Our Blog

The Sunday Times suggested recently that the solution to our boardroom gender imbalance is 'not to stuff boardrooms with the same old group of golden skirts but to turn a much more beady eye on why so many women, having outperformed their peers in their twenties, leave companies in droves in their thirties'. High female attrition rates are not just a problem for women, but a business issue: the cost and consequences of the so-called 'leaking pipeline' of female talent are already significant. It has the potential to become a much larger problem for UK plc if we don't pay it sufficient attention.

That there is a pipeline issue is undeniable: 60% of European graduates are women, and entry level stats are roughly 50/50. According to research by McKinsey, by mid management level, female representation falls to 30% and by senior management it drops sharply again to 10%. Whilst the current drive to increase numbers of women at board level in our biggest businesses is to be applauded, if we fail to address the pipeline to board level, we will find ourselves grappling with the same issue for many years to come. Already, data suggests that whilst overall percentages of women on boards has increased since Lord Davies' recommendations in 2011, less than 6% of executive directors across the FTSE 350 are female.

What is happening to these women to cause such a large, consistent drop-out rate? Having spent a number of years looking at the various factors involved, it is clear that there is no one cause, but a number of things coming together to form a real barrier. Various studies point to unconscious bias, lack of mentoring, failure to self-promote. These are all valid arguments with growing evidence to support them. Yet perhaps we needn't look so far for an answer. There remains a very basic but sensitive fact which has attracted surprisingly little debate: the sharp drop off rates correspond to some critical years for women biologically. This is a significant factor - family life, and the ability to combine a successful career with having a family, should be recognised as a talent issue: the two words, once quite separate, are becoming increasingly connected. It seems that this remains under-recognised, and therefore logically continues to be inadequately addressed. For obvious reasons, women continue to bear the brunt of child-bearing - and in many cases the early child rearing too - alongside their increasing presence and equality in the workplace. Ours is a changing society; numbers of women in the workforce have grown significantly over the last fifty years. I would argue however that cultural norms and the infrastructure that supports everyday life have failed to evolve at quite the same pace. The 'traditional', neatly split gender roles - in fact themselves a relatively recent product of industrialisation - are changing: as recently as the late nineties, many fathers were characterised by absence through their working week, with no visible role models in either business or the public sector. According to his wife, Nick Clegg 'kills himself' in order to do the school run. We need to encourage the more even spread of parenting across both genders in order to eliminate remaining stigma - real of perceived.

A second critical factor is a very real lack of infrastructure and support. There are a number of excellent initiatives running in companies up and down the country, but the UK as a whole is not good at helping families cope with the changes of the last fifty years; compared to other European countries, we make life difficult and very expensive for working parents, both male and female. Childcare is in most cases privately owned and run; hours often clash with anything other than the traditional 9 to 5 - and let's face it, many senior roles require routine input outside of these. Rightly or wrongly, there is a degree of presenteeism which continues to exist in many of our businesses. As has been well documented in the press recently, cost of childcare is eye watering. In addition, unless you can afford a live-in nanny, the logistics are frequently painful too, with parents making multiple trips between home, nursery/childminder/other and work every day. School hours are another big problem. Whilst increasing numbers of men are taking a more active role, child-bearing and child rearing is still regarded by many to be a primarily female role. It is no wonder that so many women chose to leave high pressure roles when the day-to-day becomes so draining and costly - particularly if they are the lower earner. State support is means-tested, equates to part time hours, and touches a small percentage of our poorest families only.

Our reality in the UK contrasts sharply with a number of our European neighbours: France offers a subsidised childcare system as part of its schooling in many instances, whose hours run from 7am in the morning through to 7pm in the evening if needs be. Denmark has evolved, in the space of two generations, a corporate structure which positively discourages long hours and supports the dual responsibility of parenthood with both parents encouraged to take parental leave. There is also a state-supported childcare system, providing subsidised local childcare for all children from the age of one. Sweden has a maximum fee policy which decrees that parents should only have to spend between 1% and 3% of the family's income on childcare, depending on how many children they have. I'm not advocating a state-subsidised childcare system; public finances would not be able to support this on a large scale. There are other options, including work-place nurseries run on a not-for-profit basis. Businesses should be investigating and communicating these as a key part of their retention policy.

Many women prefer to spend their time focusing solely on their children, and decide against pursuing a professional career. They should be supported in this. Others will continue to work, whether through desire or financial necessity. Those who choose this route should also be properly supported. According to Lord Davies' 2011 report, a poll suggested that some 12% of the population stated childcare specifically and 20% work/life balance as a barrier to female leadership increasing. It should be a matter of some concern that significant numbers of professional women are not having children at all: a 2009 study by the ONS showed that women who are better educated, come from a higher social class or had no siblings are also less likely to reproduce. Moreover, it showed that women in the professional or managerial sectors were 4 times less likely to have children. Interestingly, for those that do, there are a significant number whose husbands/partners do not work. These families should have a genuine choice, critical for women in particular - yet these figures appear to suggest that many still see a stark divide between two options: family or career.

