Comments for Barry's SuperBlog

Comment on Thought Leadership – what does it mean? by Ivor Tymchak

Ivor Tymchak — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:23:59 +0000

I take your point Barry but it seems to me that getting hung up on terms and titles is a malaise of modern society. Our information age naturally puts emphasis on semantics, pr and spin but ultimately most of us recognise an original idea when we come across it. Similarly, we respond to anyone who demonstrates ‘authenticity’ and we are prepared to follow them if their ideas make sense (and sometimes even when they don’t! Einstein was only understood by a handful of people at first).The clever leaders use the language of the times to get their ideas across and often their ideas are not original, they are simply humane; Martin Luther King’s message was hardly ground breaking but it is a message often forgotten and rarely implemented.Whatever tools you use, never forget it is the message which is the most important.

Comment on Mind Mapping STINKS by tim fulford

tim fulford — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:47:57 +0000

I agree acronyms don’t work for all of us (including me) but they do work for some and work really well. Mind Maps are the greatest tool for all planning, learning, creation, presentation and every activity I can think of. The only one where I cannot get them to work is learning times tables!Love the straight talking blog, very impressed.

Comment on Thought Leadership – what does it mean? by Barry Mapp

Barry Mapp — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:43:53 +0000

Thanks John for taking the time to share your thoughts on this. Keep following the blog as there is lots more thought provoking stuff to come … when I have the time

Comment on Thought Leadership – what does it mean? by JohnReddishGetResults

JohnReddishGetResults — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:24:13 +0000

I like your thinking and you are “right on.” A politician, inspirational guru, religious leader can be inspiring but do they change thought, expand thought, challenge conventional thought? In most cases, they are an extension (fully connected), offering insight, interpretation and innuendo.Thought leaders, may or (often) may not be popular, as you suggest, because they are leading thought in new directions in new ways and contributing new inputs that give rise to re-framings of experience.Thanks for making me think. I’ll let your ideas simmer, then ripple out.

Comment on Bonus Culture? Proud to Win a Cabbage not the Cash? by Barry Mapp

Barry Mapp — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:38:53 +0000

MarkHi Mark,Thanks for your comments.If you read an earlier post of mine (http://barrymapp.com/2009/10/unintended-consequences-what-do-very-large-bonuses-attract/) you will see that my viewpoint is that bonuses are the problem particularly when bonuses are performance related. Someone or something has to measure or assess the performance and unfortunately the numbers we learn at School (Math 1.0 - http://barrymapp.com/2009/10/are-we-really-numerate-how-numbers-lead-us-up-the-garden-path/) ignore natural variation in measurements and ignore context. Bonuses connecting to performance will always fall foul of the fact that numbers are fuzzy and not fit for the purpose for which we apply them. Saying that having better bonus payments is what is needed when these systems problems occur, is similar to saying that having better targets (when the existing ones don't work in the way that was planned) will improve things rather than facing up to the reality that targets are part of the problem. What I am saying is that bonuses are part of the problem. What I am not sure about are ways that a successful business can make sure that employees benefit from that success, that will not distort that success in the long term and we need to come up with innovative ideas. Incidentally the idea of dangling a carrot as a reward to work 'better' is rooted in old psychology (http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/creation-companies-apply-the-principles-of-new-psychology-to-business/) and it would be good if all HR training involved some understanding of this. We have come to assume without question that rewards are needed to get people to work well and do their best. Alfie Kohn and others have shown that rewards can sabotage intrinsic motivation, the very motivation that drives us to do an effective job because of the intrinsic joy of doing it. Now a big problem, surveys show, is that a lot of people don't enjoy their work - and this is an issue about how the work is organised and managed. My premise is that if we create "Creation Companies" rather than "Compliant Companies" () that the joy and the creativity can be put back into the work.

