FM Resolutions: Start Networking

There’s an old saying about it not being what you know, but who you know that matters.  Personally I still believe that skills, knowledge and experience count in the long run but…. developing a good professional network is a great way to supplement them and boost your progress.

FMs are usually people-people, so developing a professional network should be a fairly straightforward task: meet new people (from within the industry), talk to them (about the industry) and exchange details.  Of course there are lots of techniques to learn along the way to make your networking more effective, but I won’t cover these in detail here as there are already plenty of online resources available for those who wish to know more.  I will however say that; you’ll be amazed at how exponentially your network grows once you start.

Networking for knowledge, confidence and professional connections

The reason a good network is so useful to your development, is that it gives you access to the knowledge, expertise and contacts of a pool of other professionals. FM is one of those broad (and exciting) disciplines where new stuff comes up all the time and FMs often find themselves having to up-skill at short notice. At times like these being able to get advice from somebody more experienced can really help. In fact, even if no one in your network has the answer, you can bet they’ll know someone who does. 

The flip side of networking for knowledge is that no matter what your experience level is, you’ll find yourself engaging with people who need and value the knowledge you have and can share with them. Your confidence will be rapidly boosted through this validation.

And once a professional network has been established it can be put to work for your longer-term aspirations.  For example, phone calls with recruiters are a lot easier to initiate when you’ve met them socially and job interviews go a little smoother with some insider information about the interviewer or the employer.  In fact, there’s even something referred to as the hidden job market: vacancies which get filled by recommendation and referral rather than marketed: A good network can keep their collective ears to the ground and send these valuable opportunities in your direction.

Getting started

With all the benefits above, I’m often still surprised when FMs tell me that they aren’t really interested in networking. The most frequent reason expressed is a lack of time. If that describes how you feel, I would encourage you to look at it like this:  For 40+ hours a week your efforts mostly benefits other people – by comparison an hour or two a month of networking mostly benefits you. No brainer.

The BIFM make it easy to get involved in networking.  Groups of volunteers organise events across the country where professionals can meet and exchange knowledge, ideas and contacts. Being able to attend these events is one of the best perks of BIFM membership.  Check out the events calendar at: http://www.bifm.org.uk/bifm/events

The other thing that often puts people off is the daunting first-time feeling of walking into a room full of strangers (and experts).  I understand this (I had a first time once too), but trust me when I say that it’s really not like that at all; FM people are a warm and friendly bunch and members go out of their way to make newbies feel welcome. If you’re really nervous about attending an event, try contacting the organiser –they’re usually happy to arrange for another member to look out for you and introduce you to a few people.  There are even a couple of Specialist Interest Groups (SIGs) aimed at running less traditional events to help people through those first networking experiences: My own SIG, the Rising FMs focusses events around having fun and the social aspects of networking and the Women In FM SIG (not just for women by the way) run events with a real spirit of inclusivity and support.
So, if you’ve been putting off getting involved in networking for some time, I strongly encourage you to take the plunge by making it your FM Resolution of 2015.

This blog was originally part of the BIFM's 2015 #FMResolutions series of guest blogs, published on LinkedIn and www.bifm.org.uk. I've published it here as it appears in those locations, for those of my readers who might not have come across it otherwise.

Will you pay extra for the Living Wage?

Fundamentally most of us believe that the reward for a fair day's work should be a fair day's pay, so why is it taking so long for the Facilities Management industry to embrace the UK Living Wage? People tell me that it's because no one wants to pay extra, but what most don't realise is just how much that decision costs. In this blog I argue that the Living Wage is a lot more commercially viable than is popularly believed.

For those not familiar with it, the Living Wage is quite simply the hourly-rate a person needs to earn before they no longer qualify for state benefits. It's a little more complex than that of course, but that's the synopsis. If you're interested in learning more check out  the Living Wage Foundation (livingwage.org.uk) which promotes a scheme of accreditation for employers who voluntarily agree to pay these rate. The UK Living Wage (LW) is calculated to be about 20% above the National Minimum wage (NMW). In London it's approximately 40% due to the cost of living in the capital.

Though I promised that this blog would be about the commercial aspects of the LW, rather than the moral justifications, it's still worth saying that in 2014, we should all feel a little outraged at the idea of employers earning a profit whilst paying people less than they need to live on and passing on a burden to the tax payer. Some might think that statement evocative, but in an age of Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR), there's a growing expectation on employers to act responsibly towards both their own staff and the communities they are part of (it's why tax evasion gets so much press) and the above demonstrates neither. Ok, moral-rant over, let's get commercial.