If our workforce is to remain competitive in the face of an increasingly well-educated, mobile global economy, businesses will need to be better able to tap into the resources that we already have. Government and businesses should look to form a cohesive strategy, addressing the infrastructure needed to better support the talent pool and rewriting policy to drive a sustainable change in corporate culture. Once that happens, the numbers of women remaining within the workforce will rise; the larger, more stable pipeline of well-qualified females would eliminate the long-running problems with gender balance at board level. Businesses would also benefit from lower attrition rates, and increased productivity. As things stand, we risk under-utilising and stressing out our workforce, with mounting evidence that the female talent pool in particular is suffering. What if we could make the work/family choice less of a dichotomy, destigmatise it and spread it more evenly across both genders? I believe that the consequences for work-life balance across the board for both men and women would be far-reaching.

Lucie Shaw

As someone who spends a significant amount of his working week talking to Finance Directors, it is easy to lose perspective on how much things cost. Millions for this, billions for that. Even in times of austerity, Pounds, Euros, Dollars and Yen have all morphed into monopoly money. Pass 'GO' and collect £1bn...

In the click of a mouse (or the swipe of an iPad) social media has exploded into our lives. Like it or not, Facebook, Twitter and Linked-In are now the norm, not the exception; it affects us all, every day. Ignore it and you will quickly find yourself the newest exhibit in the Natural History Museum. But how can we measure the fundamentals of an industry that is moving at warp-speed? Will social media companies continue to revolutionise the corporate world... or will it all end in tears?

Take Instagram for instance. A company that is less than two years old, employs 13 people, and was recently snapped up by Facebook for $1 billion (£614 million) - that's $77 million per employee! Compare this to Cable & Wireless - an established FTSE 250 telecoms provider which has been around for 78 years, employs over 6000 people and owns infrastructure - all of which was bought by Vodafone for £1 billion last week. The deal was preceded by the usual 'will they/won't they' affair played out in the press; the standard to-ing and fro-ing of 'interested' parties considering themselves 'in' or 'out' in an Olympic-sized version of Dragons' Den. All perfectly normal and acceptable in the world of Mergers and Acquisitions you might say, and yet Instagram by comparison was acquired by Facebook in roughly the same time it takes to buy an iPad 3 on Amazon. You could argue there is less to look at in a 13-man company, but spending $1bn on little more than a hunch and a snazzy product shows that Facebook is setting the tone of a new generation.

The big question is: are we in another tech bubble? Is it really the best time, economically, to be dealing in such numbers - both in terms of ethics and sustainability? Whilst the Facebook IPO is rumoured to be delayed (only by a few weeks... please keep up), the stock issue will be close to $5bn and a company valuation of $100bn (27 times the revenue). Facebook is predicted to have 1 billion users globally by the end of August 2012 (that is roughly 14% of the world's population).

Post-IPO, what will Facebook shareholder expectation be? Are they at risk from a mass retaliation when the returns are far above the ad revenue that they currently command? People are typically resistant to social networks that openly chase the cash. Facebook, for now, has the limelight, but for how long? Google are waiting in the wings - their investment in R&D, along with new products being released on a seemingly monthly basis allude to a bigger and more tangible beast than Facebook (see Google Drive and Google Project Glass). Is sentiment really valued at $100bn?

We are lucky to live in such a fascinating era of change and innovation. Then again, they did say we would be flying around in cars by now. Old Kent Road and the Water works - I suddenly feel warmly nostalgic...

Marc Quinton

Having now been in the working world for a number of (double digit) years I reflect on my own career decision making processes with a sense of wonderment that I somehow managed to carve out a sensible career for myself. Now, with the benefit of hindsight and an understanding of the harsh realities of the world of work, it is embarrassing really to think about how under-prepared I was to make that transition. Though I diligently spent many hours in career libraries and frequenting 'milk round' careers fairs, in reality I had a limited understanding of the working landscape and hence translating my capabilities into a sensible career choice was more an accidental process than anything else. I vividly recall that there seemed to be no guiding hand to help me understand horizons beyond those I already knew and that those giving the advice seemed to have limited experiences themselves. One encounter with a school careers adviser concluded that, because I had briefly mentioned that I liked being active and enjoyed the outdoors, a job as a Park Ranger or a Fireman (woman?) would be a credible career option. It was like the blind leading the blind, and I'm sure you can imagine my response to that insightful career advice!

In short, although I luckily received a credible education which culminated in a decent degree, the support and advice on offer to steer me through the critical choices ahead was woefully poor and lacking. All the information I acquired was through a process driven by me and me alone. There were no avenues linking with the real world, no helpful and credible individuals to unlock ideas, expand my horizons and help me think creatively about my future. Coming from a family of teachers, precious insights into the corporate world and access to people who could provide this were a missing part of my jigsaw. To this day, it sticks in my mind as an impressionable time when I would have benefited from all the help I could have got, but I either did not know how to access it or, more likely, it wasn't there.

With this in my mind, last year my attention was brought to focus on an organisation called Career Academies. They are a charitable organisation that brings together employers and educationalists to work together in partnership, preparing the next generation for adult life. Fundamentally their model is to mainstream employer support in young people's lives, something few education-business link activities succeed in doing. They currently lead the involvement of over 1000 employers and in excess of 120 schools and colleges who are working together to raise the aspirations of 16 to 19-year-olds. This struck a chord with me as it seemed to bridge the very gap that I myself experienced in my teens. I have become a Partner in Business, which is essentially a mentor to a student for an 18 month period. Our role is to offer unbiased help, advice and guidance to students that will help prepare them for working life whilst assisting them in making sensible and critical choices about their futures. It was my own woeful experiences that led me to become involved as a mentor, and I hope that I can impart some of my knowledge and life skills to someone who will really benefit from them.

