2013-05-19T07:27:40-04:00 Alex Jaconelli http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=alex-jaconelli Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Alex Jaconelli Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2615213 2013-02-04T09:29:03-05:00 2013-04-06T05:12:01-04:00

Alex Jaconelli http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-jaconelli/ House of Cards trilogy present on our screens in the early 90's, was going to take some doing. But I do believe Netflix has pulled it off.

Put aside the audacious launch on-line that hammers yet another nail in the coffin of how we consume TV, and the fact that a second season has already been commissioned. For those who find Kevin Spacey's southern-drawlin' conivin' Francis Underwood a delicious proposition as house whip to an incoming American administration, 13 episodes awaits us now....

I've stopped at two, ok three.

And as I burp on the layered cake of political intrigue, game playing and negotiations, a peculiar aftertaste strikes me.

While the writer Beau Williman and directors (David Fincher, a master of this tonality and so far James Foley - Glengarry GlenRoss) set that dystopian landscape supported by dark and guilty flavours, I'm feeling there is an emerging picture, that of the personal consequences of our relationship with the media.

In the original House of Cards Maddie Pryor becomes Urquhart's mouth piece as a necessary but well-challenged route, and the reflected power to Maddie is handled by her in that so familiar English humility. Not so our new Maddie - internet uber-squirrel Zoe Barnes dipping her toes in print media for the first time.

Here an interesting duality emerges, and just to confuse my metaphor, not one but two.

Firstly the fate of print. With some knowing irony, Underwood meets Zoe for their second liaison in a shadow-filled Washington location. "How very deep throat of you", our eager beaver notes. The difference in this era of House of Cards is how speedily we jump to print - a pace far exceeding that of Watergate - a time when standards were in place, corroboration was required. Time was taken.

The second emergent theme however, and this will be interesting to follow should our new Maddie face her English counterpart's downfall - is the opportunity that befalls her, and the tinge of narcissism that is appealed to, as how rapidly we've moved from the golden ticket of getting a byline on the page, to the far loftier but easily attainable goal now of becoming a talking head on TV political issues.

Forgive me, to my second duality.

Claire Underwood, the wife of Frank. Originally we had the woman behind the power, all implied strength yet limited of action. Not here. Claire is the ceo of Clean Water Initiative and is manifesting a management style that troubles the old guard but makes change sudden and targeted (mass redundancies) to afford talent acquisitions that will allow her organisation grow into the modern internet age. Oh dear, are my dualities beginning to overlap?

So there we have it. The sumptuousness of Francis which will appeal to the politicos amongst us brought up on and ready for a more adult meal than the West Wing, and the emerging themes around the nature of how how organisations have to shape up to this new age, for all of us, not just the media/political circus.

I feel the indigestion, and not a little irony, as I post this.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1538694 2012-05-23T07:37:19-04:00 2012-07-23T05:12:05-04:00

Alex Jaconelli http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-jaconelli/
Vince Cable and Nick Clegg were right to challenge this provision (as has been reported) asking "where is the evidence base?". His challenge was not only valid, but there is considerable research evidence against this direction.

Following the principle of unforeseen consequences, Beecroft's suggestion further undermines one of the most poorly conducted management processes I have seen in my career - performance management, and if adopted I would anticipate the worst abuse of this change in the very area the government would like to see productivity increases - the public sector.

So why is Beecroft so wrong?

There is a considerable body of evidence in academic and practitioner research (e.g. The Macleod Report on Employee Engagement to the Dept of Business, Innovation and Skills in 2009) that how individuals and teams are managed can impact productivity.

Put simply, better productivity will be seen in teams where managers who ensure employees have the information and equipment to do their job, allow their workers a degree of latitude over how they do their job and ensure no matter how small a cog they are, their workers feel part of the bigger picture.

Twelve years ago I studied two teams in a production environment. They were measured against a number of areas - including those above. Both worked on the same production line doing the same job, and yet scored at opposite ends of a database for these questions (one at the 5th percentile, one at the 95th). Line efficiency was also significantly different. The team leaders were swapped around, and the line efficiency difference disappeared.

One manager had been conducting team briefings regularly - knew his team well, the culture was good. The other team was led by someone who was somewhat green in management skills. This work was based on a paper by Harvard Business Review in 1998 looking at the American retailer Sears Roebuck - that worker attitude about the job affects productivity; and research by the Gallup Organisation highlighted the extent to which the manager can affect the worker attitude.

