"Enterprise in Education" is an area which has always facinated me - ever since my time in school! There is no doubt that the concept of ensuring that our young people are shown the benefits of enterprising behaviour is a good one. My problem is with how it is being implemented. Like so many initiatives it gets watered down as it passes through various bodies until it is no longer recognisable.
I have come across several schools that display truly inspirational leadership in this field and I will return to them in the future. But why is it that so few schools want to embrace what is one of the key skills required for any job seeker or fledgling entrepreneur?
I can only speak in broad terms on this subject and I acknowledge that there will always be exceptions. Each secondary school has a budget for enterprise (c£15k on average) and as befits the subject has full authority to spend it as it sees fit. If you look at the Teachernet site which gives guidance on the subject it is enough to drive any businessman to tears of frustration. There is little innovation evidenced, a propensity to gravitate to links with other educational institutions, and well worn tilts towards "ticking the box".
This is a subject where the major industry bodies, BERR and individual companies need to wrestle the agenda away from DCSF. There needs to be fresh thinking in this arena and more political will expended to become a truly enterprising society. So many children are enterprising in different ways and yet instead of harnessing this we seek to squeeze it out of them in an attempt to conform.
How many successful entrepreneurs were "straight A" students at school? How many were considered "troublesome"? I will bet that the latter far exceeds the former. Now is the time for us to develop the type of individuals who will make a real difference to our future by fostering and encouraging enterprise in its varied forms. EVERY school should have a clear enterprise programme which is evidenced day by day in the ethos of the school.
As a company we find it very difficult to offer our help to schools as there is little desire to work with industry apart from the annual work experience request. So what is the solution? Well we need to start off by engaging the teachers, enthusing them and showing how it will benefit them and their students. Without the active support of teaching staff this experiment will go nowhere. The question is do we start with a few and then let the message spread or try all at once? I would suggest that the budgets are withdrawn and reallocated to schools who produce a plan of action on what they will do. Make it a competition and it will attract the enterprising schools who will get a decent amount of money to deliver their aims. Next year the winning schools have to partner with a non participating school and spread the practice and so on. Parents will soon get to know if their school is dragging its feet!
Too radical to implement no doubt!
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
One and a half cheers for Chris Grayling
I was reading an article written a little while ago by Chris Grayling - the shadow work and pension secretary. There were some good ideas outlined, and if the political spin and point scoring is put aside, then the general thrust of potential future Conservative party policy on job creation is worth at least one and a half cheers! It was a relief to see it acknowledged that the growth in the economy is going to come from innovative small businesses and that they are the only real source of sustainable jobs growth. Too often we see undue emphasis placed on short term protectionism or assistance for uneconomic large players or the celebration of yet more public sector posts.
We need to rediscover the enterprise and entrepreneurial zeal which has made Britain "Great". Rather than spend fortunes propping up the past let's concentrate on the future. What I want to see from any government are policies which make setting up and running a business easy. REAL reduction in bureacracy, lower but fair taxation policies, incentives for job creation etc.
Chris Grayling referred to places such as Canada where new business creation from welfare to work programmes have been particularly successful. We have a version of this option now through the New Deal but it is very much the "forgotten option". The proposals to get 20,000 new businesses a year created are very much welcomed but some of the detail is suspect. It is the thought that he is expecting businesses such as ours to fund the programmes and then reclaim costs through benefits saved that worry me. Taking into account the average time taken to start a business and then the time for the benefit savings to be realised mean that it could be 12 months before we would be paid - not a model that we would recommend to our clients! How many people are going to put the time and effort into helping those who need it most when the financial pay back is so uncertain?
I have confidence in what assistance we provide to such clients and indeed we set up about 2.5% of Chris Graylings annual target and have done consistently for 27 years. So Mr Grayling if you want to get three cheers and help refine your policy into a workable process why dont you get in contact with me? As we are politically neutral I open this opportunity to any of the main political parties. Come and see what the experts "on the ground" actually do and it will probably surprise and enthuse you.
The answers are out there - you only need to ask the right questions.
We need to rediscover the enterprise and entrepreneurial zeal which has made Britain "Great". Rather than spend fortunes propping up the past let's concentrate on the future. What I want to see from any government are policies which make setting up and running a business easy. REAL reduction in bureacracy, lower but fair taxation policies, incentives for job creation etc.
