I’ve been blogging on Shell’s intranet for two and a half years now, and this is the first original post on this new platform. I’ve imported most of my Shell material onto this site, with apologies for the occasional Shell-specific context or acronym. From now I’ll try to post here at least once per week, using a similar style but no doubt a wider range of content.
So writing this new blog feels a bit like setting sail into uncertain waters. But this is far from the biggest transition in my life around now. The reason for escaping the confines of Shell’s intranet is that I’m also escaping Shell, just a couple of weeks before my fiftieth birthday. Escaping to what exactly is rather unclear, defined more by what it will exclude (work mainly for pay or fee) than what it will include.
Add to this that this week I sat down with my estranged wife and two lawyers and hammered out a settlement for divorce, after twenty two years in a generally stable and calming marriage. And that I closed the lease on the house I’d lived in for nine years, went to the town hall to deregister from the Netherlands, and now divide my time between various countries, partly in a furnished flat with few of my own possessions, and no car.
Perhaps this defines a mid life crisis. Certainly it defines a series of transitions. It describes the wilful casting away of many of the anchors that we traditionally use to give our lives ballast and security against turbulence. On a good day, this feels like total liberation. On a less good day, it just feels scary.
Of course, these changes have been brewing for some time. I made the decision to do different things with my fifties about two years ago and have been manoeuvring an exit from Shell since then. That, combined with my daughter leaving home, led me in the wholly unexpected direction of questioning my marriage, and moving out a year ago. Even so, it is strange how the milestones always seem to pop up in groups.
And I am not totally without anchors; indeed I have many privileges to be thankful for. I have great friendships and activities, have discovered support from Higher Powers, and am not short of assets either. Furthermore I’ve started a new love relationship, which provides peace and joy. However, compared with the convention and rock like stability of what came before, this journey does feel quite unnerving.
One theme in this blog will be to document that journey, both where it leads and how it feels on the way. Seasick at times, no doubt. Maybe you yearn for some liberation from your own anchors? If so I might spur you to action or be someone to remind you that the grass is not necessarily so green on the other side and that anchors serve a purpose.
Right now it feels good. Bring on the new life! Possibly that is driven a bit by a desire to move away from the transition itself, with all its doubt, pain and guilt. I have also started to learn to cherish adventure and uncertainty, to be able to find the surprises life has to offer rather than plan a safe route to avoid the rocks, to rely more than before on fate and humanity. Now I plan my life three months at a time, and have simplicity and maintaining shallow roots as goals, at least for a while. People in Shell all ask what I plan to do after leaving, and are very bemused by the answer that I don’t really know and will work it out when I get there.
I guess the boating metaphor signals the biggest risk with my approach. It is great having a flexible, fast machine and no anchors when the waters and the weather are somewhat predictable. You don’t want a calm sea and no wind, but then again, you don’t want an unexpected storm either. The test of my new approach to life will come when the storms gather, for example my own ill health or that of a loved one or a financial catastrophe. Who knows what lies ahead. But we only live once, and a boat that spends its life in the harbour may come to regret its caution.
I’ll keep you posted.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The Last Post (here)
My last post in the internal Shell blog space
So, the time has come to leave Shell, after 28 wonderful years. Over the last two and a half years, blogging has been another great gift that Shell has taught me, and I’m thrilled that my blog seems to have given some pleasure and useful advice. Encouraged by this, I’m going to make a serious and sustained attempt to find a blogging niche outside Shell. You can find my new blog on www.grahambobby.blogspot.com. Please look this up from time to time, as readership is the oxygen of any blog and you are my core partners. Even better, set up an RSS or twitter feed, tell your friends, and also start commenting, and perhaps this snowball can roll as fast as any of our 2006 snowballs. In my external blog I’ll keep a similar style, and try to post at least once a week. I’ll be able to comment on things outside Shell’s sphere as well as the tried and trusted areas. Shell has been good to me and I have no intention of becoming an angry outsider.
It is a privilege to be able to retire just before my fiftieth birthday. Not many of the billion or so humans born in the 1960’s will be ahead of me, at least not through their own choice. I feel good about the decision I made two years ago to pursue a different path in my fifties, though I don’t discount that doubts might set in during the months ahead without their familiar routine. That decision also opened up many other changes in my life, changes for the better but involving some pain. While this is not for everyone, I do sense that more could benefit from such a change of scene, so I’ll try to explain how it came about. Like all good crimes, it needed motive, means and opportunity.
Motive is the rarest of the three. I have loved my time at Shell, so why give it up? Basically because I’m blessed enough to have many other things I love as well and the courage to defy convention. At work, mental capacity has rarely been a blocker for me, but physical capacity has been – I do get tired and there have been times when work has consumed all my energy, and more. Between writing, coaching, studying and music, there should be enough to keep me more than busy, especially if I add in some charity work or even a bit of paid work. Yet to do all this while still working for Shell in a senior position would be bound to strain my health. Actually I’ve been very lucky in my 40’s, for most jobs I see at my level require far more physical stamina than I possess, yet I’ve found a niche where I can still add some value while having time and energy to do some other things. Now it is time to shift that balance further, while, God willing, still having healthy years ahead.
I suspect many of my age could tell a similar story, and find a strong motive to change their life, and have means and opportunity too, yet still not consider it. I believe many are driven by a larger opposite force to stay in paid work, a sort of reverse motive. What are the elements of that? That will be different for everyone, a cocktail of genuine pleasure from work, need for recognition and ego, ambition, naked greed, fear of change, fear of changing the equilibrium at home, pandering to convention, and avoidance of serious consideration. Some of these motives are excellent, but some much less so. My challenge to you, if you are lucky enough to have the positive motivation, means and opportunity, is to give this the consideration it deserves, and challenge what your true motives and goals in life are. No one will do this for you.
Means is a simpler story, and for most of us come down to financial means. If you are younger, consider some factors which have given me the means. Starting paid work at twenty two. Not having school age kids any more. And, most important, sticking with one company, so that the severance and pension are strong. It is now that the conservative choice to avoid jumping ship all those times where I was tempted reaps its reward. I have also benefited from Shell’s expatriation policy and conditions, and also from the major increase in senior salaries and bonuses that came through from the late 1990’s. Both of these I find unfair and unjustified in the context of society overall, but I am far from alone in benefiting.
The other point on means is to suggest that you have the courage to do the sums. Many people plough on with paid work under the assumption that they need the money. Well, check it out, you may have more money than you think. And I also believe it is possible, even desirable and pleasurable, to live a lot more simply than our habit.