It's very early days yet, as I only commenced the programme earlier this year, but my student is focused and committed to the process and is keeping me on my toes whilst challenging me to think about things I had long forgotten. I spend my days advising experienced executives about their careers, and it refreshing to be able to re-package all my knowledge to help someone who is only just embarking upon their working journey.

To find out more about Career Academies UK, please look at their website.

Caroline Tarpey

In an effort to enhance the service we offer our clients with regard to their strategic development needs, we also seek to build awareness of relevant key issues that relate to them in other ways. As a diversity statistic myself, being partially sighted, I have a keen interest in issues surrounding disclosed and non-disclosed disability. The subject is an emotive one for many reasons, not least of these being the fact that some potential job applicants will withhold an application on the basis that they assume that an organisation, for whatever reason, will either not be able to accommodate them in a practical sense, or lack empathy with their situation, because it is not familiar. And this, in itself, may disadvantage them as they go through the interview process.

We recently took an idea to IBM that originated for me whilst I was on my sabbatical with Channel 4. The idea of bringing corporate decision makers into one place, and encouraging them to exchange war stories and ideas is no longer unique; but it is proving increasingly effective as a means of spreading best practice with regard to talent acquisition at all levels. The group we set up has now met twice, and begins to gain significant momentum within several of the member organisations involved. Attracting disabled talent is merely part of this focus area, so my intention is to tackle the question of disclosed and non disclosed disability separately, and feed the findings back into the larger group. As such, I am building a network of high achievers who can become role models for the employees of the future, and also campaign with me to encourage a different attitude in the minds of an evolving workforce.

Helen Cook of MyPlus Consulting is a wheelchair user, and has campaigned for many years to raise awareness of the entire disability confidence agenda. The following link will take you to a recent report outlining the findings of a recent research project focussing on the graduate market. It poses questions about who what how and why, and does, I believe, make enlightening and interesting reading.

For the full report, click here.

Key findings:

• 91% of respondents said they were consulting their Disability Manager regarding their career
• 74% said they were more likely to apply to an organisation if they were told it was 'disability confident' by their Careers Adviser
• 71% said they were concerned about disclosing their disability or would prefer not to disclose at all
• Only 3% of respondents used specialist diversity or disability press
• 57% of respondents said that they were either more likely or much more likely to apply to employers which explicitly talk about disability or have disabled staff profiles

Mark Chamberlen

Augmentum has a long-held relationship with the charity, Changing Faces. This week, a short film starring Michelle Dockery and Leo Gormley, a man with scar burns, was launched at 750 Odeon cinemas nationwide. Over the next two weeks, over a million cinema goers will be invited to challenge their assumptions and prejudices.

A YouGov survey commissioned by the charity found that bad teeth, scars, burns and other conditions affecting the face are viewed as the most common indicators of an evil or villainous character in a film.

James Partridge, CEO of Changing Faces, said:

"We're so used to seeing people with disfigurements portrayed as the villain in films that it may be hard for people to imagine they could ever play someone's friend, the Dad picking up his kids from school, the US President, or a lover.

It would seem as if all the film industry has to do to depict evil and villainy is apply a scar or a prosthetic eye socket of remove a limb and every movie goer knows that it's time to be suspicious, scared or repulsed.

The problem is that, for those who actually do have facial scars or whose faces are asymmetrical as a result of cancer, strokes or birth conditions, the way that people react in the cinema can spill over into the way they are treated in everyday life. It can encourage people to make moral judgements based on what they see on the screen.

Freddy Krueger, Scarface and Two-Face are just some of the names that our clients get called at school, on the street and at work. They have to put up with people laughing at them, recoiling, running away of staring in disbelief that they can and do live a normal life. Changing Faces hopes the film and campaign will encourage audiences and the wider film industry to think about how disfigurement can be portrayed in a more balanced way."

Movie goers are asked to sign a petition calling for fair, truthful, everyday portrayals and an end to the harmful stigma and prejudice currently seen on screen.

On the basis that you might be going to the cinema in the next couple of weeks, please do go to the Changing Faces website, watch the one minute movie and then sign the petition. Thanks!

Neil Newman

University career services, information events, graduate recruitment agencies and graduate websites can offer great support, information and guidance as to what options are out there. However, quite paradoxically, it is this overload of information that has to a great extent fostered a culture of 'cluelessness' amongst young people today. One need go no further than the Milkround homepage to see the options 'Anything!' and 'Anywhere!' that are set as default to the job search box for evidence of this. Of course there are industry/location filters by which applicants can narrow the search, but this does not erase the initial message of infinite possibilities. It was in The Paradox of Choice: why more is less that American psychologist Barry Schwartz explored the relationship between consumption, too much choice and anxiety. To an extent, this theory goes some way to explaining the current plight of graduates who leave university unsure what their next steps will be; this is largely because they have too many theoretical options at their fingertips.