Chris Grayling referred to places such as Canada where new business creation from welfare to work programmes have been particularly successful. We have a version of this option now through the New Deal but it is very much the "forgotten option". The proposals to get 20,000 new businesses a year created are very much welcomed but some of the detail is suspect. It is the thought that he is expecting businesses such as ours to fund the programmes and then reclaim costs through benefits saved that worry me. Taking into account the average time taken to start a business and then the time for the benefit savings to be realised mean that it could be 12 months before we would be paid - not a model that we would recommend to our clients! How many people are going to put the time and effort into helping those who need it most when the financial pay back is so uncertain?
I have confidence in what assistance we provide to such clients and indeed we set up about 2.5% of Chris Graylings annual target and have done consistently for 27 years. So Mr Grayling if you want to get three cheers and help refine your policy into a workable process why dont you get in contact with me? As we are politically neutral I open this opportunity to any of the main political parties. Come and see what the experts "on the ground" actually do and it will probably surprise and enthuse you.
The answers are out there - you only need to ask the right questions.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Faces of the future?
NWES is a sponsor of the EDP Future50 - an attempt to find the key people who will be shaping our region in the years to come. Yesterday we had the first meeting of the "wise men" (and woman!) who will be attempting to judge the applications. It was a fascinating meeting which had a considerable discussion on what we mean by "entrepreneur" and what (if any) criteria should be set for the Future50.
We agreed that in any list there has to be some criteria set to ensure that we compare like with like. In brief, the list should comprise of people not companies - i.e. individuals or teams - who demonstrate a number of characteristics which mean that they will make a difference. It is not all turnover or profit driven - a point which I was very vocal on as this is only one measure of success and not necessarily the best one. So those social entrepreneurs who will influence our future have a real chance to make the list.
This is shaping up to be a really interesting project and one which will set many people thinking. So what makes an entrepreneur? A library of books have been written in recent years on this subject and of course there is no single definition which encompasses all of the research and opinion. I would suggest that an entrepreneur is defined more by their characteristics. In my experience there is a degree of commonality which would encompass the following:
- A leader not necessarily a manager
- Driven by a desire to succeed
- Tough and with a fierce independant streak
- Opportunistic and often ingenious
- Optomistic sometimes bordering on over confidence
- Possessed of a vision and passion combined with determination
- A calculated risk taker capable of making quick decisions
Of course this is by no means a complete list but gives a flavour of the "spirit of enterprise" which flows through every budding entrepreneur. I will return to these characteristics in greater detail in future posts. What would you add to the list and do you know someone who should enter? If so encourage them to do so at:
http://business.edp24.co.uk/content/specials/Future50/default.aspx
We agreed that in any list there has to be some criteria set to ensure that we compare like with like. In brief, the list should comprise of people not companies - i.e. individuals or teams - who demonstrate a number of characteristics which mean that they will make a difference. It is not all turnover or profit driven - a point which I was very vocal on as this is only one measure of success and not necessarily the best one. So those social entrepreneurs who will influence our future have a real chance to make the list.
This is shaping up to be a really interesting project and one which will set many people thinking. So what makes an entrepreneur? A library of books have been written in recent years on this subject and of course there is no single definition which encompasses all of the research and opinion. I would suggest that an entrepreneur is defined more by their characteristics. In my experience there is a degree of commonality which would encompass the following:
- A leader not necessarily a manager
- Driven by a desire to succeed
- Tough and with a fierce independant streak
- Opportunistic and often ingenious
- Optomistic sometimes bordering on over confidence
- Possessed of a vision and passion combined with determination
- A calculated risk taker capable of making quick decisions
Of course this is by no means a complete list but gives a flavour of the "spirit of enterprise" which flows through every budding entrepreneur. I will return to these characteristics in greater detail in future posts. What would you add to the list and do you know someone who should enter? If so encourage them to do so at:
http://business.edp24.co.uk/content/specials/Future50/default.aspx
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Chickens Hugh and Tesco too!
I was contemplating my last post when watching the TV programme "Chickens, Hugh and Tesco too". I have been following this intriguing position in the news since it started and watching the events as they unfolded on the small screen made me consider the ethics of Tesco in this case. I have always been a reluctant supermarket shopper preferring to shop at local independants - and indeed I refuse to buy meat from a supermarket as it is generally tastless, filled with unwanted supplements and usually more expensive than your local butcher.