I'm going to start building my case with a simple statement: Good, well motivated, loyal employees are more reliable, more productive and less likely to be absent. I'm not going to bother backing most of that up with facts: it's not exactly controversial stuff. But there is one statistic from the Living Wage Foundation that I do want to quote: 80% of LW employers have noticed around a 25% reduction in absenteeism. Let's talk about that for a second shall we?  It is generally agreed that high rates of absenteeism are indicative of poor workforce motivation and loyalty. They're not the only indicator, but they are more quantifiable than others like productivity, dedication and time-keeping and are therefore considered good leading indicators.

The FM industry is full of low-paid service jobs; no pun intended, but you might say they are ten-a-penny, particularly in services like cleaning, catering and porterage. At the low-end of the wage scale, loyalty and motivation are low, churn is high and as a result there is poor consistency in productivity and quality.  How many times, have you found yourself telling someone or being told by someone that quality issues are the result of changes in personnel or difficulty attracting and retaining the right people?  This is the reality of a low-pay workforce: managing them to ensure good standards of quality and productivity isn't at all easy.  It takes a lot of time, it takes a lot of effort and (most importantly to my case) it takes a lot of money.

It's not controversial to say that absenteeism costs money – it's a foundation stone of Health & Safety principles. When staff are absent, there are overtime costs, temp labour, lost productivity, time and effort wasted on ringing around to sort things out, etc. It's also agreed that employee churn costs money too: there are recruitment costs, training cost and supervisory time amongst others. Finally, managing poor performance can really drain resources too: It's not just the money credited back to customers or the time spent dealing with complaints, it's the supervision, the retraining, the formal meetings, the letters from HR, etc. Basically, choosing to pay low wages, is also choosing to incur a lot of additional costs. Now some will argue that; wages are direct costs and the costs I've descibed are indirect and therefore difficult to quantify in any meaningful way. In one sense they're right, but in another they're wrong. They are hard to quantify, but the total cost information can usually be found in the service tender proposal: Its the line item on the breakdown identified as “management costs”. 

In low-wage service contracts, management costs are often one of the largest cost areas (after wages). Depending on whether things like training & recruitment (and sometimes profit) are included in them or listed separately, they could account for a significant proportion of the total contract cost. I've even once or twice seen proposals with combined management costs that almost equal the wages costs! The point here is that management cost are built into the contract delivery cost at the commercial tender stage.

Let's talk about commercial tendering for low-wage contracts. Most tenders are calculated using pre-defined formulae. If we over simplify it: some basic volume data (such as square footage) is entered to give an idea of hours required. This figure is multiplied by a wage rate and other costs are calculated as percentages of that resulting figure and added together to generate a total contract cost. There's a little “commercial” wiggle room of course, to give the sales-person something to play with, but in a nutshell, that's how it works. So here's the issue I have with that: Surely the management costs should be calculated using a sliding scale which significantly decreases as the wage rate increases?  We've just established that if wages are increased 20% absenteeism reduces by 25%. We also accept that recruitment & training costs will decrease. We accept that less time will be required to supervise and manage both performance and customer dissatisfaction. There will be higher quality, less refunds and fewer complaints. Yes, many of these things are difficult to quantify, but let's not mistake difficult to quantify for unquantifiable or non-existent.

In fact, a move to higher wages creates a lot of potential for cost-saving, especially when combined with good people management practices. So surely the correct way of considering LW commercial viability is to (at least partially) fund increased wages, using management cost savings? Should customers pay extra to support the Living Wage? I don't believe customers should accept a pass-through uplift on wages, but I do believe that there are alternative solutions which are not just palatable for customers, but commercially viable or even, commercially advantageous, for suppliers too.

And here's one final point to consider. In the fiercely competitive world of FM Services contracts, real commercial viability comes not from undercutting to win volume, but through retention of business. During a re-tender process motivated,loyal staff and happy customers, are worth their weight in sales-people and corporate hospitality.

The FM's Party Survival Guide

Traditionally, the beginning of December heralds the onset of the work's-Christmas-party season. Whilst there are many who look forward to the prospect of getting a little tipsy and having a boogie with colleagues, for many in the FM  industry the very thought of sitting down to a turkey dinner with work's-people fills them with dread.  In this blog I explore the reasons why and give some of my party survival tips.