I belong to the generation that has been brought up to believe the age old cliché that the world is our oyster - anything is possible. However, the reality for university leavers is a far cry from this illusion of opportunity and instant reward. Quite simply, too many young people are going to university and the job market is saturated. Not only has UCAS recorded a record rise in the number of people applying to university, but there is also a backlog of graduates, from as far back as 2009, to compete with. Graduate schemes at firms such as Deloitte, Diageo and Barclays are attractive options for university leavers. They offer a safety net of solid training, financial compensation and a structured two to three year plan, as well as being well regarded by employers in general. But such schemes are highly competitive and in some cases over 3,000 applicants are competing for only a handful of places.

Competition for jobs is fierce and graduates must demonstrate excellent academics, extracurricular involvement, charitable endeavours and creative, entrepreneurial thinking just to make it through the first round. A year spent volunteering in an African school, climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro or representing England in rugby or netball now seems to be the norm. But what about those who come from financially limited backgrounds and cannot afford to spend one week, let alone a year, labouring for a charity or on an unpaid, but essential, internship? This opens a whole new line of debate which is too large and complicated to adequately address in this short blog post. In the coming weeks I will do my best to explore the topical issue of 'internships and work experience'.

What is clear is that much more must be done to help young people draw up a short-list of realistic career options available to them. The illusion of choice and infinite opportunity is a damaging phenomenon that is leaving too many young graduates ill prepared for the realities of finding employment in the 21^st century and further feeding the gloom and doom constantly reflected in the media.

Nicole Hopgood

Andy Davies of Augmentum is getting ready to cycle from London to Paris in just three days this summer to raise vital funds for children's charity Action Medical Research.

Andy will be joining a group of cyclists for the 350-mile charity ride in July (19-22). He will spend around eight hours a day in the saddle, travelling an average of 100 miles+ each day, and will arrive in the French capital the afternoon before the finale of the famous Tour de France bike race.

Andy said: "I'm taking part in the London to Paris ride because I feel that one of my many 'mid-life crises' should finally benefit others! I have bought the sports car, and hurled myself down the Cresta Run but it's about time that I did something rather less self-indulgent. Action Medical Research is a most worthy cause and we all know someone who has been affected by complications before and/or after childbirth. Some of us have had first-hand experience".

Cyclists participating in the London to Paris ride will be raising money to help fund medical research into conditions affecting babies and children.

Action Medical Research is celebrating its 60th anniversary in 2012 and has been funding medical breakthroughs since it began in 1952. The charity is currently supporting work around meningitis, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, premature birth and some very rare conditions that severely affect children.

Anyone interested in taking part in the London to Paris ride can find out more by visiting their website or calling 01403 327443.

You can sponsor Andy here.

Andy Davies

A really exciting event this week.

On Wednesday and thanks to the true thought leadership of my colleagues, Phoebe Miles and Mark Chamberlen, we co-hosted a breakfast forum on Diversity with IBM UK.

From my perspective, where so much of my day job is managing the relationship that we are proud to have with IBM, it was a perfect opportunity to exemplify how we can add value above and beyond their core expectation of search delivery.

In this new world in which we live, where decisions are inevitably driven by purse holders who are quite removed from the business, we are continually being challenged to prove added value. This was just one such opportunity: we brought to the table a broad mix of business leaders  from organisations as diverse as HSBC, BAE Systems, BT, and eBay, all of whom passionately believed in the need to build a workforce that truly reflects the broader society within which we live. Many thought that the challenges they faced in achieving this were unique to them. Surprise, surprise: they all shared the same experiences, but collectively they also had some answers.

A great opportunity for us to act as a match maker, help steer and guide the discussions and prove to my favourite client that actually we do care, and that as a search partner we have insights which can contribute to helping them become more diverse, inclusive, better places to work.

And on that note I am looking forward to heading down to the allotment, where thanks to the lengthening days and steadily climbing mercury, things are really happening! I’ll tell you about it next week.

Neil Newman

We met some astonishing people at a fundraising event in the city just a few weeks ago. Having spoken with them for a while, a meeting was organised with one of Augmentum’s partners, Martin, and a couple of people from their team.

The rendezvous occurred on a bitterly cold morning at 6am somewhere near the Barbican. Martin met Liz and Chris in one of the few cafes open at that hour, just before heading onto the streets. Chris and Liz work with the homelessness charity, Broadway; their work is truly inspirational.

The morning involved meeting some of the folk living on our streets. Broadway’s Outreach programme, for example, targets individuals who are monitored by the charity, and tailors their approach and strategy to those individuals; their unique problems and fears.

Finding a roof is not Broadway's ultimate goal; unusually, the ultimate goal is to successfully reintegrate these people within society, and to transform, or perhaps 'restore' lives.

The earliness of the meeting reflected the need to reach out to targeted individuals before they moved on later in the morning. The group met a range of people on the streets; some in their twenties, some in their sixties. Each of these individuals had suffered blows at some point in their lives - mostly things that could happen to anyone - which had led them to be there. We bustle past them on our way to work in the morning, and bustle past them on the way back. Each of them requires help beyond loose change or a baguette.

Making substantive change requires persistence, tenacity and a huge amount of patience. Many of us including those at Augmentum, consider our lives to be already intolerably busy, leaving one wondering how they might make a real, rather than token, contribution to those we pass by each day. 