So while Beecroft is suggesting that a manager is enabled to sack a worker more simply on grounds of performance, quite simply - the evidence suggests that the performance of the worker can be significantly influenced by the manager. So where does the real fault lie?

Of course if someone is still under-performing - what are you to do? I have been asked to look at under-performance across my career and a sorry tale has often emerged. A manager wants to dismiss someone. Fair enough - let's start the process by looking at the record of performance management. The record going back a few years is of someone who is performing at a satisfactory level. If Beecroft's suggestion is adopted there is less incentive on doing performance management properly, as the decision no longer needs proper justification.

In any kind of relationship breaking down there is a vulnerability to "confirmation bias". We accelerate towards demonising the other party, we over-attend to information that supports a premise and downplay contrary evidence. Performance management - if carried out well - can counter this through creating transparency and better decisions.

Having worked across numerous sectors : FMCG, Retail, Financial, Service, Public and Charity something has struck me over the years. The more timely visibility of a bottom line the more transparent poor management practice becomes. While a bad manager can justify to their boss why someone should be sacked - if team performance doesn't change, at some point the finger comes of blame should come to rest on the manager. In the public sector there tends to be poorer and less timely feedback on performance - so the poor manager evades detection for longer.

Beecroft's recommendation on unfair dismissal is rightly being challenged and I would be surprised if it were adopted, if it were it would be a bad managers charter and all the evidence points to that diminishing productivity. And that would be exactly the opposite of what he is setting out to achieve.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1444555 2012-04-27T10:08:09-04:00 2012-06-27T05:12:02-04:00

Alex Jaconelli http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-jaconelli/ http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alex-jaconelli/a-fish-rots-from-the-head_b_894606.html.

Seems I was wrong - Apparently there was a systematic deception that succeeded in duping Brooks, Murdoch junior and Murdoch senior. Don't look up, look down. Robert Jay QC, the enquiry's chief interrogator, used a style reminiscent of a certain raincoat wearing detective and in the best tradition of Columbo, just one thing. I could only believe this level of deception if another explanation previously put forward by News International by had held water, that of the rogue reporter.

Rogue actions are by definition against the prevailing culture, and usually kept secret by the protagonist for fear of the repercussions of being found out (think Nick Leason, rogue trader). But as we all know that explanation was skewered and it became known that the practice was widespread and long standing. So, it was part of the "ways of working" it would have been known, shared and talked about.

Not withstanding that at least one of the "powerful individuals" has stepped forward to deny the accusation (NOW's chief lawyer Tom Crone), we are left with an apology of the "if only I knew" type. In essence this apology provides the perfect combination of acknowledging the known facts as they currently stand, and avoiding the culpability for the hacking that took place.

This defence smacks of an appropriate construction, and in the absence of further evidence to the contrary may well stand. However given the long standing nature of the behaviour everyone agrees as unacceptable I stand by my initial observation. When you sit atop an organisation your behaviours shape the culture below you, people act in a way to please you since their future depends upon it. This can go wrong (the way patients are shuffled to massage NHS waiting lists being a prime example) but that doesn't excuse the person or people at the top.

What was the motivation to deceive Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch? In the same way that the PM hopes Jeremy Hunt survives as a buffer if nothing else, if he goes the scandal lands at the doorstep of the next person up. If Brooks and Murdoch junior are found to have known more than they are letting on, then the heat is greater on Murdoch senior.

For Murdoch to present himself, his son and Brooks as some kind of victims is the most egregious example of the people at the top (for which they are very well rewarded) ducking responsibility. I can actually believe Murdoch Senior knew nothing of this, but if the evidence finally points to his fellow "victims" being somewhat better informed, he will look somewhat less powerful and not the figure of the "hands on" proprietor we are invited to believe. When it is appropriate of course.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1427984 2012-04-18T19:00:00-04:00 2012-06-18T05:12:02-04:00

Alex Jaconelli http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-jaconelli/ The Economist. Their front page illustration makes light of the portentous financial state that it argues would follow a break up of the union (Skintland, capital city - Edinborrow...) and neither the wit of the cover nor the argument inside has the first minister of Scotland smiling.

The Economist argues that when practical details of the costs hit home, support for independence is softer than current opinion polls might suggest. A practical detail hit home for me recently with more than a little irony as I found myself at the limits of Scotland's healthcare capability.

Some context. In November 2009 after almost a year of being passed between my GP, dentist and the ear, nose and throat clinic, what was previously suggested to me as a dental abscess was diagnosed as a cancerous tumour in my jaw. By that time it had also spread to the lymph nodes in my neck. 