Comment on Bonus Culture? Proud to Win a Cabbage not the Cash? by Mark Curzon

Mark Curzon — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:30:35 +0000

IMHO this city bonuses issue is a complete failure of Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) or more precisely a lack of using it. If HR departments were taken seriously in the city (as much by themselves as banks’ directors) then bonuses would have been linked to the long term benefit of the banks, whose strategic focus is (or should be) on their customers. Whoever is responsible for remuneration has a lot to answer for. The challenge they face is that the city is so focussed on quarterly results an HR Director is pushing uphill to instigate a remuneration package that looks even to a year ahead never mind even longer term.I am very wary of people who demonise those that receive bonuses. If the system changed, yes some people would leave but most would stay as people on the whole are not motivated by money alone and these people will say nothing whilst they receive bonuses. It doesn’t make them demons, just human.Many commentators ask why some executives don’t return their bonuses. In any organisation, who would return a monstrous bonus? Most people, if given the opportunity, would plan on what to do with an impending bonus – e.g. pay off their mortgage in one go – and would be very reluctant to reverse that. City boys and girls like to splash out on three things: Something frivolous, property, and a long term financial investment (e.g. a fancy car, apartment and set aside money for school fees etc) and then the latter two are ring-fenced. Not much room for reversing any of that or raising your hand and asking to give it back.It is also intriguing how many HR people comment, not here I note, on linking pay and motivation… hello, have any of them been paying attention to those HR classes in which they discussed (and read) about what motivates people at work?To summarise, I do not believe bonuses are wrong or a problem. How they are implemented, however, is critical and nowhere is this more important in knowing clearly what is the organisation’s strategic direction: It’s own share price or customer value? Choose the wrong one, as I believe has happened in the city, and you drive yourself into a mess.

Comment on Bonus Culture? Proud to Win a Cabbage not the Cash? by Tweets that mention Bonus Culture? Proud to Win a Cabbage not the Cash? | Barry's SuperBlog -- Topsy.com

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:41:45 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Barry Mapp and Glyn Lumley, Glyn Lumley. Glyn Lumley said: Bonus Culture? Proud to win a cabbage not the cash? Blog from @Joymaster http://bit.ly/2mesWd [...]

Comment on Unintended Consequences? What do Very Large Bonuses Attract? by Alan Clark

Alan Clark — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:27:26 +0000

Ivor,Love what you are saying about the ‘best people’. Would it be unkind to wonder whether they are only the best people at getting high salaries, stock options and big bonuses?

Comment on Unintended Consequences? What do Very Large Bonuses Attract? by Ivor Tymchak

Ivor Tymchak — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:26:18 +0000

I always laughed to myself when I heard some captain of industry speaking in the media, use the threat that the ‘best people’ would simply leave the country if they weren’t paid obscene bonuses. If we substitute ‘criminals’ for ‘best people’ (a subtlety not far from the truth) then the argument becomes a no-brainer.When will the majority of people realise that the Emperor is flagrantly parading himself in the media whilst stark, staring naked?

Comment on Unintended Consequences? What do Very Large Bonuses Attract? by Bay Jordan

Bay Jordan — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:42:31 +0000

The fundamental of the word bonus have been forgotten. It is derived from the Latin word for good. The practice of paying bonuses is a management fad that has grown out of the idea that people can be incentived to work harder and better by being paid for performance. Arguably sound in theory, the practice has been subverted by:a) The failure to link the rewards properly to corporate performanceb) The shift away from making it a true incentive to a de facto lump sum entitlement that forms a part of an earnings package. This has developed from the need to keep pace with the (self-stimulated) market whilst not provoking shareholder outrage, and to offset the delusion created for shareholders that executives have taken lower salaries but need to be compensated more for “sharing the same risk.”It is easy to point fingers and accuse executives for being greedy, but humankind is by nature competitive, and the scale of reward is always likely to proliferate, when benchmarked against peer earnings.The solution is actually quite straightforward and one that I have been promoting for some time time. Viz1. Recognise people as the assets they are and put them on an internal balance sheet at their personal valuation.2. Balance the addition of Human Assets on the balance sheet with a Capital reserve called Human Capital, and make this a part of Owner’s Equity, thereby making the employees co-owners of the business for the cost of a single journal entry (and without the complexity of share purchase programmes.)3. Eliminate all existing incentive remuneration and instead distribute a share of profits or net income improvement across the organisation as a “labour dividend” based on the individual’s personal asset value.4. Measure the human contribution to the business through the new standard KPI of Net Income/Human Assets.The benefits of such a proposal are:1. It eliminates all the conflict inherent in traditional incentive remuneration schemes, as well as a large number of their shortcomings.2. It recognises that any organisation is a team and that its results are driven by the collaborative efforts of every single member of the team, and it compels the strategic alignment necessary for sustained success.4. It provides a transparent reward system that is consistent, equitable and fair and cannot be easily manipulated.5. It creates a platform for greater employee engagement.6. It significantly reduces the short-termism of current business practice and makes both managers and employees alike more concerned about the long-term viability of the business, and thus more likely to safeguard investors’ interests too.7. It counters the widening gap between executive management earnings and the rest and thus reinforces the collaborative spirit needed for ongoing success.