However, there is one way we might be able to help an organisation that can and is doing the job of helping. Of course, this charity needs funding -  that's one way... But in our line of business, which is all about networks and connecting people, we can do more. By using our networks and knowledge, we hope to encourage individuals with certain functional expertise to lend a hand in advising how Broadway can operate as an organisation which has much in common with those profit-making outfits we are more used to helping, to best to meet its aspirations.

With nearly all available funds directed to the front-line, supporting the broader organisation - whether in marketing, IT, HR or talent management, for example, could really help. We thought that the best way is to simply do what we know: connecting those with expertise in business to the management of those in charities such as Broadway.

Broadway is an excellent institution, which has had enormous success, having won a plethora of national awards. It has an incredible success rate of getting the homeless sustainably housed.

If any person or company reading this article believes they could help in advising and delivering Broadway’s background functionality – whether in IT, HR, marketing, or anything else – please get in touch with Martin Newman at martin.newman@augmentumconsulting.com.

Anthony Boutall

In March 2011, I commenced a three day per week secondment to Channel 4, which came about as a result of the fact that they had won the bid to broadcast the Paralympics, and so needed some extra fire power within the 4Talent Team. The Team is an area of their business that addresses recruitment strategy, talent acquisition and certain aspects of Corporate Social Responsibility. My value to them was the experience I could bring to bear in many of these areas, but all of this was underpinned by the fact that I was once a Paralympian myself, in the Downhill Ski Team which took part in the Winter Olympics of 1984 and 1988. As part of the 4Talent Team, I gained firsthand experience of the day jobs undertaken by many individuals within my head hunting network. 

Having been awarded the broadcasting rights of Paralympics 2012, it was vital that Channel 4 could demonstrate that it could ‘walk the talk’ in terms of promoting itself as a truly diverse employer. One of the most exciting aspects of my secondment was my involvement in a programme that we called ‘Towards Disability Confidence as an employer’, the starting point of which was the commissioning of a piece of research from Mike Waldron of Interpares. Mike’s work appraised where we were as an organization, and what we needed to do differently to accelerate the process of attracting individuals with declared disabilities. 

We kicked off the process by inviting representatives from a variety of organisations to a Breakfast discussion group at which we tabled a number of issues around disability confidence and brand awareness. We were amazed by the delegates’ responses. Having no need to worry about competitor intelligence, everyone was very free with the information they shared, and we all took some interesting learning away with us; learning which would help hone our talent acquisition and onboarding processes going forward. 

The guest list was made up of representatives from a variety of industry sectors, charities, and third party talent acquisition companies. Everyone who attended was very open with the information they shared and, as a result, we committed to a quarterly programme of meetings. These meetings were hosted by different organizations, and gave us the opportunity to discuss what we were all doing that was going well and what was not; we also used this forum to create new initiatives that we could all take back to our respective employers. We have also established a LinkedIn group that is contributed to on a regular basis by interested parties, and the network is growing fast.

Upon returning to Augmentum full time in December 2011, I have promoted this concept internally, and we have just kicked off our first initiative within our own client base. We have created a guest list on behalf of IBM UKI’s General Manager, who is the key sponsor behind a breakfast meeting for cross industry business leaders to be held at their South Bank offices on Wednesday 7^th March 2012. My intention is to use this blog to report back any useful findings on an ongoing basis, inviting input from interested parties as a means of furthering this very important cause.

Mark Chamberlen

Time: 7.00 am

Location: Cresta Run St Moritz 

The room immediately fell silent when David Payne (Secretary of St Moritz Toboggan Club) brought out the human skeleton which showed all the different bones that had been broken by those attempting the Cresta Run.  He also reminded us (as if we weren’t already aware) that four ‘riders’ had lost their lives since the run first opened in 1885.  The idea, of course, was to emphasise the danger of what we were about to do and encourage us to use our 'rakes' (heavy boots with steel spikes on the end) to control our speed.  His point was well made and duly noted by all the attendees of this rather sobering safety briefing.

Thirty minutes later, having visited the toilet (twice), signed the disclaimer and donned protective clothing and boots, we listened intently to the words of our ‘guru’ Nigel, a 66 year old Cresta legend and all-round top man.  He began by showing us the toboggan, a pre-historic wooden tea tray, weighing close to 50kg, with steel runners and a sliding padded seat. Dented, scratched and wrapped in duct tape, Nigel told us that most of these beasts were well over 50 years old and to be fair, they looked it! 

We then took it in turns to practice lying, face down, on the toboggan after which Nigel said “there’s no point in me giving you much instruction for your first run as you really need to learn the course for yourselves”.  What the ****?!   

And that was it, until David Payne (now seated comfortably in his control tower) announced “Davies to the box please”.  

Waiting for the off felt like an eternity.  I lay there on the tea tray, said a short prayer and mentally wished my wife and three children farewell.  My entire body was shaking and the only thing stopping me from sliding down the steep corridor of ice was the substantial rubber boot of one of the local support staff which he duly removed once I was in position and had given the statutory thumbs up.

The minute and ten seconds that followed was, without doubt, the most exhilarating of my life (apologies to Mrs Davies):  As soon as I set off, the acceleration was staggering and, despite raking as instructed, I began to start bouncing off the walls of ice with real force.  