Opportunity takes some finessing, especially as the means equation becomes altogether tougher without a severance package. I was lucky enough to find myself in an over-populated demographic at a time of retrenchment. I also found myself in an area where no one could argue my skills were indispensible, and with some leaders who were ready to talk honestly and show some courage. With all the complexities of local rules, obscure policies and practices, and fear of precedents, this is rarely simple. Nonetheless I would argue that this combination of circumstances is not as rare as all that. The courage of leaders may be the rarest aspect, but then do you have the courage yourself to put that to the test?
I do believe that more people could make such a decision, perhaps not at fifty but maybe fifty five. That way, fewer people would have to go through the agony of an unpleasant career closure, being pushed out before they are ready and with dignity compromised. Might that be you?
Of course, I might live to regret taking this route. To find that out, you had better start following my external blog! I look forward to seeing you there. Thanks for the support so far. And thank you Shell for being a great employer.
So, the time has come to leave Shell, after 28 wonderful years. Over the last two and a half years, blogging has been another great gift that Shell has taught me, and I’m thrilled that my blog seems to have given some pleasure and useful advice. Encouraged by this, I’m going to make a serious and sustained attempt to find a blogging niche outside Shell. You can find my new blog on www.grahambobby.blogspot.com. Please look this up from time to time, as readership is the oxygen of any blog and you are my core partners. Even better, set up an RSS or twitter feed, tell your friends, and also start commenting, and perhaps this snowball can roll as fast as any of our 2006 snowballs. In my external blog I’ll keep a similar style, and try to post at least once a week. I’ll be able to comment on things outside Shell’s sphere as well as the tried and trusted areas. Shell has been good to me and I have no intention of becoming an angry outsider.
It is a privilege to be able to retire just before my fiftieth birthday. Not many of the billion or so humans born in the 1960’s will be ahead of me, at least not through their own choice. I feel good about the decision I made two years ago to pursue a different path in my fifties, though I don’t discount that doubts might set in during the months ahead without their familiar routine. That decision also opened up many other changes in my life, changes for the better but involving some pain. While this is not for everyone, I do sense that more could benefit from such a change of scene, so I’ll try to explain how it came about. Like all good crimes, it needed motive, means and opportunity.
Motive is the rarest of the three. I have loved my time at Shell, so why give it up? Basically because I’m blessed enough to have many other things I love as well and the courage to defy convention. At work, mental capacity has rarely been a blocker for me, but physical capacity has been – I do get tired and there have been times when work has consumed all my energy, and more. Between writing, coaching, studying and music, there should be enough to keep me more than busy, especially if I add in some charity work or even a bit of paid work. Yet to do all this while still working for Shell in a senior position would be bound to strain my health. Actually I’ve been very lucky in my 40’s, for most jobs I see at my level require far more physical stamina than I possess, yet I’ve found a niche where I can still add some value while having time and energy to do some other things. Now it is time to shift that balance further, while, God willing, still having healthy years ahead.
I suspect many of my age could tell a similar story, and find a strong motive to change their life, and have means and opportunity too, yet still not consider it. I believe many are driven by a larger opposite force to stay in paid work, a sort of reverse motive. What are the elements of that? That will be different for everyone, a cocktail of genuine pleasure from work, need for recognition and ego, ambition, naked greed, fear of change, fear of changing the equilibrium at home, pandering to convention, and avoidance of serious consideration. Some of these motives are excellent, but some much less so. My challenge to you, if you are lucky enough to have the positive motivation, means and opportunity, is to give this the consideration it deserves, and challenge what your true motives and goals in life are. No one will do this for you.
Means is a simpler story, and for most of us come down to financial means. If you are younger, consider some factors which have given me the means. Starting paid work at twenty two. Not having school age kids any more. And, most important, sticking with one company, so that the severance and pension are strong. It is now that the conservative choice to avoid jumping ship all those times where I was tempted reaps its reward. I have also benefited from Shell’s expatriation policy and conditions, and also from the major increase in senior salaries and bonuses that came through from the late 1990’s. Both of these I find unfair and unjustified in the context of society overall, but I am far from alone in benefiting.
The other point on means is to suggest that you have the courage to do the sums. Many people plough on with paid work under the assumption that they need the money. Well, check it out, you may have more money than you think. And I also believe it is possible, even desirable and pleasurable, to live a lot more simply than our habit.
Opportunity takes some finessing, especially as the means equation becomes altogether tougher without a severance package. I was lucky enough to find myself in an over-populated demographic at a time of retrenchment. I also found myself in an area where no one could argue my skills were indispensible, and with some leaders who were ready to talk honestly and show some courage. With all the complexities of local rules, obscure policies and practices, and fear of precedents, this is rarely simple. Nonetheless I would argue that this combination of circumstances is not as rare as all that. The courage of leaders may be the rarest aspect, but then do you have the courage yourself to put that to the test?
I do believe that more people could make such a decision, perhaps not at fifty but maybe fifty five. That way, fewer people would have to go through the agony of an unpleasant career closure, being pushed out before they are ready and with dignity compromised. Might that be you?
Of course, I might live to regret taking this route. To find that out, you had better start following my external blog! I look forward to seeing you there. Thanks for the support so far. And thank you Shell for being a great employer.
Special Gifts and Music
What is the most generous gift you’ve received in the last five years? What about the most generous gift you’ve given to someone else in that time?
I think the surprise party thrown for me last Saturday qualifies. In March, Dagmar Mekking sent me an IM message asking what I was planning for my farewell from Shell. I hadn’t given it any thought, and if anything was inclined to just fade away, fearful of sensitivities, budgets and so on. I told Dagmar I had no plans, so she wrote back with an offer. I should send her a list of people dear to me, and I would hear no more but something would happen.
Wow, what a gift! That someone so busy should feel motivated to make this effort was enough. But to take away all the responsibility was even more special. I duly sent the names, and a six line terms of reference (surprises are good, spending money and gifts bad, dinners and traditional speeches dull). Last Saturday afternoon I experienced the result, and was overwhelmed really. Thanks so much Dagmar, and Susan, Milly, Hariom, Gina, Sophie, Rob and and and.
It was mentioned at the party that my blog is brave, but that I haven’t written of love. And I’m not about to start. Yet the gift question reminded me of a book I’ve just read, a bestseller called “The Five love languages” by Gary Chapman. The basic premise is that we all have a preferred way to receive love, one of Words of Affirmation, Quality Time, Receiving Gifts, Acts of Service or Physical Touch. It is worth investing in learning and feeding the preference of those most dear to us, as that way we will find it easier to keep their love tank full. The book was a bit corny and padded, much like management literature actually, but I found this core idea compelling. If someone close to you has Receiving Gifts as their primary love language, maybe you should ponder my question even more closely.
