A lack of consistency frustrates your long-term team members

The reason I mention this is I've recently been working with a retailer and there have been a lot of changes happening, linked to the appointment of a new area manager. Many of these changes are reversing decisions made over the last two or three years. The effect this is having is that the longer term movers of the team are confused and frustrated as to why these reversals are taking place. As conscientious members of the team, they took in the reasons for the initial changes and worked hard towards ensuring that they educated teammates and customers in the new processes. The entire team understood the reasons given for the changes and got behind these reasons.

The reversal of changes, unfortunately with little explanation from the management team, looks like one of three things-

*the company has no long-term plan

*they have a long-term plan but it's not working

*the management team don't know the long-term plan

And it's the perceived hypocrisy that frustrates and annoys the workers.

Long-term planning is key to the structure of a business and it gives the guidelines for every other decision that the business makes. It's important to ask of every decision - does it fit into the long-term plan? The framework of the business revolves around the long-term strategic planning that takes place at the top of the organisation. These strategies look at the course of the organisation over the next 2 years and beyond. This, in turn, dictates the short-term decisions that affect the day-to-day and week-to-week running of the business and each of it's outlets.

For example, if you decide that the long-term plan is to have a great conversation with every customer then you will need to put things in place to make that happen. You will probably need more staff, a dedicated training programme and an area in your store where these conversations will happen. And you'll probably set off along the road to carry out these steps.

Now imagine, that you cut staff and remove the 'conversation area' from your store without communicating any reasons for the change. Your team would feel confused and at least a little lost as to what parts of their roles to continue and what parts to change.

And you can understand how the team members felt with the retailer I have been working with.

Do organisations have an obligation to people other than their shareholders?

I ask this question because, as I grow older, read more about the world and experience life with more and more organisations I see things that perhaps I hadn't seen before.

I've recently read the autobiography of Mahatma Gandhi and one of the  overwhelming themes was living on what you need to get by.

I would put it to you that many, many multinational organisations gather in vastly more resources than they need and yet their staff at the bottom level struggle to exist on the minimum wage. The question emerges - do the leaders of the organisation at the top have more of an obligation to look after their employees (higher wages, more annual leave and better benefits) than their obligation to their shareholders (lower costs, greater profit and better dividends)?

And it's not just with wages that I feel organisations need to look at their obligations. I read this article yesterday with some interest-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/boots-to-cut-700-office-jobs-in-the-uk-10305508.html?origin=internalSearch

A genuine "restructure" where a company redeploys it's resources into different parts of the business for commercial reasons makes sense. Adapting the online offering, moving people from traditional marketing to the social media team or moving people from one store to another to react to customer demand all make sense.

The euphemistic restructuring that companies use as a buzzword now means job cuts and a drive to reduce the overheads a business faces - at the detriment of the workers who lose jobs, have hours cut, have to relocate, are under-employed or don't deal with the change very well, sometimes because they aren't supported through this change by the organisation that brought it about.

Again, it begs the question of where the company's priority obligation lies.

I've often thought that there are enough people in the UK that believe in equality and fairness and they could be mobilised to buy shares in a company and apply pressure on the policies that the company has, in terms of salaries, environmtal considerations and ethical business practices.

New financial year - new start

For many of you, a new financial year will have just started. Many UK retailers have a year that follows the financial and tax years, so how has it started? What have you done differently?

Every business needs a degree of regeneration and freshness at times and a new year with all it brings is a great time to do this.

If you are an individual retailer, or reading this as a store manager for a big corporate chain, there's something about this time of year that often brings out a void in communications between the top and the bottom. And this is the exact opposite of how it should happen. Now is the time to ramp up the communication levels and get your team inspired to start the new financial year with a bang. The worst thing to do here is to wait for the analysis of the last year to happen before you kick-start the plans and motivation for the new year. I've worked in many large High Street retailers where there is this void. The new year has started but things like staffing budgets, sales targets, etc have been formally set. It just doesn't work and often leaves the stores having a poor start to the year that takes time to catch back up. So how can this be avoided?