Remarkably, I somehow managed to stay on board over the first half of the course but then came Shuttlecock; the most famous and feared bend on the course.  Nigel had explained that it acts as a natural safety mechanism for the run, i.e. if you approach it too fast, or are not in control, you will be both rejected and ejected from the run at a rate of knots, landing (unhurt if you’re lucky) in a pile of snow and hay. But lady luck was smiling down that morning and, whilst I would inevitably get my comeuppance the next day, I dug my toes into the ice as hard as I could and actually got round in one piece.

Having navigated Shuttlecock successfully, I almost forgot to prepare myself for (as Peugeot would say) the ride of my life.  In the bar of the Hotel Soldanella the night before, the experienced riders had told us that once we navigated Shuttlecock it was plain sailing from there on and almost impossible to fall off. They were right. The bottom half of the course is basically a narrow, 500m+  tube of ice which drops more than 50 meters straight down to the finish.  At a speed of about 60mph it is utterly brilliant and I crossed the line in a time of just over 70 seconds* desperate to do it all again.

Back at the top, I discovered (rather annoyingly) that all of my group had safely navigated the course also and the sense of shared euphoria was almost, well, unbearable.  However, Nigel brought us straight down to earth and told us that this is typically where the trouble begins.  “It’s the desire to better your time and push yourself too far that results in all the accidents”, he said casually.

On my second and third runs that day I managed to improve my pb. further still and ended the morning with a respectable time of 62.24*  Then, at about midday, bruised, battered and elated, we, and all the other riders of the morning, headed off to the Sunny Bar in the town (which does exactly what is says on the tin!) for a leisurely lunch, overlooking the majestic frozen lake; the epicentre of St Moritz.

Miraculously, all six of our party had safely completed the course three times on day one, without incident and, after an enjoyable afternoon’s ski-ing, we talked extensively over dinner of raking strategies, optimum cornering techniques and breaking the magical minute barrier (very sad).  Thereafter, another long night in the Soldanella bar ensued and I finally got to bed at about 3am.

Not surprisingly, three hours later it felt as though I’d been asleep for seconds when the alarm went off and we prepared ourselves to do it all again.  However, I was more than ready for the challenge, still full of Dutch courage and determined to improve my time of the previous day.  

However, despite meticulously plotting my strategy the night before, I, for some reason, felt the need to experiment with a new, high risk steering technique at Shuttlecock that morning.  It was no surprise then that, during both run four and five, I massively lost control and got catapulted into the crash barriers.  Fortunately I remembered, whilst flying through the air, to cast off the heavy toboggan and, on landing, perform my 'showboat roll'.  Neither David nor Nigel was amused.

So I never did break the minute barrier and I still have the bumps and bruises to show for my efforts, but it's an experience that I will remember for ever and I might just have to go back and do it all again soon.

Andy Davies

LinkedIn is becoming the business version of Facebook. Where 5 years ago it didn’t exist and 2 years ago it was populated primarily by corporate, mid level executives, we are now in a position where everyone from graduates to senior partners, PAs to board members, artists to scientists are all members. People are naturally curious and this is yet another way to keep in touch, to track people’s career, to network and most importantly, to find people.

And it is these final 2 points that leads us to question the effect that the introduction of LinkedIn has had on the search industry. As a consultant who has worked in search for 5 years and has always known the existence of LinkedIn and has seen its growth, there are 4 key questions to be addressed:

1.       1. How has LinkedIn affected the world of researching and sourcing candidates?

2.       2. How do potential candidates perceive LinkedIn?

3.       3. Are shortlists weaker or stronger as a result?

4.       4. Has the Executive Search industry been devalued by the existence of LinkedIn? 

1.       How has LinkedIn affected the world of researching?

It cannot be denied that basic research – identification and name generation – has been transformed as a result of LinkedIn. I imagine it is a primary tool for any researcher at the start of any search.

It is important, however, to bear in mind that this basic research only accounts for the first few days of a search, whose total length typically consists of a six week research cycle.

After and during the initial period of research, this process must eventually move on to good old fashioned networking which fills in the gaps. The executive search industry is in danger of developing researchers who, when they cannot find information required on LinkedIn, are beaten. It is imperative that researchers are educated and developed to understand that a full research picture is created through a combination of methodologies. 

2.       How do potential candidates perceive LinkedIn?

Is it a disadvantage not to be on LinkedIn? Are you limiting the chance that you will be spotted and approached and, as a result, not get the same career opportunities as others? The irony lies in the fact that candidates who are most desirable are often those who have neither the time nor inclination to put their profiles on LinkedIn. And if they do, they put minimal information for precisely the reason that they don’t want to be hounded by recruitment consultants who in many instances may be approaching them about inappropriate or irrelevant roles.

There are of course many very talented individuals who see networking as part of their role, something they enjoy doing or indeed just enjoy a little self promotion on the internet. However, are these people also giving themselves greater opportunity?

3.       Are shortlists weaker or stronger as a result?

The bottom line is that, if executive search firms do their job in a diligent, ethical and methodical way, it should make no difference whatsoever to the strength of the shortlist. A role should be delivered by identifying all target organisations and individuals within, from the obvious to the more obscure.

Naturally, the existence of LinkedIn makes some of the initial research more straightforward but search firms should be judged on finding exceptional talent irrespective of their existence on LinkedIn.