Enough on love – I don’t want to lose all my male readers so close to the finish line! The subject of the party was Music, since one of the things (other than writing) I’m dreaming of doing after leaving Shell is to devote more time to making, appreciating and leading music. I’ve done a conducting course and taken singing lessons for some years, and have been blessed with many opportunities recently to practice both.
Music is a wonderful hobby. But, parents beware, be careful about music as a career. As soon as money and need gets involved, the joy of the art has a habit of diminishing. Many of the professional musicians I have come across are poor, bitter, insecure, snobbish, and forced to be nice to people and situations they don’t respect. It is the same with other artistic careers I think, though of course there are glorious exceptions in every field. But as a hobby there is great liberation, growth, fulfillment and friendship to be had.
Learning to sing and to conduct have a certain frustration in common, which is that the more you know the further away becomes the finish line. It is only by making progress that you see what you still have to learn and how unattainable most goals are. I found a trick to help with this, which was occasionally to go back and re-learn a piece that I had sung twelve months before. What seemed so tough then always seemed easy a year later, and that way I could celebrate progress. Perhaps we can use that trick in other aspects of our lives as well.
I think choir directing is the most fulfilling activity I have ever discovered, because it challenges and rewards in so many directions. You are entertainer, teacher, cheerleader, listener, physical guide, organizer all at the same time, and it is amazing how developing on any one of these axes can improve the outcome. Yet there are few rules, many routes to success and massive scope to experiment. You also receive instant feedback, in the form of sound but also the animated faces in front of you.
There are many links between conducting/choir directing and leadership. Both are enabling roles – as soon as you see yourself at the centre you are lost. Benjamin Zander and Itay Talgam have carved niches as world class conductors who give advice to leaders, including at Shell conferences. Here is a link to a lovely piece of Talgam. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/itay_talgam_lead_like_the_great_conductors.html . Many of the skills I have acquired in Shell are fully relevant in choir directing. What a shame I can’t stop myself conducting like Mr Bean!
Maybe there is an activity out there for you, where you can combine a modicum of talent with a mountain of passion? You will only discover it by looking, so don’t leave it too late. And on the way, don’t forget to take pleasure from giving and receiving gifts.
I think the surprise party thrown for me last Saturday qualifies. In March, Dagmar Mekking sent me an IM message asking what I was planning for my farewell from Shell. I hadn’t given it any thought, and if anything was inclined to just fade away, fearful of sensitivities, budgets and so on. I told Dagmar I had no plans, so she wrote back with an offer. I should send her a list of people dear to me, and I would hear no more but something would happen.
Wow, what a gift! That someone so busy should feel motivated to make this effort was enough. But to take away all the responsibility was even more special. I duly sent the names, and a six line terms of reference (surprises are good, spending money and gifts bad, dinners and traditional speeches dull). Last Saturday afternoon I experienced the result, and was overwhelmed really. Thanks so much Dagmar, and Susan, Milly, Hariom, Gina, Sophie, Rob and and and.
It was mentioned at the party that my blog is brave, but that I haven’t written of love. And I’m not about to start. Yet the gift question reminded me of a book I’ve just read, a bestseller called “The Five love languages” by Gary Chapman. The basic premise is that we all have a preferred way to receive love, one of Words of Affirmation, Quality Time, Receiving Gifts, Acts of Service or Physical Touch. It is worth investing in learning and feeding the preference of those most dear to us, as that way we will find it easier to keep their love tank full. The book was a bit corny and padded, much like management literature actually, but I found this core idea compelling. If someone close to you has Receiving Gifts as their primary love language, maybe you should ponder my question even more closely.
Enough on love – I don’t want to lose all my male readers so close to the finish line! The subject of the party was Music, since one of the things (other than writing) I’m dreaming of doing after leaving Shell is to devote more time to making, appreciating and leading music. I’ve done a conducting course and taken singing lessons for some years, and have been blessed with many opportunities recently to practice both.
Music is a wonderful hobby. But, parents beware, be careful about music as a career. As soon as money and need gets involved, the joy of the art has a habit of diminishing. Many of the professional musicians I have come across are poor, bitter, insecure, snobbish, and forced to be nice to people and situations they don’t respect. It is the same with other artistic careers I think, though of course there are glorious exceptions in every field. But as a hobby there is great liberation, growth, fulfillment and friendship to be had.
Learning to sing and to conduct have a certain frustration in common, which is that the more you know the further away becomes the finish line. It is only by making progress that you see what you still have to learn and how unattainable most goals are. I found a trick to help with this, which was occasionally to go back and re-learn a piece that I had sung twelve months before. What seemed so tough then always seemed easy a year later, and that way I could celebrate progress. Perhaps we can use that trick in other aspects of our lives as well.
I think choir directing is the most fulfilling activity I have ever discovered, because it challenges and rewards in so many directions. You are entertainer, teacher, cheerleader, listener, physical guide, organizer all at the same time, and it is amazing how developing on any one of these axes can improve the outcome. Yet there are few rules, many routes to success and massive scope to experiment. You also receive instant feedback, in the form of sound but also the animated faces in front of you.
There are many links between conducting/choir directing and leadership. Both are enabling roles – as soon as you see yourself at the centre you are lost. Benjamin Zander and Itay Talgam have carved niches as world class conductors who give advice to leaders, including at Shell conferences. Here is a link to a lovely piece of Talgam. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/itay_talgam_lead_like_the_great_conductors.html . Many of the skills I have acquired in Shell are fully relevant in choir directing. What a shame I can’t stop myself conducting like Mr Bean!
Maybe there is an activity out there for you, where you can combine a modicum of talent with a mountain of passion? You will only discover it by looking, so don’t leave it too late. And on the way, don’t forget to take pleasure from giving and receiving gifts.
My Room 101
In the UK, there is a popular TV programme called Room 101, where people are asked what they would like to consign to a dark room forever. I’ve had a go at it from a Shell perspective. See what you make of my list. If you like it you can use it as a bullshit bingo card, or count how many times you catch yourself using an item. What would you consign to your own Room 101?
My number one item is Intellectual Property. It makes sense to protect valuable assets, even Apple does that, but I’ve found discussions around IP in Shell on balance to be destructive. People focused on protecting the past find it harder to innovate. The tendency can become to value the store cupboard of patents over the customer need served or money earned. Via a metaphor, I blogged on this in “Once upon a time” in January 2008, and I’m still as suspicious.