The way in which Tesco has behaved in this instance is an example of everything which I hate about how some businesses operate. They have been obstructive, bullying, evasive, stretching of the truth and interested in nothing but profit. Those institutions which invest in Tesco on our behalf (pension funds etc) were spineless and whilst I acknowledge that TV editing can sometimes present a biased picture, in this case I think that the general message was acurate.
The disregard for their reputation by Tesco is worrying but I have the feeling that this may be of greater importance than they yet believe. No one likes a bully and Tesco exhibits all of the traits expected of the playground tyrant. They have their day but eventually someone stands up to them and once that aura of invincibility is punctured the decline has started.
I probably do not spend more than a few hundred pounds per annum in Tesco and so I am of no importance to their profits but from now on I will not use Tesco until they show some moral fibre, an understanding of the communities which they claim to serve and the highest ethical standards in their trading. My clubcard is being returned to Sir Terry Leahy with a request that any unused points are donated to Compassion in World Farming to support Freedom Food as a minimum industry standard. I will not register on his radar or probably get any acknowledgement but if everyone did the same then they would have to take notice.
In the meantime take my challenge - do not buy any supermarket meat for one week and use your local butcher instead. You will find a big difference in taste, a friendly smile and who knows maybe a few more pence in your pocket. Then see if you want to buy Tesco chicken again.
Businesses need ethics!
P.S. I highly recommend the butchers at Walsingham Farm Shop in Norfolk - superb meat all reared within a few miles of the shop!
The way in which Tesco has behaved in this instance is an example of everything which I hate about how some businesses operate. They have been obstructive, bullying, evasive, stretching of the truth and interested in nothing but profit. Those institutions which invest in Tesco on our behalf (pension funds etc) were spineless and whilst I acknowledge that TV editing can sometimes present a biased picture, in this case I think that the general message was acurate.
The disregard for their reputation by Tesco is worrying but I have the feeling that this may be of greater importance than they yet believe. No one likes a bully and Tesco exhibits all of the traits expected of the playground tyrant. They have their day but eventually someone stands up to them and once that aura of invincibility is punctured the decline has started.
I probably do not spend more than a few hundred pounds per annum in Tesco and so I am of no importance to their profits but from now on I will not use Tesco until they show some moral fibre, an understanding of the communities which they claim to serve and the highest ethical standards in their trading. My clubcard is being returned to Sir Terry Leahy with a request that any unused points are donated to Compassion in World Farming to support Freedom Food as a minimum industry standard. I will not register on his radar or probably get any acknowledgement but if everyone did the same then they would have to take notice.
In the meantime take my challenge - do not buy any supermarket meat for one week and use your local butcher instead. You will find a big difference in taste, a friendly smile and who knows maybe a few more pence in your pocket. Then see if you want to buy Tesco chicken again.
Businesses need ethics!
P.S. I highly recommend the butchers at Walsingham Farm Shop in Norfolk - superb meat all reared within a few miles of the shop!
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
A question of ethics?
The current hot topic occupying much of the newsprint and airwaves is the revelation that certain members of the House of Lords (allegedly) were prepared to take money to make changes to the law. If this is shown to be true then to me it is much worse than the "cash for questions" affair as it involves changing the law of the land to benefit particular companies.
This raises the question of ethics in business and how/if they are applied. In my business life I have had dealings with companies as diverse as sole traders to multi nationals and in the overwhelming majority of cases I have witnessed the business conducted to the highest standard of business practice. I do understand the desire for a business to outshine its competition via any legal way possible, but to me equally culpable in the House of Lords case as the hapless peers, are the companies that sought to change the law of the state to their corporate advantage. To me this shows a complete lack of moral fibre, any semblance of business ethics and a total disregard for the welfare of the British public.
It is vital that busines is conducted to high ethical standards. This does not prevent successful companies from outsellimg poorer competitors or a constant evolution in the means of doing business e.g. internet trading. No business should be able to buy influence or changes to the law. This is quite frankly wrong in my opinion and debases the concept of enterprise in the minds of the general public. In recent years the thought of starting an enterprise has become more accepted as we have shaken off the "Del Boy" and "Arthur Daley" image of business people but this episode sets us back to the beginning.
