will have invested significantly in audit technology over the past decade with continued investment planned into the future.  If you haven’t done so already, however, now is the time to consider whether your firm has invested sufficiently in your internal quality control processes—key components of your SoQM.  Some firms may have a manual process for engagement budgets, for example, and a separate manual process for the assignment of resources to engagements.  There is a risk that these two manual processes may not be consistent in decisions made, and this could have a direct impact on audit quality.  This could, therefore, be the ideal opportunity to embrace technology and merge the two sub-processes into one work stream. Automaton in itself should be a key consideration on a go forward basis. ISQM1 has resulted in most firms creating numerous formal controls across their practice.  If the controls and processes are manual in nature, there is a valuable opportunity for automation.  The benefits of automation include more consistent application and operation, less risk of error and manual input, efficiency and, ultimately, improved compliance.   Data management  ISQM1 has eight components and, as firms design and develop different controls to address the relevant quality objectives, a key input to a lot of these controls will be data.   Data can be a key input to different controls in various processes (i.e. there is an interplay across ISQM1). In order to ensure a coherent and efficient SoQM, this data should be consistent.  Accountants tend to love spreadsheets—but, like everything, there is a time and a place. Where possible, all data should be gathered in a data warehouse, which is checked for completeness and accuracy.  This is a key input to ensuring your SoQM operates appropriately across all components. As they say, “rubbish in, rubbish out”.      Last word The operation of ISQM1 by 15 December 2022 has been a great achievement by all of the implementation teams across the various firms, but the work doesn’t stop there.  Your firm must now continue to develop your SoQM with the iterative process, using the opportunity to embrace new technology to make everyday tasks more efficient, while also considering your approach to data management.  ISQM1 is raising the standard for all—we must grasp the opportunity with both hands. Liam Mullane is a Director with KPMG

The West is now at economic war with Russia and the consequences may well shape our lives for decades to come. Cormac Lucey explains why Enormous change sometimes occurs without us even noticing. The appointment of Paul Volcker in 1979 to head up the US Federal Reserve ushered in a decade of transformation.  Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took the top political jobs in the UK and US, unleashing four decades of falling interest rates, lower inflation, and rising financial asset prices.  The Berlin Wall came down, China pushed for greater trade with the West, and economic globalisation accelerated. Back in 1979, few could have foreseen the immense change that lay ahead.  By contrast, the Russian invasion of Ukraine last year was impossible to ignore. Vladimir Putin may have expected little resistance to his “special operation”, but the Ukrainian response has been intense and courageous. And the West has shown surprising unity in agreeing a two-pronged strategy: providing advanced weapons systems to Ukraine while also imposing unprecedented economic sanctions on Russia.  In addition to targeting key individuals associated with the Putin regime, western nations are trying to limit Russia’s access to money. Major Russian banks have been removed from Swift, the international financial messaging system.  Russia has been barred from making debt payments using foreign currency held in US banks. And western Europe has frozen the assets of all Russian banks, blocked Russian firms from borrowing money, and placed limits on Russians deposits in European banks.  The EU has banned imports of Russian coal, refined oil products and oil by sea. It is unprecedented for a large power (and permanent member of the UN Security Council) to be subject to such sanctions.  The closest we’ve come in recent history was perhaps US President Franklin D Roosevelt’s attempts 80-odd years ago to curtail an expansionist Japanese Empire.  In 1940, Roosevelt closed the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping. Responding to Japanese occupation of key airfields in Indochina, the US froze Japanese assets the following year and established an embargo on oil and gasoline exports to Japan.  By December 1941, Japan had attacked Pearl Harbour and triggered war with the US.  Today, the West is waging economic war on Russia and the consequences—less evident than the immediate conflict—may well shape our lives for decades to come.  Unlike Japan in 1940, Russia today is a plentiful supplier of commodities and not easily besieged.  It has powerful neighbours in China and India, both of which are quite content to continue trading with Russia, despite the West’s sanctions. But China has its own unsatisfied territorial claim over Taiwan, which could provoke similar sanctions from the West. This has resulted in China seeking to reduce its economic dependence on the West, just as the West scales back its reliance on China.  The result is a new era of deglobalisation, ‘reshoring’ and ‘friendshoring’. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)—the world’s leading manufacturer of microchips—is at the epicentre of the resulting tensions.  In a recent speech, TSMC founder Morris Chang observed: “Globalisation is almost dead. Free trade is almost dead. And a lot of people still wish they would come back, but I really don’t think they will be back for a while”.  This is evident in TSMC’s decision to locate its newest fabrication plant in Arizona in the US—a location it would hardly have chosen prior to the Ukraine War.  Has the world of peace, uninterrupted trade and economic globalisation been replaced by one of large trading blocs operating in parallel, but separate from each other? It looks like it. Unfortunately, we will all probably lose out as a consequence. Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Accessibility is a key facilitator for meaningful inclusion and participation, as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Minister Anne Rabbitte explains why Since being appointed the Minister for Disability in July 2020, tackling barriers faced by people with disabilities in accessing employment has been one of my key priorities.  