Number two is the word Alignment. This first became standard business vocabulary in the late 1990’s, the same time as granularity (where did that come from?), and it has mushroomed since. I find it is usually a weasel word. When I hear “we are aligned” what is too often really being said is “we will do what we want anyway and have agreed not to fight about it” or “we disagree but are too bored to try to agree so will just pretend” or simply “please leave us alone” or “I’ve done my bit, boss, will this do?”
Number three is a denial of cost competitiveness epitomized by phrases like “we will always be expensive”. Who says? In the long run, uncompetitive equals dead. In retail pie charts segmented customer into price quality buyers, with price buyers beneath our consideration. But we didn’t provide any real quality, so the price buyer segment grew year on year and our business shrank. Then others use their cost advantage to offer more quality and the cycle reinforces. The mindset is endemic in Shell and is poisonous, not just in marketing. It really says “I am overpaid and lazy”.
Number four is the concept of Must Win. So what, exactly, happens if we don’t? Not much, really. It is conceivable that Holland’s third match in the world cup could be “must win”. In business terms, it is hardly ever so clear cut. And managers using the concept become so scared of losing that they define the so called must win so generally that they can later claim success whatever the outcome.
Number five is the overuse of the Industry, and Joint Industry Projects. This is another Shell disease, and a clear difference with Exxon. Partly this is as an avoidance of anti-competitive temptation, but there is more to it. Winners think of serving customers, market share and beating competitors, losers tend to think of margin structures and industry conditions. Choose a sound market and be the most competitive player and in the long run you will prevail. Furthermore, people who think industry often fail to spot threats from outside the cozy establishment.
Number six is accountability. A lack of any sense of accountability or supporting structure is bad. But in my experience to be accountable tends to be one of those irregular verbs. I am accountable means I expect obedience and all the resources I demand. You are accountable means I will blame you when it goes wrong, and he is accountable means to he should be fired. Not all that helpful, really.
Number seven is the word portfolio. Listen to the people who use it. Often it is used to excuse a poor operating performance. Or by people who consider our business a game of battleships played with other majors, and again underplay operational excellence or non-traditional competition. Oh yes, and people who want to make their job sound grander than it really is.
Number eight is the teleconference. How could we live without it, with our virtual teams and fast paced agendas? It would be tough, but I claim that overall I’ve hated and wasted more time on telecons than the value I’ve gained from them. At least set a strict time limit of 45 minutes and the banning of regular telecons like weekly team meetings. Both become lazy too easily and waste time, as well as being a poor substitute for authentic communication.
Number nine is the concept of non-technical risk. Inevitably this term is used by technical people who believe all interesting things in the world are technical and who resent that other things matter as well. Hence they usually fail to give due attention to such matters, display arrogance when the customer insists on considering them, and explain our ultimate failure to win a deal as bad luck, uncontrollable circumstances or someone else’s fault. Treat technical as one category among many please.
Number ten is complexity. I’m not a great believer in simplicity as a goal, since it drives the business towards commoditization. Genuine complexity in business provides potential to add value and differentiate. However, complexity as a mindset becomes self fulfilling. Most things can be simpler than we believe if we try to make it so. Starting from the customer, most businesses are pretty simple really. Complexity is a weak and overused excuse for uncompetitiveness.
So there are my ten. In my opinion, Shell would be a stronger company if each of these were consigned to room 101. But then I’m on my way rapidly to room 101 myself, so you can just ignore these and come up with your own list.
My number one item is Intellectual Property. It makes sense to protect valuable assets, even Apple does that, but I’ve found discussions around IP in Shell on balance to be destructive. People focused on protecting the past find it harder to innovate. The tendency can become to value the store cupboard of patents over the customer need served or money earned. Via a metaphor, I blogged on this in “Once upon a time” in January 2008, and I’m still as suspicious.
Number two is the word Alignment. This first became standard business vocabulary in the late 1990’s, the same time as granularity (where did that come from?), and it has mushroomed since. I find it is usually a weasel word. When I hear “we are aligned” what is too often really being said is “we will do what we want anyway and have agreed not to fight about it” or “we disagree but are too bored to try to agree so will just pretend” or simply “please leave us alone” or “I’ve done my bit, boss, will this do?”
Number three is a denial of cost competitiveness epitomized by phrases like “we will always be expensive”. Who says? In the long run, uncompetitive equals dead. In retail pie charts segmented customer into price quality buyers, with price buyers beneath our consideration. But we didn’t provide any real quality, so the price buyer segment grew year on year and our business shrank. Then others use their cost advantage to offer more quality and the cycle reinforces. The mindset is endemic in Shell and is poisonous, not just in marketing. It really says “I am overpaid and lazy”.
Number four is the concept of Must Win. So what, exactly, happens if we don’t? Not much, really. It is conceivable that Holland’s third match in the world cup could be “must win”. In business terms, it is hardly ever so clear cut. And managers using the concept become so scared of losing that they define the so called must win so generally that they can later claim success whatever the outcome.
Number five is the overuse of the Industry, and Joint Industry Projects. This is another Shell disease, and a clear difference with Exxon. Partly this is as an avoidance of anti-competitive temptation, but there is more to it. Winners think of serving customers, market share and beating competitors, losers tend to think of margin structures and industry conditions. Choose a sound market and be the most competitive player and in the long run you will prevail. Furthermore, people who think industry often fail to spot threats from outside the cozy establishment.
Number six is accountability. A lack of any sense of accountability or supporting structure is bad. But in my experience to be accountable tends to be one of those irregular verbs. I am accountable means I expect obedience and all the resources I demand. You are accountable means I will blame you when it goes wrong, and he is accountable means to he should be fired. Not all that helpful, really.
Number seven is the word portfolio. Listen to the people who use it. Often it is used to excuse a poor operating performance. Or by people who consider our business a game of battleships played with other majors, and again underplay operational excellence or non-traditional competition. Oh yes, and people who want to make their job sound grander than it really is.
Number eight is the teleconference. How could we live without it, with our virtual teams and fast paced agendas? It would be tough, but I claim that overall I’ve hated and wasted more time on telecons than the value I’ve gained from them. At least set a strict time limit of 45 minutes and the banning of regular telecons like weekly team meetings. Both become lazy too easily and waste time, as well as being a poor substitute for authentic communication.
Number nine is the concept of non-technical risk. Inevitably this term is used by technical people who believe all interesting things in the world are technical and who resent that other things matter as well. Hence they usually fail to give due attention to such matters, display arrogance when the customer insists on considering them, and explain our ultimate failure to win a deal as bad luck, uncontrollable circumstances or someone else’s fault. Treat technical as one category among many please.