Of course, for recruitment at lower levels, LinkedIn is invaluable. But when treated as anything more than a useful addition to a researcher’s arsenal at the outset of a given search, search firms would end up simply finding those 3 candidates who have their name in lights with profiles screaming “I want a new job!” If this is the service you have received or are receiving, you may be spending your budget on the wrong firm....

4.       Has the Executive Search industry been devalued by the existence of LinkedIn?

 In short, I believe the answer is no. Good quality search work relies on good research, but this is only one relatively modest building block in an executive search process. 

a.       a)  At a level where executive search as a tool is most effective, potential candidates are often guarded when approached, as well as being particularly busy and engaged in their work. As a result, that approach is much more likely to be successful when made by a 3^rd party. This is particularly true when approaching individuals from direct competitors on behalf of a client.

b.       b) Throughout an executive search process many candidates feel more at ease being represented by an independent organisation and so, from a client’s perspective, the headhunter can give them a view as to the candidate’s thoughts that they may not otherwise be privy to.

c.       c) The probability of success is also increased by having a mediator during offer negotiation. A headhunter can manage candidate expectations and advise clients on appropriate offers both through knowledge of the candidate and the wider market.

d.       d) Perhaps most importantly, a good search firm acts in a consulting capacity – it ensures that it understands a client, its employees and its proposition and represents that organisation to the market. As such, conducting a search can provide much more than simply completing a mandate – it can tell a client how they are perceived in the market, help them to think beyond the obvious in terms of candidate profiles and provide benchmarking in terms of salary.

e.       e) Finally, and particularly as executive search moves further up the value chain, that consulting capacity will increasingly involve proactive methodology looking beyond the obvious. Gender, diversity and leadership are just some topics within which executive search can add further value. 

        Andrew Crawford

The economic gloom of the last four years has had a number of silver linings. One is the greater focus on the dynamics of the boardroom. For years, the closed nature of the board, its composition, pay and hiring process went largely unquestioned. Gender aside, the gene pool commonly used for board appointments has typically been small – usually previous FTSE executives who have, mainly for historical reasons, tended to be male, frequently with very similar education and upbringing. This lack of breadth surely played its part in creating a near-lethal culture of groupthink on a number of boards, with decisions unchallenged and risk rife.  

Although the need for greater board diversity undoubtedly goes far beyond gender, it is a good starting point. Well-respected studies have suggested a number of gender links that we can ill afford to ignore: as a group, for instance, women tend to question more, and men to take greater risks. John Coates, a Cambridge neuroscientist, has done some fascinating and very disturbing research into the part played by testosterone in risk-taking. Few will dispute that taking a considered risk can really pay off; however, in order to balance the tendency of risk to lead to greater risks, executive pay structures must be re-examined. Worse, historically, these structures have usually been set with heavy involvement of those who stood most to benefit. A recent report by Incomes Data Services makes much of the statistics: in the past financial year the directors of FTSE 100 companies have seen a “49% increase in total earnings, taking average pay to £2.7m”. The figures are undoubtedly geared to shock; in truth, the reality is far more complex: the figures will have been skewed both by the recession and by the one year view frame, with only a very small part of the increase down to base salary (the rest is linked to bonuses, stock, long term incentive plans).  Unsurprisingly, the flip side of these seemingly mythical salary levels is seldom mentioned: highly visible directorships can be both a blessing and a curse. Whatever mistakes they may have made, there are a number of former FTSE 100 directors who have seen life and livelihoods torn apart by media and general public attention over the last few years – risks, unwanted attention and growing mounds of red tape are often cited as key reasons for not taking on a directorship, whether executive or non-executive . Businesses in UK plc remain in arguably greater need than ever before of strong leadership; we cannot afford to alienate talented leaders.

In such straightened times however, there remains a real disconnect between large corporates and the public. For many, payfreezes and falling income in real terms is their reality – these executive pay figures can only play badly to consumer ears and will serve as fuel to general media; greater transparency and better communication on both this topic and corporate governance are essential. Introducing some links to an organisation’s lowest pay levels, and to objectives that are measured over greater periods of time, may be one route. In January, Labour called for more women to sit on remuneration committees in order to better balance executive pay, and presumably to curb excesses. David Cameron has also expressed the view that more women on boards will help rein in excessive pay. Is this the magic bullet? Would pay levels have remained more in touch with reality had there been greater numbers of women involved in setting executive packages? Perhaps. At any rate, I do not believe that this is the right answer now; setting women up as “the voice of reason” on such an emotive issue against the established majority is only likely to alienate them further.  If the very purpose of a board is to make balanced decisions, its entire structure and mechanisms must be re-evaluated to support that end – purely balancing the gender ratio will not resolve the question of executive pay, which is only one component of a much larger issue.

Lucie Shaw

A city allotment  

Part 1. 

It’s cold out there.

The over wintered broad beans are bowed under the weight of repeated frosts and inches of snow.

The water butts are frozen solid, the ground is like steel.

But with each lengthening day there are signs that spring will eventually happen – the rhubarb is pushing its first leaves up, the raspberry canes I moved last weekend had growth under the soil, and up in the spare bathroom the first spuds are chitting. They’ll get planted in a few weeks with some fleece over them in case of late frosts, and in a few weeks the first carrots, lettuce, peas  etc will go in. It’s all in the planning!