This, of course, is not a job for just one Minister, but is being managed across a number of different departments. Launched in 2015, the Comprehensive Employment Strategy for Persons with Disabilities (2015–2024) (CES) is the primary disability employment policy initiative in Ireland.  It brings together actions by government departments and agencies to address the barriers and challenges to employment of disabled people. The CES’ strategic priorities are to build skills, capacity and independence, to provide bridges and supports into work, to make work pay, to promote job retention and re-entry to work, to provide co-ordinated and seamless supports, and to engage employers. Four of the key actions progressed through the CES include: Progression of recommendations arising from the Make Work Pay Report (2017), which initially set out actions to help people with disabilities enter the labour force. The production of an online training programme to support employers in becoming “disability confident”, which encourages managers and staff to confidentially interact with disabled people. Provision of grant funding to the ‘Open Doors Initiative’, which aims to assist marginalised people who face higher barriers to employment. The funding will be used to operate the ‘Employers for Change’ information service, empowering employers with information and resources needed to hire and manage staff with disabilities. The development of an Employer Awareness Campaign, which is expected to be launched in 2023. Accessibility is a key facilitator for meaningful inclusion and participation, as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).  One way to promote accessibility in the workplace is through the concept of universal design. Universal design is about ensuring that products, services and the environment can be accessed and used by all people.  Universal design is also more sustainable design, as it ensures that products, services and environments will stand the test of time, particularly in the context of an ageing population. Embracing universal design from the outset avoids costly retrofitting. The public sector also provides crucial opportunities for people with disabilities to access employment. The Government has committed to doubling the target for employment of people with disabilities in the public service from three to six percent.  This commitment will be placed on a statutory footing with the commencement of the Assisted Decision Making Capacity (ADMC) Amendment Act 2022. As the UNCRPD itself states, disabled people have a right to the opportunity to gain a living by work freely chosen or accepted in a labour market and work environment that is open, inclusive, and accessible to persons with disabilities.  The Irish Government as a whole is committed to continuing to make progress in meeting all of our obligations to our disabled citizens. Central to this vision is ensuring that people with disabilities are supported to live the lives they want to, and are provided equal opportunity to do so.   Employment and everything that is associated with it, such as gaining independence, confidence and friendships, is a key aspect to improving the lives of people with disabilities and I look forward to continuing to make progress in this area. Anne Rabbitte, TD, is Minister of State with Responsibility for Disability

Wavering over support for Ukraine’s defence against Russia is not an option. The stakes are too high for Europe’s stability and unity, writes Judy Dempsey Russia’s war against Ukraine is approaching its tenth month. Despite Russian President Vladimir Putin’s original aim of conquering Ukraine within days after his 24 February invasion, Russian troops have been forced to withdraw from strategic areas in eastern Ukraine.  It’s too difficult to speculate how and when this war will end, but there is already a sense of war fatigue among some governments and political parties in Europe and the United States—ignoring the fact that Russia has been escalating this war over the past few months and Ukraine must continue to fight for its independence. There is even some suggestion that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky should be persuaded to negotiate with Putin.  This would be a mistake.  Understandably, several EU countries—especially the Baltic States, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia—do not trust Putin’s intentions. They want Ukraine to continue regaining occupied territory and then negotiate from a position of strength. This kind of victory for Ukraine would have several outcomes for the region and the EU. A Ukrainian victory could deter Russia from spreading its military and political influence in Moldova, Georgia and Armenia. Such a victory would be a fillip to pro-European political movements in these countries.  As for Belarus, there is little chance that the political future of Alexander Lukashenka, who has imprisoned many Belarussians since their failed uprising over two years ago and repressed any kind of opposition, would survive.   A Ukrainian defeat, on the other hand, could encourage the Kremlin to extend its influence over Eastern Europe and consolidate Lukashenka’s regime which would, in the short-term, increase his grip on power. In the long term, this ‘stability’ based on repression would lead to instability.  In short, a victory by Ukraine could increase the stability of Eastern Europe. A Russian victory would lead to instability in the region. As for the EU, a return to Russia exerting its political and economic influence over Eastern Europe would have several consequences.  First, it would lead to new divisions on the European continent.  Second, as many EU countries have taken in Ukrainians, an unstable Eastern Europe would lead to new flows of refugees. Populist movements could exploit such a development.  Third, it would lead to deeper divisions inside the EU. The Central European countries would oppose any negotiations that would allow Putin to save face. Germany and France might be tempted to restore relations with the Kremlin—indeed, neither Berlin nor Paris have called unambiguously for Ukraine to win this war.  Fourth, given these differences, it is hard to see how the EU could ever agree to a strong and united foreign, security and defence policy. Russia’s war against Ukraine has exposed the level of distrust between the Central European and big EU member states. Small EU countries matter. Perhaps, for example, Ireland, Finland and Denmark, could form coalitions of the willing with the Central Europeans to maintain political, military and economic support for Ukraine.  Wavering over support for Ukraine is not an option. The stakes are too high for Europe’s stability and unity. Judy Dempsey is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe and Editor-in-Chief of Strategic Europe