So what exactly do Facilities Managers have against the work's-Christmas-party anyway?  Well for a start it's not just the Christmas party.  In fact, it's not even just work's-parties:  A lot of us have a beef with parties in general.  And it's not because we're cantankerous, Victor Meldrew types either:  It's because in almost any party situation it's virtually inevitable that someone will ask you what you do for a living and if you work in FM, 99% of the time that conversational thread will lead to the point where you end up having to say “Well no, actually! Not like a janitor at all!”  This will be followed by about an hour of explanation as to why being an FM is not like being a janitor.  Not that there's anything wrong with being one, but it's just that the effort of having to spend all that time at parties explaining what you do (when you should be having fun) can really grind you down.

Still it could be worse: at least we're not Health & Safety Officers!  That might sound harsh, but honestly, those poor guys have it way tougher than Facilities people.  If, in a party situation, you ever find yourself foolishly happening to admit that your work involves being responsible for managing Safety, the best course of action to follow is to immediately get up from the table, step outside, hail a cab and go home...... because that's your night done!  If you're stubborn enough to stay, you'll spend the rest of the night having to justify or refute every safety measure or myth ever conceived to people with a chemically-diminished capacity for logical and reasoned discussion. It's a no-win situation.

But if parties in general are bad, in many ways the work's-party can be the pits. For a start everyone already knows that you're not a formula one driver and to make matters worse;  everyone, and yes I do mean everyone, will talk shop to an FM at a work's-party.  Now there are those who say that talking shop is par for the course and to a certain extent they're right. But....... there is a world of difference between gossiping about who is and isn't getting promoted and the relentless barrage of gripes and grumbles some FMs have to put up with. At the work's-party, an FM can find themselves facing a steady stream of people who, on account of the fact that they've just bumped into you, decide that it is surely the perfect opportunity for passing on that complaint about the air-conditioning that they haven't got round to emailing you about yet. I mean why not? It's not like you make it easy for them to catch up with you during the 'normal' working day by being at work, having a phone and an email account is it?  At Christmas parties past, whilst everyone else has been busy occupying themselves by eating mince pies and trying to work out who Sarah-from-Accounts has been disappearing into the stationary cupboard with,  I've had my evening wasted justifying the recycling policy, getting feedback about cleaning, explaining air-conditioning, hearing everyone's opinion of the vending coffee, etc, etc, ad infinitum. And it's not that I normally mind talking about that stuff, it's just that, well...........it's a party: I'm here to have fun like everyone else!

The list of minor groans and grievances you can face at a party can almost be enough to put you off going. Almost. But you shouldn't be deterred: FMs make a huge contribution to an organisation's success and they have every right to celebrate that success with colleagues.  Not only that, but it's a great way of engaging in the culture.  In fact, one of the reasons many FMs suffer from such a hard time at work's-parties, is that they fail to identify it as an engagement opportunity and therefore don't go adequately  prepared. 

So if all of this sounds a little too familiar, allow me to share with you my top tips for Christmas-party survival.

1:  If you're off the clock, be off the clock

Some people say that that listening to moans and groans goes with the job, but I say that it's just plain rude.  Between courses I might well spend time engaging in speculation with colleagues about the extent of Sarah-in-Account's extra-curricular activities, but if I was to collar her at the bar and give her a hard time about the speed and accuracy of her invoice coding, most people would say I was "bang out of order: It's a party for heavens sake!"   So be prepared to politely and firmly stand your ground:  There is absolutely nothing wrong in saying “I'd really like to talk to you about this on Monday, but it's a party so do you mind if we don't talk shop?”

2:  People love to hear themselves talk

Something that not all FMs realise is that......... it's not just FMs who feel like nobody understands what they do and how important it is.  Honestly: it's true! If you don't want to be caught with the what do you do? question, why don't you be the one who asks it instead?  Making people feel like they're important to you and that you want to understand them is a great way to forge new alliances and build trust.  And who knows: you might just find out something useful.....

3:  The best defence..........