Keep last year in focus

It's important to base this year's plans and budgets based in the performance of the previous year. But waiting to analyse the results leave a gap in the year without real impetus. The way around this is to have a grip on how you are performing all year round, with a solid idea of how you'll finish the year. This allows you to plan forward and set up the incoming year.

Ensure continuity

Keep your plans for the new year ready to move straight in at the right point. Now some of this will be having an annual plan that somewhat resembles the long-term plan, as it should. The fact that your long-term business plan has been thought out and put in place should ensure that you are not lurching from one set of objectives to another just because an arbitrary line has been reached.

Communication is key

The plans must be communicated right through the organisation, from the directors to those in the shop floor in enthusiastic, complete terms. The way that this communication is delivered and received is paramount in its potential success. Having an organisation enthused by the direction the company is going in and all working towards the same agreed, understood goals will make a huge difference to your organisation.

A little change does no harm

I've never been a fan of change for the sale of change, but a little variety in how the company performs certain tasks or how a company goes about achieving certain objectives isn't always harmful. I'm still not advocating lurching from one set of objectives to another, but I think that retail can get monotonous, and changing the way you go about achieving your long-term goals can sometimes be beneficial to your team as a whole.

This all stems down to organisation - being on top of your figures and having structured long-term goals will always put you ahead of your less-organised rivals.

Opinion, even fact, can be best judged by debate in retail

I am firmly of the belief that reading expands the mind, and I generally get something out if every book I read. I've just finished a short book on the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's called Thirteen Days and was written by Robert F. Kennedy. The book itself is quite factual and it isn't until I reached the conclusions after the crisis was over that I thought of practical applications towards business. In the chapter "Some of the things we learned..." Robert Kennedy stated that he felt it of significant importance during the crisis that there were different points of view throughout the process. The group of people that sat together to deliberate and report back to the President (the ex comm group) had people from different backgrounds and had different ideas on how to handle the crisis. Robert Kennedy believes that from this group, the right decisions and course of action was achieved because "opinion, even fact, can be best judged by conflict, by debate." He even goes so far as to say that this lack of conflict was part of the failure of an earlier Kennedy administration operation in Cuba - the Bay of Pigs invasion.

In terms of the way this can bring about lessons for business for me, is as far as business decisions are made. Too often one part if the business makes decisions that affect other parts of the business without consulting them. Taking the time to have different viewpoints and for this to provide the opportunity for the decision to be debated can only be healthy. I liken this to the coalition government we have had in this country for nearly the last five years. Although we don't 100% what has happened behind the closed doors of government, it appears from the outside that each party have had to agree on policy. In many cases this has resulted in policy being adapted to keep both parties happy - and for the common good of the country.

The book also reminds me of another book I read fairly recently, called Why Your Boss Is Programmed to Be a Dictator: A Book for Anyone Who Has a Boss or Is a Boss by Chetan Dhruve. It's well worth a read and in one chapter he tells about the mistakes made in the run up to the invasion of Iraq because the military's advisers told their boss (President George W. Bush) what they thought he wanted to hear. More debate would probably have resulted in a different course of action and many fewer lives lost.

Lessons for retail in my eyes will include a level of store representation in head office decisions that affect stores for larger organisations. These decisions may have implications for stores that weren't envisaged but someone from store level can ask these questions and point out these potential issues. This will also have the added advantages that the walls between stores and head office are broken down and that stores have a buy-in involvement in the process.

For smaller retailers, as I know many of my readers are, it can mean involving all of your team and ideally some of your customers in the decision making process. Having this discussion and listening to any dissenting voices before finalising a decision can help you to think of the things you may have missed in your own and to refine the decision so it works best for your team and customers alike.


Not everything can be bought on the High Street