Number ten is complexity. I’m not a great believer in simplicity as a goal, since it drives the business towards commoditization. Genuine complexity in business provides potential to add value and differentiate. However, complexity as a mindset becomes self fulfilling. Most things can be simpler than we believe if we try to make it so. Starting from the customer, most businesses are pretty simple really. Complexity is a weak and overused excuse for uncompetitiveness.
So there are my ten. In my opinion, Shell would be a stronger company if each of these were consigned to room 101. But then I’m on my way rapidly to room 101 myself, so you can just ignore these and come up with your own list.
Behavious Rock - Let's stay the Course
The SEF is the Senior Executive Forum
The CEO took that platform to launch a new set of behaviours for Shell
I have to say I was impressed by the SEF output last week and the webcast on Tuesday. I don’t by now have much to lose by being critical and I’m not that easily impressed, so you can conclude it is genuine. It makes me feel good for Shell and our staff.
While we can quibble about the speaking style and the obvious planting of questions, not to mention the cringe making automated phone calls beforehand, it was great to see all the faces from around the world, and the overall impression I took away was of a CEO with growing confidence after a year in the job. And confidence matters so much.
This was the launch of the new direction, after a year of transition and cost cutting, and that was presented honestly and is just at the right time, even if we all know that the pain and ramifications of transition are not truly over yet. And the vision for me started in exactly the right places, with the brand, the customer and behaviours.
In my view this shows that Peter has chosen his advisors well, and has built on his experience working with marketing businesses in SEOP and elsewhere. Brand and customer are not natural starting points for EP types or manufacturers, nor people like McKinsey for that matter, and it is a good departure for Shell to think this way. All the best companies who truly compete in open marketplaces do this. “Powering progress together” hardly trips off the tongue, but is clear and sound. So is the vision to become the most competitive and innovative energy company – don’t believe for a minute that cost consciousness will diminish from here on as a theme, it won’t and it can’t.
I am less convinced about the strategy part, strategy snob that I am. It was good to hear an admission that “more upstream, profitable downstream” was more capital allocation tool than strategy, but I’m not sure that what is in its place is much better. “Get our house in order, bring the projects onstream, tackle new opportunities” reads more like a business plan or shopping list than a strategy to me. There is certainly nothing distinctive about it. Maybe there is more that will not be shared.
Another clear challenge is in the articulation of customer. This was brave and clear, but begs strategic questions. Striding the four customer groups quoted (consumers, businesses, resource holders and governments) is tough or even impossible over time, as a truly focused approach to one group will necessarily compromise another. That for me is the dominant reason to advocate the radical step in the end of breaking up the company, in a way where each part can focus on a more homogenous customer set.
I find a clue to strategy in the list of behaviours. The classic book “The Discipline of Market Leaders” posited that a company had the choice of three strategies: operational excellence, customer intimacy or innovation leadership. Like all such theories, it is simplistic but telling. Exxon has followed operational excellence for a long time, while Shell tends to fudge the issue. Whenever I hear “we will always be expensive” I cringe and realize many of us still live on planets other than earth. Now the new list of behaviours actually gets close to defining a classic operational excellence strategy. So perhaps, together with the shopping list, they are enough.
I love the behaviours. I have always believed that behaviours are a good way to influence culture and strategy, and these are excellent (although the little descriptors on the web behind each one don’t help at all, in my view, too much consensus at work there guys?). But the challenge will be in making it happen. Actually, I liked LAT too, and I found it sad that Jeroen van der Veer seemed to lose heart with driving them so soon after their launch. I can only assume that he couldn’t bring his full EC and EC-1 along with him with enough enthusiasm.
And this will be the challenge again. I have to say that the culture and behaviours I witness again and again in our upstream (ex EP and to a lesser extent ex GP) are almost the diametric opposite of the five. Our only focus seems at times to be fighting each other rather than any competitor. Customers are barely recognized, even the word is discouraged. Delivery is undermined by defensiveness, dashboard management and lack of transparency, and speed by lack of courage. Finally, if people choose to convince themselves day after day of how complex their business is, that will become self-fulfilling and fatally undermine simplicity, no matter how many ESSA days are planned.
I’m aware this is a generalization based on a very limited view, and even with that I have worked with some truly wonderful role models. Yet the impression is a strong one, and it does fit the evidence. I can even add a singular lack of cost consciousness to the indictment. I hope this is not me being bitter once again about the swallowing of Global Solutions (and GP), yet I can’t help but think that the five behaviours were all alive in GS and it is such a waste to have to rebuild them now.
So the real test will be staying the course and demonstrating real change. Peter, you are right, have belief. And what can the rest of us do? We can form an army of winning behaviours through the organization, so that if there is any reluctance at senior levels we can try to squeeze it from below as well as above. With care, we can confront poor leadership behaviours, and it helps to know that up there someone is on our side.
The other thing about behaviours is the challenge of how to know whether we are winning, since they don’t lend themselves to KPI’s. So here are three challenges for the next SEF in twelve months time.
First that we see different faces. Humans cannot change that much, and it is simply not credible to believe that the same people who behaved one way can suddenly en masse behave the opposite way. There has to be some injection of new blood, dare I suggest starting very near the top.
Second that by then we have not just a good vision and good behaviours, but also a credible, distinctive strategy. One that the analysts can articulate and support would be a bonus.
And third, a random sample of Shell people interviewed next May could not just list the behaviours, but tell stories about their own journey and the good changes they see around them.
The CEO took that platform to launch a new set of behaviours for Shell
I have to say I was impressed by the SEF output last week and the webcast on Tuesday. I don’t by now have much to lose by being critical and I’m not that easily impressed, so you can conclude it is genuine. It makes me feel good for Shell and our staff.
While we can quibble about the speaking style and the obvious planting of questions, not to mention the cringe making automated phone calls beforehand, it was great to see all the faces from around the world, and the overall impression I took away was of a CEO with growing confidence after a year in the job. And confidence matters so much.
This was the launch of the new direction, after a year of transition and cost cutting, and that was presented honestly and is just at the right time, even if we all know that the pain and ramifications of transition are not truly over yet. And the vision for me started in exactly the right places, with the brand, the customer and behaviours.
In my view this shows that Peter has chosen his advisors well, and has built on his experience working with marketing businesses in SEOP and elsewhere. Brand and customer are not natural starting points for EP types or manufacturers, nor people like McKinsey for that matter, and it is a good departure for Shell to think this way. All the best companies who truly compete in open marketplaces do this. “Powering progress together” hardly trips off the tongue, but is clear and sound. So is the vision to become the most competitive and innovative energy company – don’t believe for a minute that cost consciousness will diminish from here on as a theme, it won’t and it can’t.