After attempting to get the spread under control the emergence of another tumour on my neck in August last year brought me to a crossroads. It had not come on its own, as a scan revealed another growing in my armpit. A surgical intervention was deemed too complicated and risky, the clinical advice was... go home and prepare for the worst.

I decided it was too soon to throw in the towel and I looked to the other side of the Atlantic.

Having cashed in all my chips, I rolled up with my fighting fund at the Memorial Sloan Kettering in New York. They concluded they could help, but pointed out that with any kind of set back the impact on costs could bankrupt me. They did however recommend I try an establishment a little closer to home and pointed me in the direction of the Royal Marsden in Chelsea.

So I am now an NHS patient in London. By way of New York.

Last month I had the operation to remove the tumour from my neck - which thankfully was successful but I've lost six months since the procedure was declined in Scotland, and time is critical when fighting cancer. Next up is the tumour under my arm, we are still in the fight, fighting is hope, and hope is everything.  

When I complained to my oncologist in Edinburgh last year that my diagnosis had taken too long, she agreed but pointed out she couldn't blame any one person. In my profession we call that a systemic failure, and here is where the irony kicks in. The person at the head of this particular system, the minister with the health remit in Scotland (and Salmond's deputy) Nicola Sturgeon was a contemporary of mine at University where we occasionally crossed swords in the self-important chamber of student politics.

Back then as now I find the argument for independence unconvincing, but in returning to Scotland to set up a business after almost 10 years in London I should have been something of a poster child for the SNP - creating jobs and contributing to the economy.

To be clear I don't think for a minute that Salmond or Sturgeon or the hard working NHS teams I've encountered in Scotland are particularly at fault here. It's just that sometimes, no matter how progressive your policies are there are advantages to being part of a bigger system where rare and complicated cases like mine are quite simply more common. As for benefits to Scotland's size? Well one could reasonably argue pace, urgency and better join up between front-line and specialist services should follow. Alas not in my experience.

So the burning question then is, if Scotland becomes independent would I still be able to be referred to hospitals in England? I can't take any chances, and at the moment while I would prefer to stay put in Edinburgh, I'm looking to relocate to the vicinity of the hospital that is willing and able to treat me, in London. Otherwise the cost of independence could be too great for me.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1073284 2011-11-03T07:27:02-04:00 2012-01-03T05:12:02-05:00

Alex Jaconelli http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-jaconelli/
He has reported to the government on how to "lift the burden of red tape from small to medium-sized businesses, which lack the human resources departments and expertise to deal with complex tribunal" since in his analysis a proportion of employees "coast along... secure in the knowledge that their employees will be reluctant to dismiss them."

Well actually I'm not. And to be honest the oversimplification in what has been reported in his analysis (and echoed in pieces by Luke Johnson in the FT) is infuriating to anyone with insight into systems for managing and motivating human capital. Throwing some red meat to the slackers/benefit cheats/immigrants brigade isn't going to get to the heart of this particular problem.

But let's first be honest about a few things - of course there are ridiculous examples of compensation being paid to individuals who feel harshly treated as applicants and employees, and we should also take into consideration large sums paid out in compromise deals because it will probably be cheaper than contesting a claim of unfair dismissal. (Interestingly though, the example quoted by Luke Johnson - £4000 compensation for a 10 minute interview that injured the applicants feelings which I agree with him was ludicrous - was four years ago).
We should break this down sensibly.

The CIPD has correctly pointed out that performance management systems, properly followed afford a perfectly efficient method of exiting an under-performer from an organisation. Unfortunately for many small businesses the type of performance management systems they refer to rely on an HR capability they do not have, or consultancy they cannot afford.

Even when systems are in place however the problem still exists. I have been called on several times in my career to assist in the exiting of an "under-performer." When I ask the manager for the record of performance management I have been horrified to find a record of perfectly acceptable ratings, often stretching back years. In companies of scale, where there are systems in place - the problem of underperformance can be as much if not more an issue of management capability.

The employment entry point is also critical. Over the past year a number of my clients have raised concerns that their capability in the area of assessing and selecting the skills and talents they require has been neglected. Productivity research indicates that someone who is the right fit for the job, over someone who is simply adequate will have an output at least 30% higher. The more complicated and senior the role the higher this figure becomes.

So - this is a red herring to the Daily Mail brigade. An evidence-based approach would suggest two things. For larger employees make use of the systems you have - and if it still isn't working, chances are it is your managers that are to blame. For small employers, the Government should look to helping them make the best selection and management decisions around their human capital - though economic development agencies for example.