We are told that there is no sanction for misbehaving peers other than a mild scolding and I am sure that the laws (if any) that were shown to have been changed will not be revisited. Again we are informed that reform to the House of Lords is too complicated but quite frankly these are excuses for inaction. How difficult is it to implement rules which absolutely preclude any such incentives for influence and have the sanction of a loss of title for peers and fines for companies? Common sense really but there will be an army of people looking at why it cannot be done rather than why it should be done.
Business ethics are vital to retain trust and confidence which are in short supply. Lets sort this matter out now - suspend any peer suspected of complicity and name and shame those businesses seeking unfair advantage banning them from both Houses and ensuring that any gains made are repaid into an industry fund for the benefit of all. I am tired of excuses for unethical practice - make the punishments sufficient to deter all but the crinimally insane.
This raises the question of ethics in business and how/if they are applied. In my business life I have had dealings with companies as diverse as sole traders to multi nationals and in the overwhelming majority of cases I have witnessed the business conducted to the highest standard of business practice. I do understand the desire for a business to outshine its competition via any legal way possible, but to me equally culpable in the House of Lords case as the hapless peers, are the companies that sought to change the law of the state to their corporate advantage. To me this shows a complete lack of moral fibre, any semblance of business ethics and a total disregard for the welfare of the British public.
It is vital that busines is conducted to high ethical standards. This does not prevent successful companies from outsellimg poorer competitors or a constant evolution in the means of doing business e.g. internet trading. No business should be able to buy influence or changes to the law. This is quite frankly wrong in my opinion and debases the concept of enterprise in the minds of the general public. In recent years the thought of starting an enterprise has become more accepted as we have shaken off the "Del Boy" and "Arthur Daley" image of business people but this episode sets us back to the beginning.
We are told that there is no sanction for misbehaving peers other than a mild scolding and I am sure that the laws (if any) that were shown to have been changed will not be revisited. Again we are informed that reform to the House of Lords is too complicated but quite frankly these are excuses for inaction. How difficult is it to implement rules which absolutely preclude any such incentives for influence and have the sanction of a loss of title for peers and fines for companies? Common sense really but there will be an army of people looking at why it cannot be done rather than why it should be done.
Business ethics are vital to retain trust and confidence which are in short supply. Lets sort this matter out now - suspend any peer suspected of complicity and name and shame those businesses seeking unfair advantage banning them from both Houses and ensuring that any gains made are repaid into an industry fund for the benefit of all. I am tired of excuses for unethical practice - make the punishments sufficient to deter all but the crinimally insane.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
A Banking crisis or the loss of common sense?
Much has been written about the banks recently with some attempting to lay all of the blame for the current woes on irresponsible lending. To be fair many Banks and bankers deserve the brickbats being thrown their way. A crass rush for short term profit and individual reward at the expense of long held values, care for the customer and simple common sense has seen many of our most august institutions brought to their knees. The reality is that much of the cause for the recession can be pinpointed elsewhere but it is the rescue of the banks that holds the key to the speed in which we exit decline and experience growth.
Reading the plethora of comment would lead you to concur that the means of rescue are complex and beyond the understanding of "mere mortals". I would disagree. Of course some of the operations are fiendishly complex but the strategy should encompass a huge "dollop" of common sense. Much as Margaret Thatcher was derided by nearly every economist when she came to power with her household economics approach (remember the full page press adverts by the economists telling her she was wrong? I wonder what they felt seeing her policies transform this country in a way that no other person has in living memory - although I am the first to acknowledge that mistakes were made.) a clear, well thought out and comon sense plan is needed now.
The medicine is going to be nasty but I do not want to see constant PR exercises by the government with half thought out announcements. What due dilligence was undertaken with the first bail out of banks? Not a lot guaging from the current surprise at the level of bad debts. Lets have a clear, well articulated, simple strategy to sort this out and then stick to it. Encourage saving and well thought out business lending, curtail easy credit for personal purchases and outlaw trading in"financial instruments" that few understand and have no basis in the real economy.
When the time comes for recriminations then we can find out which executives were irresponsible, which Board members were asleep and failing in their duty and what the so called regulators were doing. Appropriate sanctions such as removal of titles and awards, freezing of pensions due to gross negligence and recovering bonuses paid under false pretences are some high profile solutions. The arrogance of those who played with and lost other peoples money cannot go unpunished or public confidence will not return. But first let us concentrate on sorting out the mess before we look for the culprits.