If like me, you are one of those people mentioned in the tip above who really love do to hear themselves speak, you just might struggle a little with my second tip, but that's ok I have a third one for you:  try treating it as a public relations opportunity. Instead of waiting for people to approach you with a complaint, why not go in armed with your list of recent successes and exciting future plans and solicit feedback?  Try saying things like, “We're considering going fair-trade when we re-negotiate the vending next year..... do you think we should?“  Of course, everyone is going to say yes and you're going to do it regardless anyway, but.... they don't know that: Their perception could be that they are making a contribution to the decision making process and when you eventually  bring it in, they may even see it as a shared success. Result!

4: The three-hit-combo

As any boxing fan will tell you, victory rarely comes with a single blow, but through skilfully delivered combinations.  To make the best of these tips, use them all together: Ask about them, fend off the complaint then solicit some positive feedback.  It takes skill and practice but master it and they'll be putty in your hands.  And if all else fails, there's always tip number five.....

5: The master avoidance strategy

If you've tried all the above and you're still getting grief, it's time to beat a tactical retreat to the dance floor. Now let me tell you, many people claim they can multi-task, but it is quite literally impossible to have a serious discussion about car-parking whist doing the Macarena or the Cha-Cha-Slide. Frankly anyone who can manage it probably deserves their own parking space anyway! Now if you've seen me busting-my-moves, you'll understand that this high-risk strategy is not to be taken lightly, but it can be brutally effective in a sledgehammer-to-open-a-walnut kind of way. There is even a very slim possibility that if you manage to pull it off extremely well, then at next years party you might just discover yourself being the subject of speculation about what Sarah-in-Accounts has been up to! Now go! Get out there and have fun! 

Merry Christmas.

The Way We Do Things Around Here

In the search to find FM's value-add elements, Facilities Managers are often keen to talk about the extent to which FM can support the culture of an organisation. One frequently overlooked part of that discussion is the way that a skilled Facilities Manager can actually use the reach and influence of FM to drive cultural change.

For the uninitiated, the thing we refer to as “organisational culture” is a shared set of values and principles which tend to guide or influence the way in which the people within a particular organisation behave. You can think of it as being “the way we do things around here” and it varies a lot from one organisation to the next. 

 

 

Organisational culture is neither positive or negative though most organisations will have a culture that has some traits that they consider desirable and some that they do not. Some of these will be driven by the leadership style of the senior management (dynamic, hierarchical, by-the-book), others by the age, size and type of organisation (entrepreneurial, bureaucratic, risk-averse) and others still by the people within it (diverse, sociable, creative). There are numerous influencing factors and numerous possible combinations.

Aspiring to succeed

So why does everyone bang on about getting the right culture anyway? Quite simply; it's an economical way of getting more out of a finite resource. Or to put it another way; in tough economic times, it's far better to have a culture where people feel like work is a place they feel happy, a place they want to come to and something they want to do, rather than something they don't enjoy, somewhere they have to go and something they have to do.

But culture is more than just instilling a desire to work more productively: many organisations are switching on to the fact that they can achieve far greater success, by trying to develop their culture to contain more of the traits that make a positive contribution to their success and fewer of the ones with negative impact. For example, senior management might decide that the organisation might be more successful if staff felt more empowered in their work, or more connected to the success of the organisation; they might feel it is important that the organisation's customers see it as socially responsible or that potential new employees think of it as being cool. These are what we refer to as “cultural aspirations”.

The people who do things

Understanding that there is a difference between culture and cultural ambitions is key to understanding the way in which FM can influence cultural development. You see; the former is the way things are done around here, the latter is the way senior management would like things to be done. This is a really important distinction because “the way things get done around here” can be heavily influenced by the people that do those things and quite simply, FM generally does a lot of 'things'. The remit and influence of FM spans the entire organisation and it's activities touch on the working lives of every single person in the organisation: this gives a savvy Facilities Manager the opportunity to directly influence the way the culture develops through their choices and their team. Let me qualify that a little more: I'm not saying that the Facilities Manager has the power to make the organisation less bureaucratic, or more creative, but they do get to make simple choices such as shall I make more recycling facilities available, should we ask the catering team to hold some theme days or even, should I paint that wall orange instead of grey? These are little changes: they won't change the world overnight, but they will sow the seeds of an idea which has the potential to grow into a collectively shared principle or set of values. In other words: the culture.

 

 

At the heart of the matter

I’ve often argued that FM is the cultural heart of on organisation: and far more so than any other part. Organisational culture is something that develops around the water cooler. It develops in the tea-point, the break-out areas, around the reception desk and in the staff restaurant. These are the areas where the influence of FM is at its strongest.