I am less convinced about the strategy part, strategy snob that I am. It was good to hear an admission that “more upstream, profitable downstream” was more capital allocation tool than strategy, but I’m not sure that what is in its place is much better. “Get our house in order, bring the projects onstream, tackle new opportunities” reads more like a business plan or shopping list than a strategy to me. There is certainly nothing distinctive about it. Maybe there is more that will not be shared.
Another clear challenge is in the articulation of customer. This was brave and clear, but begs strategic questions. Striding the four customer groups quoted (consumers, businesses, resource holders and governments) is tough or even impossible over time, as a truly focused approach to one group will necessarily compromise another. That for me is the dominant reason to advocate the radical step in the end of breaking up the company, in a way where each part can focus on a more homogenous customer set.
I find a clue to strategy in the list of behaviours. The classic book “The Discipline of Market Leaders” posited that a company had the choice of three strategies: operational excellence, customer intimacy or innovation leadership. Like all such theories, it is simplistic but telling. Exxon has followed operational excellence for a long time, while Shell tends to fudge the issue. Whenever I hear “we will always be expensive” I cringe and realize many of us still live on planets other than earth. Now the new list of behaviours actually gets close to defining a classic operational excellence strategy. So perhaps, together with the shopping list, they are enough.
I love the behaviours. I have always believed that behaviours are a good way to influence culture and strategy, and these are excellent (although the little descriptors on the web behind each one don’t help at all, in my view, too much consensus at work there guys?). But the challenge will be in making it happen. Actually, I liked LAT too, and I found it sad that Jeroen van der Veer seemed to lose heart with driving them so soon after their launch. I can only assume that he couldn’t bring his full EC and EC-1 along with him with enough enthusiasm.
And this will be the challenge again. I have to say that the culture and behaviours I witness again and again in our upstream (ex EP and to a lesser extent ex GP) are almost the diametric opposite of the five. Our only focus seems at times to be fighting each other rather than any competitor. Customers are barely recognized, even the word is discouraged. Delivery is undermined by defensiveness, dashboard management and lack of transparency, and speed by lack of courage. Finally, if people choose to convince themselves day after day of how complex their business is, that will become self-fulfilling and fatally undermine simplicity, no matter how many ESSA days are planned.
I’m aware this is a generalization based on a very limited view, and even with that I have worked with some truly wonderful role models. Yet the impression is a strong one, and it does fit the evidence. I can even add a singular lack of cost consciousness to the indictment. I hope this is not me being bitter once again about the swallowing of Global Solutions (and GP), yet I can’t help but think that the five behaviours were all alive in GS and it is such a waste to have to rebuild them now.
So the real test will be staying the course and demonstrating real change. Peter, you are right, have belief. And what can the rest of us do? We can form an army of winning behaviours through the organization, so that if there is any reluctance at senior levels we can try to squeeze it from below as well as above. With care, we can confront poor leadership behaviours, and it helps to know that up there someone is on our side.
The other thing about behaviours is the challenge of how to know whether we are winning, since they don’t lend themselves to KPI’s. So here are three challenges for the next SEF in twelve months time.
First that we see different faces. Humans cannot change that much, and it is simply not credible to believe that the same people who behaved one way can suddenly en masse behave the opposite way. There has to be some injection of new blood, dare I suggest starting very near the top.
Second that by then we have not just a good vision and good behaviours, but also a credible, distinctive strategy. One that the analysts can articulate and support would be a bonus.
And third, a random sample of Shell people interviewed next May could not just list the behaviours, but tell stories about their own journey and the good changes they see around them.
Business Support Disquiet
I’ve been very touched by all the good wishes and encouragement to continue blogging after leaving Shell. Thank you. I’ll write more blogs yet on this site, but I do intend to blog externally afterwards, so if you are interested watch this space for a link to appear sometime in June. Any ideas for niches for me to write about that might be interesting for a broader audience would be gratefully received.
Today’s subject in Business Support. P&T has recently given more details of its intent, subject to staff council consultations, to implement a standard new model, with quite heavy implications for staff numbers.
The nature of Business Support needs has changed over the years. It used to be secretaries and typing pools, and now there is much more self-service and remote service. My belief is that I am on the cusp of a generation gap – between those brought up pre-computer (baby boomers if you like) and those (generation X and later) for whom most of their lives self service is just how things happen.
My guess is that many of the angry complainants are baby boomers. And there are fewer and fewer of these left in Shell. That is the main reason why I actually broadly support the move to rationalize P&T business support. It is supported by global trends and demographic trends within Shell.
The other interesting point about all the comments is that they are overwhelmingly from former Global Solutions staff in support of the BSO model. That tells me that something is very good about the BSO concept. And, as far as I understand it, the plan in the new structure is to retain its core elements, albeit with fewer support staff per technical staff. This doesn’t come across well in the communication, but if I am right then the plan has a good chance of success (even of improving things for ex EPT staff) and that the angry people might be mollified once things become clearer.
However, one thing must improve radically for this to succeed, and that is the self service interfaces. I’m sorry, but these are woefully poor currently, an opinion shared widely in the commentary. Who on earth designed the SAP time-writing and expenses interfaces? I fear they were nerdy IT people targeting frequent users, maybe in finance or (ironically) dedicated support roles. With respect, I’m not sure those designers would be able to secure a job with Apple or other leading edge practitioners. When I first wrote time this year, I needed help many times, even after having completed the extensive (ill-designed) training. At one point I believe you have to click a part of the screen that is not even defined let alone highlighted. For occasional users, this is simply not good enough, and it undermines the business case for self service.
I was involved in the P&T business support project myself for a couple of months at the end of last year. At the time we were really just trying to achieve a workable temporary solution and get some smart communication in place, but I enjoyed the experience. I built respect not just for the BSO model but also for many of the people in business support, including many of the BSO supervisors. I hope that this group has been actively consulted in the subsequent redesign. Last year, even though there were U-turns and missed deadlines, I felt the process being followed was not bad in tough circumstances, although I did find it hard to defend a decision not to open windows for most staff.
One driving principle behind the change is global standardization, and here I think there are pros but also cons. Bundling staff in BSO’s, creating global specialists and off-shoring some support all makes sense. On the other hand there are downsides, as opportunities to find strong bespoke solutions for businesses and people are removed. The most stubborn glass ceiling in Shell may be for people trying to escape admin skill pools, and these hybrid solutions were one former way to develop careers of some very talented people. Like many aspects of the drive to standardization I find the business case somewhat dogmatic, though I accept that overall the benefits may outweigh the downsides more often than not.