There are simple low-cost methods that would have helped the employer quoted by Luke Johnson not only avoid the legal issues - but identify the best fit person for the job.

Many of these issues can be resolved before they come anywhere near a court, and a reactionary headline. There would probably be less votes in that though, oh well...]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.988505 2011-09-30T07:46:22-04:00 2011-11-30T05:12:03-05:00

Alex Jaconelli http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-jaconelli/ Masterchef Australia (Watch weekdays at 8pm) while on holiday in Sydney a couple of years ago and my initial reaction was that it was a mash-up of formats akin to Aussie rules football.

The format was a build on the UK version but with some significant twists, which in turn was a reboot of Lloyd Grossman's original incarnation (1990-2000). His mid-Atlantic drawl, informing viewers he was retiring with the guest judge to "cogitate, digest and deliberate" over the perfect three-course meal contestants had come up with had an air of polite English domesticity.

It says a great deal for the success of the reboot in the UK that there is such a lack of nostalgia for what it replaced. The programme re-launch in 2005 saw chef Jon Torode and critic Gregg Wallace front a pacier format freed from the studio that presented broader challenges, truly "cooking doesn't get tougher than this".

Masterchef Australia is a television phenomenon in its domestic market. Launched in 2009, it is now in its third season with the core of chefs Gary Mehigan, George Calombaris and critic Matt Preston The previous two season finales were the most watched programmes of the year, and have entered the top ten of the most watched programmes on Australian television ever. When on air, it is scheduled primetime on Network Ten six nights out of seven.

The UK format has been tweaked as a nod to its Australian cousin, and Gordon Ramsey now leads an American version that is a derivation of the Oz rather than UK format.

So what is it that the Australians have?

There is of course a glorious backdrop - the waterfront of Sydney with the morning sun glistening in the bay is the view as the contestants awake in the "Masterchef House". With almost nightly viewing, we are drawn into the drama for each of the characters as they progress.

As we progress through the week we move through different challenges at an individual and team level that take us into the kitchens of Australia's best restaurants as well as field challenges. The great and good of the country's culinary talent is on view as guests enter the kitchen to put challenges to the contestants, and in some cases - go head to head with them.

The Friday edition sees the chef/presenters take to their whites and deliver a master-class to the contestants and the achievements of the week are celebrated.

But while the format has enough twists and turns to keep us engaged through the week, I don't think this is where the popularity stems from. My knee jerk aversion to reality television comes from the implicit or explicit humiliation that seems to be part and parcel of the drama, whether it be cringe-worthy scenarios or competitive situations where disaster will befall the loser.

This is reality television where there is always a happy ending as each departing contestant is warmly encouraged on their way out of the kitchen to be followed as they are re-united with friends and family, and we find out how they are continuing to follow their culinary dream.

For anyone who has enjoyed a holiday down under - you will recognize that balance of hard work, optimism and positivity that could never emanate from a country where two weeks of good weather a year is our lot.

Does it focus enough on the food? I think it does, but it also showcases the dreams and adventures of 24 amateur chefs getting to know each other as we get to know them. I'm still not convinced about Aussie Rules, but Masterchef Australia packs a message about celebrating food that is infectious, and authentically Australian. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.988509 2011-09-30T07:46:22-04:00 2011-11-30T05:12:03-05:00

Alex Jaconelli http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-jaconelli/ Masterchef Australia (Watch weekdays at 8pm) while on holiday in Sydney a couple of years ago and my initial reaction was that it was a mash-up of formats akin to Aussie rules football.

The format was a build on the UK version but with some significant twists, which in turn was a reboot of Lloyd Grossman's original incarnation (1990-2000). His mid-Atlantic drawl, informing viewers he was retiring with the guest judge to "cogitate, digest and deliberate" over the perfect three-course meal contestants had come up with had an air of polite English domesticity.

It says a great deal for the success of the reboot in the UK that there is such a lack of nostalgia for what it replaced. The programme re-launch in 2005 saw chef Jon Torode and critic Gregg Wallace front a pacier format freed from the studio that presented broader challenges, truly "cooking doesn't get tougher than this".

Masterchef Australia is a television phenomenon in its domestic market. Launched in 2009, it is now in its third season with the core of chefs Gary Mehigan, George Calombaris and critic Matt Preston The previous two season finales were the most watched programmes of the year, and have entered the top ten of the most watched programmes on Australian television ever. When on air, it is scheduled primetime on Network Ten six nights out of seven.