In the organisational-family, it is the facilities people who are the matriarchs and patriarchs: they know everyone and everyone knows them. If there’s some kind of social or charitable event, you can bet they will be heavily involved.

Smart senior management, do understand the influence of FM and will try to gain the support of the Facilities Manger in propagating their cultural aspirations. Smart Facilities Managers, can use the influence of FM to gain credibility with senior management by supporting those cultural aspirations. Really smart Facilities Managers, can use the considerable influence of FM to align the direction of cultural development with their own values and vision: for example, increased sustainability, being socially responsible or providing a more service based approach.

The best things in life are free

It’s a commonly held assumption that changing an organisation’s culture is extremely difficult. In fact the reverse is true. Cultural changes are changes in attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. It costs nothing to change your beliefs, so in theory at least, cultural change is free. That's some very powerful added value.

Peeking Over Fences

Once upon-a-time Facilities Management was largely an in-house function, but the growth of the outsourcing market has led to an increasing number of facilities professionals following career paths that never lead them to acquire client-side experience.  As someone who has always worked client-side, when I meet a peer who has only ever worked on the supplier-side, I find they quite often want to ask me the same thing – what’s it like over on my side of the fence?  This blog is the result of one such request for information and gives my thoughts about what you might see if you were to peek over that fence.

I’m part of a minority in FM networking circles: I started off ‘in-house’ and despite making a number of career moves, somehow I’ve managed to stay there.  It’s been more by chance than by conscious design, though I have tended to express a preference towards in-house opportunities because I think they suit me fairly well.  In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that I’m something of an advocate for in-house FM.  But this blog is not about whether it is better on to be client-side or the supplier-side: this blog is about the differences that matter to an FM professional. And it started with an email. 

The email was from a respected industry peer. In contrast to me, their background is supplier-side, but they had an opportunity to interview for an exciting client-side role.  It was one of those too-good-to-resist opportunities with a very well known brand name and as they didn’t know much about how in-house FM worked, they thought it would be a good idea to reach out to their network and ask? They wanted to understand how things get done.  Things like; how in-house FMs deal with budgets, KPIs, planning, etc?  Who the stake-holders are and what interactions are expected, who ensures compliance, do we get audited, how do we support culture, how is success measured, etc?  These are all excellent and fundamental questions I replied and you should definitely ask them at the interview because I really can’t answer how they might do it.  I can tell you how my organisation does it, or how any of my previous organisations do it, but each of them do it differently.  You see the thing about in-house FM is that it can vary significantly.
At its core of course, in-house FM is interested in all the same things that outsourced FM is: the basic need to provide safe and comfortable work environments and the amenities that support the work activities taking place. Things like budgets, SLAs, risk management, legal-compliance, etc, all derive from this. But what is really different is the way in which business needs are determined, defined and met.  The outsourced FM industry is well established and as a result of learned best practices, good procurement principles and supplier convenience the basic framework of most outsourced contract arrangements are broadly similar.  Now that is not to say that there isn’t a great deal of variation in the way that outsourced FM is delivered, but just to say that a supplier-side FM moving from one contract or employer to another will generally feel like they are on familiar ground, because the framework behind the service set-up is broadly similar.

In-house FM is different.  It has more flavours than a well-stocked ice cream parlour.  An in-house FM moving to a new employer could well find themselves feeling like they’ve tumbled down the rabbit hole and ended up in wonderland: the basic needs are the same but there are no hard and fast rules about how they are met.

It all goes back to the basic agreement between client and supplier for the provision of services.  In an outsourced arrangement we refer to this as a contract, in an in-house provision we might generously call it a strategy, although it could just as easily be based upon the attitude of key players (including the FM), policies, financial organisation, organisational hierarchy, culture, history, attitude to risk or a multitude of other factors.   It’s an important difference: at the heart of the client/outsourced-supplier relationship, there is a (legally) binding agreement that defines the client’s needs, the required services, expected quality standards, the principles of measuring success, etc.  If these needs change, they get re-negotiated.  In an in-house arrangement, the agreement for the provision of services between client and the FM function is much less tangible. It might be documented, though partially documented or undocumented are equally, if not more likely.  But regardless of how well defined the agreement might be, the chances of it being binding are slim to none. This can be something of a double-edged sword: the existence of a contract can shield an outsourced-FM from the worst excesses of whimsicality and prevent goalposts from unexpectedly getting up and moving around the pitch, but absence of that very same binding agreement gives a canny in-house FM an inherent flexibility. An In-house FM can re-write policy, define new standards and bend, flex or even change the rules completely if they can exert sufficient influence on those that define needs, set standards or determine budgets. 