Finally, it is always tragic when people of modest means lose their jobs. But Shell has to live in the real world, and, even though it is true that there are far more expensive areas where cuts would make far more sense and impact, business support cannot be immune. Life is not always fair. In my experience, there is a massive range in the dedication and quality of business support staff in P&T and I only hope that the process to be followed is strong enough to protect or even reward the many deserving people in the population.
Today’s subject in Business Support. P&T has recently given more details of its intent, subject to staff council consultations, to implement a standard new model, with quite heavy implications for staff numbers.
The nature of Business Support needs has changed over the years. It used to be secretaries and typing pools, and now there is much more self-service and remote service. My belief is that I am on the cusp of a generation gap – between those brought up pre-computer (baby boomers if you like) and those (generation X and later) for whom most of their lives self service is just how things happen.
My guess is that many of the angry complainants are baby boomers. And there are fewer and fewer of these left in Shell. That is the main reason why I actually broadly support the move to rationalize P&T business support. It is supported by global trends and demographic trends within Shell.
The other interesting point about all the comments is that they are overwhelmingly from former Global Solutions staff in support of the BSO model. That tells me that something is very good about the BSO concept. And, as far as I understand it, the plan in the new structure is to retain its core elements, albeit with fewer support staff per technical staff. This doesn’t come across well in the communication, but if I am right then the plan has a good chance of success (even of improving things for ex EPT staff) and that the angry people might be mollified once things become clearer.
However, one thing must improve radically for this to succeed, and that is the self service interfaces. I’m sorry, but these are woefully poor currently, an opinion shared widely in the commentary. Who on earth designed the SAP time-writing and expenses interfaces? I fear they were nerdy IT people targeting frequent users, maybe in finance or (ironically) dedicated support roles. With respect, I’m not sure those designers would be able to secure a job with Apple or other leading edge practitioners. When I first wrote time this year, I needed help many times, even after having completed the extensive (ill-designed) training. At one point I believe you have to click a part of the screen that is not even defined let alone highlighted. For occasional users, this is simply not good enough, and it undermines the business case for self service.
I was involved in the P&T business support project myself for a couple of months at the end of last year. At the time we were really just trying to achieve a workable temporary solution and get some smart communication in place, but I enjoyed the experience. I built respect not just for the BSO model but also for many of the people in business support, including many of the BSO supervisors. I hope that this group has been actively consulted in the subsequent redesign. Last year, even though there were U-turns and missed deadlines, I felt the process being followed was not bad in tough circumstances, although I did find it hard to defend a decision not to open windows for most staff.
One driving principle behind the change is global standardization, and here I think there are pros but also cons. Bundling staff in BSO’s, creating global specialists and off-shoring some support all makes sense. On the other hand there are downsides, as opportunities to find strong bespoke solutions for businesses and people are removed. The most stubborn glass ceiling in Shell may be for people trying to escape admin skill pools, and these hybrid solutions were one former way to develop careers of some very talented people. Like many aspects of the drive to standardization I find the business case somewhat dogmatic, though I accept that overall the benefits may outweigh the downsides more often than not.
Finally, it is always tragic when people of modest means lose their jobs. But Shell has to live in the real world, and, even though it is true that there are far more expensive areas where cuts would make far more sense and impact, business support cannot be immune. Life is not always fair. In my experience, there is a massive range in the dedication and quality of business support staff in P&T and I only hope that the process to be followed is strong enough to protect or even reward the many deserving people in the population.
Office Matters
With 26 working days to go before leaving Shell, I moved office this week, into Alaska in Rijswijk with several hundred others from P&T. New offices are always sources of stress for people, as we get used to changing commutes and timings, and try to reconnect with familiar people and routines. It brings out the suspicion in many of us (why does he have more space than me?). Overall the Alaska move seems to have been well handled – it is an airy, welcoming place good for collaboration. The lack of fixed desks and offices for all but the most mighty is a culture shock to many, but is in tune with the modern world. In my belief a plea for privacy is usually signaling someone pretending something – about how hard they work or how important they are.
My worldly goods I now carry in two small files with my computer. It feels strange how work life has reduced to this, but in truth, I believe most of you could downsize your paper to nearly nothing nowadays, it is all in the computer. In successive moves I’ve gone from 6 boxes to 3 then 2 and now none. It is like having been on a successful diet. Surrounding ourselves with stuff is one of the ways we try to convince ourselves and our colleagues of our significance. A former boss recently retired. As a lawyer brought up in more traditional times, he had retained every file note, every report through his whole career, and his room (and neighbouring rooms too) were full of his files. The day he realized that 99% of it was destined for the shredder was one of the saddest of his life. Individually, we are not that important really, and we should remind ourselves frequently to avoid the sort of pain he experienced.
Offices have changed, due to technology and gradual erosion of status symbols. My first Shell office was looking over the Stand in London, a great location. There was nothing on the desk but a phone – the only accessory NOT on the Alaska workspaces. I could tell who was the boss (and his boss) by the carpet, curtains and colour of wood in the furniture. We had a terminal room where you had to queue to use the computer (in one of my previous summer jobs it was worse – you booked processing time a day in advance and used punched cards as input; one mistake with a card cost you a whole day). There was one restaurant for the normal people (excellent even then, Shell has always fed me well) and one for JG2 and above, with a well-used bar. The building had its own pub, where we had a pint or two for lunch at the slightest excuse. Ah, the good old days. It was critical to be friends with the boss’ secretary, as she was the only way to get anything typed yet she didn’t have any obligation to help. The official alternative was something called a typing pool, out of which I never recall emerging any typing.
I’ve seen some weird offices. For about a third of my career, I’ve been home based. On balance that has been good. The best years of all were the first three years of my daughter’s life, as being at home really adds to the time you can bond. The other side of it is that you miss some bonding with work colleagues, and sometimes you feel a bit excluded. In the early days of technology there were issues too. I remember sitting in Birmingham with my home computer only usable via a security device rather like the ones banks sometimes use now, but much less reliable. I was cut off every few minutes. There is no doubt that meeting people physically on a regular basis aids cooperation. One study showed that even being around a corner or on a different floor reduced the effectiveness of work relationships, so imagine how hard it is when your team are dotted around Europe or the World. That is a good thing about Alaska, as it will bring together teams who can benefit from collaboration.