We buried Lola next to the compost bin last weekend (family hamster, 27 months old when passed over to the great wheel in the sky – a good innings for a little fluffy rodent) . In the  autumn we’ll plant a clump of daffodils there, then every spring we’ll have a little reminder of her. Sweet!

Neil Newman

Last week, we heard Nick Clegg’s vision for a fairer economy. Inspired by the success of John Lewis, the key concept of the proposed system is that of wider ownership by employees of the companies within which they work. Enacting that concept would entail either providing further tax breaks for employees who wish to invest in their firm, or writing into the statute books the duty of individual companies to promote share ownership with their employees.   

The suggested advantages of this flavour of capitalism include the increased power of employees to keep track of executives’ pay, giving them more of a say in the way their companies are run. It is argued by ifs Proshare that encouraging this system would foster not only responsibility, but also growth. The argument here is that, as employees become shareholders of their firms, their marginal revenue product increases; in short, the remuneration of their labour is more directly linked to the company’s performance, and therefore their output as employees.

However, positing only John Lewis is perhaps too biased a sample to study. While employees of John Lewis might gladly extol the benefits of this share-based system, employees of HBOS and Northern Rock might be more inclined to doubt its efficacy.

The protection employees of HBOS had counted on – that the share price would have to drop by a third for them to lose capital – proved less than water-tight during the credit crunch. In 2007, the share price was 741.5p. A year later, the share price had nose-dived by more than 90 per cent to 69p.

After the nationalisation of Northern Rock, employees in the popular share scheme faced both redundancies and the prospect of losing the entirety of their savings.

As Elaine Moore of the Financial Times notes, ‘(l)inking household earnings, pensions and savings to the fortunes of a single employer puts investors at risk of losing everything if the organisation fails’. In truth, too much government inducement into basing every business’ ownership structure on that of John Lewis may prove unstable as individuals fail to spread their savings across different assets and so leave themselves vulnerable to the winds of change, which are currently quite bitter and ferocious.

Furthermore, the chosen sample ignores Debenhams and Marks & Spencer; two of John Lewis’ competitors which operate perfectly well within a traditional ownership model.

But, more fundamentally, would it really be beneficial for government to interfere any further than they already are within the private sector? The government is already proposing a host of notions in their pursuit of ‘fairness’ such as introducing academics with limited business experience onto company boards... There would be nothing fair about imposing legislation which ultimately detracts investment, therefore increasing unemployment, and prolonging this period of economic stagflation. No matter how good something sounds politically, it is more important that it actually works.

In truth, different models work for different companies, and that is how capitalism thrives. Extending employee share ownership beyond that which the market dictates may sound like a good idea, but universalising the practice carries its own incalculable risks.

On a final point, as Gerard Docherty of The Freedom Association notes, recent comments by politicians somewhat ignore the elephant in the room: 'that anyone, including employees, can already buy shares in any publicly-traded company'. Indeed, Save As You Earn (SAYE) schemes and Share Incentive Plans (SIPs) already provide tax-free routes for employee ownership.

Given this context, the 'right to request' shares could seem pointless at best, and potentially dangerous. It is hard to see that reducing taxation on shareholders' dividends would be perceived as particularly 'fair', and the idea of wage policies dictated by Soviet-style legislation is unattractive to most of us.

Of course, until the politicians outline exactly how they hope to establish the John Lewis economy, it remains an important subject of debate; something in which the business community would do well to engage itself. 

Anthony Boutall

Today, David Cameron will set out his vision for "moral capitalism", which is expected to focus on transparency and excessive pay, in line with the populist agenda which is continuing to amount against what is often referred to as "corporate greed".

In March 2011, Dominic Barton, Managing Director of McKinsey & Co., wrote a somewhat prophetic article about the shift toward longer-term capitalism. Since early 2011, many commentators have echoed Barton's calls for a business-led approach to reforming the "social contract between capitalism and citizenry". Increasingly these commentators focus on the new set of management values and styles which will be required to achieve this somewhat nebulous goal. 

Written before the populist agenda had properly established itself last year, as exemplified by the Occupy movement, Barton argues that "business must take the lead in renewing capitalism or risk losing popular and political support for the global economic system".

Unlike many lobbyists and writers on this topic, Barton sought to engage his fellow business leaders, rather than policy makers or the general public, purporting the view that business can lead the charge: "We can reform capitalism, or we can let capitalism be reformed for us, through political measures and the pressures of an angry public".

In the Evening Standard this week, one article entitled "Who will get us out of this mess?" by Niki Chesworth pointed to the need for core values in management and leadership: "Courage. integrity and compassion" were cited by one outplacement consultancy, as was emotional intelligence. All this focus on attitude rather than prescriptive skill sets, (arguably the more stable aspects of character and attitude in relation to those which can be taught or learnt over time) points toward a new type of leader, and consequently one which is part of a much broader gene pool: "The best leaders of tomorrow will have emotional intelligence and they will operate in a flatter type of structure". "Just as there will be more women represented on boards there will also be more young people and leaders will need to adapt their ways of working", says Garrett O'Keefe to the Evening Standard.

David Cameron will no doubt want to appease the mounting cynicism of corporate power, and sense of inequality which is increasing in these economically troubled times. But it is the business leaders of today and tomorrow who must believe in this sense of 'morality', above and beyond party political allegiance, in order to really achieve change.

Phoebe Miles