So what does this mean in practice?  Well take KPIs and SLAs as an example.  In an outsourced arrangement, performance measures and success criteria are usually defined by the contract.  The outsourced FM at least knows and understands the rules of the game and the rules cannot be changed without their agreement. The downside being that sometimes this can lead to slightly farcical situations, such continuing to report SLAs which have ceased to have relevance or carrying out unnecessary actions simply to serve the needs of an SLA or even being able to demonstrate success despite it being evidentially obvious that a service is failing.

Most In-house Facilities functions will also have an interest in SLAs and KPIs and may report on both internal and external ones.  However in-house FM is a lot more “personality-driven” and the rules around performance measures and success criteria (particularly the internal ones) may be much less clear.  They will often be based on what a senior executive deems to be of importance or interest and they can change as quickly as the weather during Wimbledon.  Half a dozen complaints could be enough to see a new KPI established and a change of personnel might completely change the landscape overnight.  In a personality-driven landscape, requirements can vary depending on the role of those further up the hierarchy: whilst it would be grossly over-generalising to say that a Finance director would only be interested in cost saving and a HR director in colour-schemes, it is obvious that the FM function would be influenced by the objectives and priorities of the role to which it reports.  Of course the great thing for an in-house FM is that personal influence cuts both ways:  An FM who is able to exert sufficient influence can make quite sweeping changes. 

Now although I’ve focussed my explanation on performance indicators and success criteria, the situation is very similar for most of the other areas my peer was asking about: budgets, interactions, standards, etc.  In general the big difference between in-house and outsource is that: the outsourced arrangement is inherently stable and is great for delivering a standard (which in many cases can be very high) and ensuring compliance.  Whilst in-house FM is inherently flexible, which provides potential opportunities for FMs to take a more direct role in needs definition, specification and method of delivery.  FM’s working in the outsource-sector usually have access to a level of support, resources, expertise and knowledge from within their own organisations that in-house FMs in all but the largest organisations would give their right arms for and are protected to a certain degree from flights of fancy and sudden changes of direction. But on the other an in-house FM is playing without binding rules (legal compliance aside) and the only real barriers to increasing funding, services or changing the culture are the extent to which the FM can exert their influence.  And FMs are excellent influencers. 

Dances With Wolves

If there existed such a thing as a Facilities Management rule book, it is generally held that rule number one would be “develop good relationships with your stakeholders”.  So why does the idea of engaging certain groups of stakeholders fill an FM with dread?  Let me explain using one of my favourite techniques: the animal simile.  Stakeholders are like wolves.

Those who know me well, know that I love a good simile. And no, that’s not a miss-spelling of smilie, although if you follow me on twitter (@JGurd) you’ll know that I also love a good smilie :)  . People are always saying that standards in education are declining, but ask any 8 year old what a simile is and quick as a flash they’ll tell you that it’s a figure of speech which is used to compare things to one another by using the words like or as. Pretty smart people, those kids and they even know a thing or two about smilies, but that’s digressing even more so I’ll try to get broadly back on track with the point I was making; I am particularly fond of the animal simile.  Through popular culture, childhood impressions, etc, we naturally endow certain animals with particular qualities or characteristics; lions are regal, mice are quiet, foxes are cunning and donkeys are well.........  well, let’s say fortunate.  And this is kind of my point, I haven’t said it, but you know exactly what I mean and this is why the animal simile works so well – the associations feel perfectly natural.  So let’s get back to my rather outlandish statement shall we? Not the one about donkeys, the other one.  Why is it tempting for a Facilities Manager to hide out in the plant room all day and avoid their stakeholders? Because stakeholders are like wolves.  Allow me to explain......

Regardless of how soft and furry it may appear on the outside, we instinctively understand that deep down  a wolf can be a fearsome predator, with sharp teeth, wicked claws and a killer instinct.  They might look a lot like man’s best friend, but they’re feral beasts and an unplanned or unexpected encounter with one and you could well end up with more than a few chunks being torn off. Basically, just like stakeholders.