The UK format has been tweaked as a nod to its Australian cousin, and Gordon Ramsey now leads an American version that is a derivation of the Oz rather than UK format.

So what is it that the Australians have?

There is of course a glorious backdrop - the waterfront of Sydney with the morning sun glistening in the bay is the view as the contestants awake in the "Masterchef House". With almost nightly viewing, we are drawn into the drama for each of the characters as they progress.

As we progress through the week we move through different challenges at an individual and team level that take us into the kitchens of Australia's best restaurants as well as field challenges. The great and good of the country's culinary talent is on view as guests enter the kitchen to put challenges to the contestants, and in some cases - go head to head with them.

The Friday edition sees the chef/presenters take to their whites and deliver a master-class to the contestants and the achievements of the week are celebrated.

But while the format has enough twists and turns to keep us engaged through the week, I don't think this is where the popularity stems from. My knee jerk aversion to reality television comes from the implicit or explicit humiliation that seems to be part and parcel of the drama, whether it be cringe-worthy scenarios or competitive situations where disaster will befall the loser.

This is reality television where there is always a happy ending as each departing contestant is warmly encouraged on their way out of the kitchen to be followed as they are re-united with friends and family, and we find out how they are continuing to follow their culinary dream.

For anyone who has enjoyed a holiday down under - you will recognize that balance of hard work, optimism and positivity that could never emanate from a country where two weeks of good weather a year is our lot.

Does it focus enough on the food? I think it does, but it also showcases the dreams and adventures of 24 amateur chefs getting to know each other as we get to know them. I'm still not convinced about Aussie Rules, but Masterchef Australia packs a message about celebrating food that is infectious, and authentically Australian. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.919908 2011-08-05T16:21:47-04:00 2011-10-05T05:12:01-04:00

Alex Jaconelli http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-jaconelli/
I have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiment he expressed, having worked in the public sector as a consultant and employee, and like many people experiencing service from the sublime to the ridiculous - but if he is referring to front line employees he is allowing the greatest culprits to escape critical scrutiny and a necessary look in the mirror.

I've known many people, talented people, who sought out careers in the public sector above financial reward because that was what was most important to them - doing a job where you can make an impact on the lives of those less fortunate, vulnerable, or work to make our society and its systems more effective.

And they end up leaving not because they have lost any of the commitment around what they have wanted to do - but that they have tired of poor management and leadership that is over controlling, telling them not just what to do but how. Park your brain at the door - and do what you are told.

I'm not saying that every private sector employer is going to be better, far from it, but in my experience when there is an obvious bottom line poor management style can become visible sooner. Some of the most odious politics and power games I've witnessed have been in public sector organisations. Levels of turnover and productivity can be blamed on other circumstances only so often - eventually a poor manager can or will be found out before they do more harm.

So Mr Letwin, here is a suggestion.

Identify the organisations that concern you most, and let's start from the top. Are the leaders up to the job? Are the managers up to the job? Effective people at this level can turn the organisation around by improving productivity and performance through how they lead and manage.

What is it they do?

There are patterns that emerge from research into effective teams, job satisfaction and even work stress. They create clarity of role, they allow employees to have a degree of involvement in how they do their job, they help them see how their job, no matter how small, fits into the big picture - and they praise and recognize good performance frequently.

I'm struggling to recall anything about fear in the literature. But a feature of great managers is also that they help people realize if they are in the wrong job, and move on with a degree of dignity rather than being labelled as poor performers.

You see, many employees in the public sector already live in fear, from the incompetence and ineptitude of those who manage and lead them.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.904197 2011-07-20T06:57:33-04:00 2011-09-19T05:12:02-04:00

Alex Jaconelli http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-jaconelli/
Humility in Leadership is important. Many commentators and experts on Leadership have touched upon this. In his account of his research into the factors behind corporate research - "Good to Great", Jim Collins describes that almost paradox of individuals who are driven with great will, but also possess humility.

Why is it so healthy? The characteristics of the leader with humility cause them to act for the benefit of the organisation as a whole. But according to Collins it is so much more. They readily look to themselves to apportion responsibility for poor results or mistakes (witch hunts can be terribly bad for productivity and morale), and they look to others to take their share of responsibility for success. They seek to create conditions for even greater success for the generation that succeeds them.

Smart boards and investors like this. It is about the future, and increased share value to support their retirement and the interests of other shareholders. Employees like it as it shows they are being led by someone authentically human - with frailties just like them. So has Rupert Murdoch displayed humility in leadership?