Offices say a lot about companies. Investing in space and light and things like cafes makes sense, as these things affect mood and performance. Think about recent good and bad meetings you have been in, and correlate it with the quality of the meeting room, especially its light. Interesting, yes? But offices can also send signals about hierarchy, modernity, customer attitude. In the early 1990’s I visited the head offices of Sainsbury and Tesco in consecutive weeks. The former in central London was plush, cosseted, complacent, the latter in a suburb next to a warehouse was basic but alive. That told me all I needed to know about the two companies, and their divergence in performance since came as no surprise to me.
What do Shell’s offices communicate today? For me there remains decency to employees, but still too much hierarchy and not enough customer proximity or feel. We had a golden age in the early days of SEOP in the late 1990’s, where in retail we went completely customer crazy. We sold off all the central relics in business districts, and moved into functional spaces, often next door to petrol stations. Then we spent a lot of time travelling between sites on buses, It was a bit manic, but I for one found it inspirational and good. Of course in the end the bureaucrats fought back and we retreated most of the way back to our comfort zone.
Offices and other symbols really speak volumes about a culture. SEOP and our customer revolution was an extreme case. But there are many if you look. The lack of first names on the doors in Germany told you all you needed to know about Deutsche Shell. The Norwegian office where the executive floor could only be reached by a non-public lift sent a clear message, reputedly about the CE’s wife more than anyone else. Westhollow’s “chapel of rest” atmosphere pervaded the whole place. The first office of Shell Bulgaria was a converted apartment in a residential district of Sofia, and was wonderful – such a contrast to the formal stuffiness of the first offices in Poland or the Czech Republic. In Denmark, if you wanted to leave after 16.30 you had to crawl through the basement – sending a clear signal about the work culture there.
So, today’s blog has been a bit of a nostalgic ramble. I must be winding down. Perhaps we can derive a few lessons though. Be ready for change. Be aware of the signals you sent out – what are you pretending, and who to? Always choose well lit meeting rooms. Observe what offices tell you about people and companies, including your own. Customers matter. Celebrate good food and good coffee. Collaboration is easier if you are close together. It is right that we don’t drink at lunchtime now, but how have you replaced that bonding? Chuck out your junk, travel light. Get a home based job when your children are young.
Oh, and don’t ramble when you get old.
My worldly goods I now carry in two small files with my computer. It feels strange how work life has reduced to this, but in truth, I believe most of you could downsize your paper to nearly nothing nowadays, it is all in the computer. In successive moves I’ve gone from 6 boxes to 3 then 2 and now none. It is like having been on a successful diet. Surrounding ourselves with stuff is one of the ways we try to convince ourselves and our colleagues of our significance. A former boss recently retired. As a lawyer brought up in more traditional times, he had retained every file note, every report through his whole career, and his room (and neighbouring rooms too) were full of his files. The day he realized that 99% of it was destined for the shredder was one of the saddest of his life. Individually, we are not that important really, and we should remind ourselves frequently to avoid the sort of pain he experienced.
Offices have changed, due to technology and gradual erosion of status symbols. My first Shell office was looking over the Stand in London, a great location. There was nothing on the desk but a phone – the only accessory NOT on the Alaska workspaces. I could tell who was the boss (and his boss) by the carpet, curtains and colour of wood in the furniture. We had a terminal room where you had to queue to use the computer (in one of my previous summer jobs it was worse – you booked processing time a day in advance and used punched cards as input; one mistake with a card cost you a whole day). There was one restaurant for the normal people (excellent even then, Shell has always fed me well) and one for JG2 and above, with a well-used bar. The building had its own pub, where we had a pint or two for lunch at the slightest excuse. Ah, the good old days. It was critical to be friends with the boss’ secretary, as she was the only way to get anything typed yet she didn’t have any obligation to help. The official alternative was something called a typing pool, out of which I never recall emerging any typing.
I’ve seen some weird offices. For about a third of my career, I’ve been home based. On balance that has been good. The best years of all were the first three years of my daughter’s life, as being at home really adds to the time you can bond. The other side of it is that you miss some bonding with work colleagues, and sometimes you feel a bit excluded. In the early days of technology there were issues too. I remember sitting in Birmingham with my home computer only usable via a security device rather like the ones banks sometimes use now, but much less reliable. I was cut off every few minutes. There is no doubt that meeting people physically on a regular basis aids cooperation. One study showed that even being around a corner or on a different floor reduced the effectiveness of work relationships, so imagine how hard it is when your team are dotted around Europe or the World. That is a good thing about Alaska, as it will bring together teams who can benefit from collaboration.
Offices say a lot about companies. Investing in space and light and things like cafes makes sense, as these things affect mood and performance. Think about recent good and bad meetings you have been in, and correlate it with the quality of the meeting room, especially its light. Interesting, yes? But offices can also send signals about hierarchy, modernity, customer attitude. In the early 1990’s I visited the head offices of Sainsbury and Tesco in consecutive weeks. The former in central London was plush, cosseted, complacent, the latter in a suburb next to a warehouse was basic but alive. That told me all I needed to know about the two companies, and their divergence in performance since came as no surprise to me.
What do Shell’s offices communicate today? For me there remains decency to employees, but still too much hierarchy and not enough customer proximity or feel. We had a golden age in the early days of SEOP in the late 1990’s, where in retail we went completely customer crazy. We sold off all the central relics in business districts, and moved into functional spaces, often next door to petrol stations. Then we spent a lot of time travelling between sites on buses, It was a bit manic, but I for one found it inspirational and good. Of course in the end the bureaucrats fought back and we retreated most of the way back to our comfort zone.
Offices and other symbols really speak volumes about a culture. SEOP and our customer revolution was an extreme case. But there are many if you look. The lack of first names on the doors in Germany told you all you needed to know about Deutsche Shell. The Norwegian office where the executive floor could only be reached by a non-public lift sent a clear message, reputedly about the CE’s wife more than anyone else. Westhollow’s “chapel of rest” atmosphere pervaded the whole place. The first office of Shell Bulgaria was a converted apartment in a residential district of Sofia, and was wonderful – such a contrast to the formal stuffiness of the first offices in Poland or the Czech Republic. In Denmark, if you wanted to leave after 16.30 you had to crawl through the basement – sending a clear signal about the work culture there.
So, today’s blog has been a bit of a nostalgic ramble. I must be winding down. Perhaps we can derive a few lessons though. Be ready for change. Be aware of the signals you sent out – what are you pretending, and who to? Always choose well lit meeting rooms. Observe what offices tell you about people and companies, including your own. Customers matter. Celebrate good food and good coffee. Collaboration is easier if you are close together. It is right that we don’t drink at lunchtime now, but how have you replaced that bonding? Chuck out your junk, travel light. Get a home based job when your children are young.
Oh, and don’t ramble when you get old.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)