Banking has a huge role to play in our economic prosperity but it is based on 400 years of trust which has been lost in a few months and years. Rebuild that relationship and we can get back to building a country on a firm base not the shifting sand of easy credit.
Reading the plethora of comment would lead you to concur that the means of rescue are complex and beyond the understanding of "mere mortals". I would disagree. Of course some of the operations are fiendishly complex but the strategy should encompass a huge "dollop" of common sense. Much as Margaret Thatcher was derided by nearly every economist when she came to power with her household economics approach (remember the full page press adverts by the economists telling her she was wrong? I wonder what they felt seeing her policies transform this country in a way that no other person has in living memory - although I am the first to acknowledge that mistakes were made.) a clear, well thought out and comon sense plan is needed now.
The medicine is going to be nasty but I do not want to see constant PR exercises by the government with half thought out announcements. What due dilligence was undertaken with the first bail out of banks? Not a lot guaging from the current surprise at the level of bad debts. Lets have a clear, well articulated, simple strategy to sort this out and then stick to it. Encourage saving and well thought out business lending, curtail easy credit for personal purchases and outlaw trading in"financial instruments" that few understand and have no basis in the real economy.
When the time comes for recriminations then we can find out which executives were irresponsible, which Board members were asleep and failing in their duty and what the so called regulators were doing. Appropriate sanctions such as removal of titles and awards, freezing of pensions due to gross negligence and recovering bonuses paid under false pretences are some high profile solutions. The arrogance of those who played with and lost other peoples money cannot go unpunished or public confidence will not return. But first let us concentrate on sorting out the mess before we look for the culprits.
Banking has a huge role to play in our economic prosperity but it is based on 400 years of trust which has been lost in a few months and years. Rebuild that relationship and we can get back to building a country on a firm base not the shifting sand of easy credit.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Why bother having a strategy?
Every year NWES holds a "Strategy Week" where all of the staff members within the company are involved in helping set our strategy, objectives and action plans. We have just completed this years'. Many people and organisations wonder why we:
1. Allow staff a say in the strategic direction of the company
2. Spend a week a year on it
3. Bother having a strategic plan
To me the idea of involving everyone in helping set strategy is common sense. It harnesses the thoughts and ideas of everyone not just a chosen few, there is a greater diversity of opinion and those operating "on the ground" know just where strategy falls down! This is the most important week in the year as far as I am concerned as we have the chance to analyse what works, what does not, what we can change and what we should leave well alone.
Spending a week a year is only 2% of the annual time available and this means that we do not have to spend copious amounts of time, energy and cost in communicating our ideas to all of the staff members - value for money!
Without a plan the business drifts and having firmly driven NWES to the top of our profession I have no intention of letting us drift anywhere!
We have finished the week with a set of organisational strategic objectives, team action plans to deliver those objectives and most importantly the desire of the staff to achieve them. I do not set any targets - the teams do that themselves and they invariably set levels at the top end of expectations, and yet they always deliver.
I will return to this subject in more detail in future posts explaining what and how we do during this important week. It's great having wonderful staff!
1. Allow staff a say in the strategic direction of the company
2. Spend a week a year on it
3. Bother having a strategic plan
To me the idea of involving everyone in helping set strategy is common sense. It harnesses the thoughts and ideas of everyone not just a chosen few, there is a greater diversity of opinion and those operating "on the ground" know just where strategy falls down! This is the most important week in the year as far as I am concerned as we have the chance to analyse what works, what does not, what we can change and what we should leave well alone.
Spending a week a year is only 2% of the annual time available and this means that we do not have to spend copious amounts of time, energy and cost in communicating our ideas to all of the staff members - value for money!
Without a plan the business drifts and having firmly driven NWES to the top of our profession I have no intention of letting us drift anywhere!
We have finished the week with a set of organisational strategic objectives, team action plans to deliver those objectives and most importantly the desire of the staff to achieve them. I do not set any targets - the teams do that themselves and they invariably set levels at the top end of expectations, and yet they always deliver.
I will return to this subject in more detail in future posts explaining what and how we do during this important week. It's great having wonderful staff!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)