The comments he made to the Wall Street Journal that in handling the scandal management he had made only a few "minor mistakes" which appeared only a few days ago have served to undermine the appearance of humility, however a real indicator came at the end of questioning today from the Conservative MP for Corby Louise Mensch. "...Mr Murdoch this terrible thing happened on your watch - have you considered resigning?" The resolute response was "No" - it was for other people who have "let him down" to resign.

Not withstanding whether resigning would have been sensible (and a debate is raging as to the impact this will have on the share price of News Corp), the consideration of resignation would have suggested a man looking carefully at himself to consider if he could have prevented this. So it would seem he has fallen a little short, and if you haven't considered resigning because of events that have led to the most humbling day of your life, you probably never will.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.894606 2011-07-12T11:13:39-04:00 2011-09-11T05:12:02-04:00

Alex Jaconelli http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-jaconelli/ News of the World I had no knowledge whatsoever of phone hacking in the case of Milly Dowler and her family, or in any other cases during my tenure,' she wrote.

With this statement she shed a light on the kind of leader she was when in post as editor of the News of the World.

The person at the top of any organisation has the responsibility for the big decisions - but effective leaders also set expectations through their lieutenants, their own behaviour and communications throughout the organisation that set the tone, climate and culture. When someone is faced with a decision, no matter how many levels away from the leader they are, the "culture" implicit and explicit should inform the call to make.

It is a principle implicit in the old saying "a fish rots from the head". When dysfunctional organisations or situations where there are systemic failings are studied - invariably a large proportion of the blame is placed at the feet of the person at the top. There are usually one or more of the following failings at play:

• They knew about a situation and failed to act


• They knew about a situation and their action failed


• They were unable to shape and lead the organization in such a way the situation would never arise - regardless of whether they knew about specific instances or not

It is on this last point where her leadership may have been somewhat lacking. To be fair to Rebekah Brooks (six words you'll not read anywhere else I'll bet...) her rise was meteoric and she was a young editor in a hurry during her time in charge of the NoW - the finer points of how to make the best organization wide impact as the leader will not have been top of her agenda. And yet it is on this criteria that many executives of any age and length of experience fail.

She has been profiled as the consummate networker and schmoozer - but what of her leadership to set the agenda, strategy and way of working and her own management style that would have set clear expectations throughout the organisation?

Rebekah Brooks is not the first and certainly won't be the last young leader who has fallen foul over the wider demands of leadership and impact on the organization for which they are responsible. By claiming she knew nothing means we need to look higher up the chain to find the leadership capability that may have averted this mire. Ah yes, oh well...]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.895613 2011-07-12T11:12:34-04:00 2011-09-11T05:12:02-04:00

Alex Jaconelli http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-jaconelli/
Yes, and hopefully yes - and that is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, quite the opposite.

Time was when there were people at the BBC known as the "Bafta Bastards". They were untouchable because of what they had attained - they could call the shots and were politically powerful enough to make the lives of other uncomfortable.

The trouble with the "Bafta Bastard's" is that everything was about them - rather than the encouragement and development of talent five or ten years down the line. The move to Salford can be argued in terms of the investment of the license fee up and down the land, both in infrastructure spending and job creation.

But I would argue that the move of programming to Salford (and Glasgow) is part of a braver move that,contrary to the opinion of Mr Clarkson, could have a positive impact in the long term development of broadcasting talent in the UK.

The visibility of media roles drives aspirations. There are regional broadcasters certainly but they are not the powerhouses of production that they once were. The presence of the BBC brand and BBC jobs up and down the country will turn more children and young adults to the range of occupations possible.

Then there is the diversity angle. In the strongest sense of the word it is about truly utilising the talents of people from all backgrounds - not for some higher moral reason but to ensure that the organization has access to more people with the potential to be great across all the professions that support and sustain the broadcasting industry.

Not everyone can be in London and the best people may finally make their way to the metropolis, however, here is an opportunity to develop and stretch talented people drawing from and developing skills in a wider pool to build a stronger pipeline of talent for the BBC and the industry in general.

Salford may not be to everyone's taste but it represents a significant piece of strategy on the part of an organisation often paralysed by the levels of criticism and scrutiny it operates under. So if it is a choice of investing in the "Bafta Bastards" or the future, the movement of productions and spending outside London is a vote for the latter. And for the record - I'm not sure whether Jeremy Clarkson has a Bafta...]]>