Of course there are degrees of deadliness: The lone wolf, grizzled veteran of a thousand fights can be the most fearsome of all, but even a cub can take a finger if you’re not paying attention.  But worst of all, just like stakeholders, wolves are at their deadliest when they hunting in packs.
Almost all Facilities Managers will have at some time experienced that entering the lion’s den feeling that is a prelude to meeting with a large group of stakeholders.  They tend to be monthly meetings and I have a theory that I’m working on that it has something to do with lunar cycles – I can’t prove it, but mine mostly seem to fall on the same day as the full moon..........  Coincidence I’m sure.

As we step into that meeting, we know that we are going to be significantly outnumbered. It can feel like being circled by sharks and you know that as soon as they scent blood in the water, there’s going to be a feeding frenzy.  As you shuffle your agenda and your notes from the previous meeting, your pulse quickens and from somewhere deep down something primal pushes to the surface. Instinctively you prepare yourself for fight or flight.

So should you fight or should you flee?  Which is the best choice? Actually it’s neither. There is a third way which is all about getting your attitude right in advance as I’ll explain shortly, but first, let me try to explain why you should ignore that instinctive response.

Ok, so we wouldn’t actually fight in a meeting and probably wouldn’t go quite as far as running out the door screaming either, but in a modern day business context, you could think of them instead as going in all guns blazing or adopting a strategy of appeasement. 

Fighting it out can seem initially attractive. You can refuse to accept any criticism or blame, counter your opponent’s claims and blind them with science, etc. If you’re aggressive enough, you can probably even push the blame right back at them for failing to read the memo, not filling in the form, etc, etc.  If you go in all guns blazing, you’ll probably put the fear of god in them and they’ll never dare criticize you again which is a surely a good thing right? Well not really. It doesn’t actually work like that: if they don’t feel like they can talk to you, in the future, they’ll just go behind your back, around you or over your head. As an FM you almost certainly have the skills to win most of your battles, but FM is about cooperation not confrontation; what are you fighting for? If you’re trying to win hearts and minds, winning battles can cost you the war.

With that in mind, you might decide it’s just easier not to be confrontational at all. If you just give everyone whatever they ask for, they’ll all be perfectly happy and they will just leave you alone right?.  Well.... before you choose a strategy of appeasement, there’s something you should know: it didn’t work in the run up to the Second World War and it doesn’t work now.  Ultimately, demands are not always reasonable; if you agree to everything, eventually you’ll end up promising things you can’t deliver and your stakeholder frustration will increase.

So let’s talk about the other way instead.  Our ancestors learned how to domesticate the wolf and we too can learn to tame the stakeholder.  There are limits of course: they’re not going to chase sticks or retrieve your slippers, but it is definitely possible to develop mutually beneficial relationships and even get them working for you, being your eyes and ears and championing your causes. The key is getting the balance right; less fear, more respect, more confidence, less aggression. Most importantly of all, remember that communication is a two way process: if you give you should also take.

So how does that work in reality?  Well this blog was inspired by some advice I recently gave to a peer about stakeholder meetings which went something like this:  You should always participate in meetings as an equal: remember that you are there because of your skills, knowledge and expertise. Be confident but not aggressive:  you are not there as a punch bag and you are certainly not there to spend your time apologising for the level of service, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t listen and learn. Don’t be defensive; accept constructive feedback and never tell people that their experiences of the service are wrong – if someone is cold, no amount of telling them that they're not will make them any warmer or happier. If you can learn something from the things they tell you, you may be able to improve the service.  Most importantly, remember that communication is a two-way process; the pact you make with your stakeholders is that; in return for getting direct access to you to raise team complaints, you get to use them as a conduit for communicating information in the other direction.  And it doesn’t hurt to give a little constructive feedback of your own. After all, if you’ve listened to their views about the way the front desk works, then quid pro quo, you’re perfectly entitled to ask them to try and get their teams to be more considerate when using meeting rooms.  Finally, remember that, this is your opportunity to talk about the good things you’ve done and the good things coming up. It’s your chance to spread the vision.

So going back to wolves. As I mentioned earlier, like stakeholders they can be at their most effective when they work as a pack and with the right balance of attitude, respect and communications, you could find the pack working on your behalf; disseminating your message and spreading your vision.  And when that happens, the sight of the moon, full in the night sky will have you howling for joy, rather than trembling in fear.

Holding Out For A (Silent) Hero

Facilities Managers are heroes. Fact. When the chips are down and it’s all going wrong, you can rely on an FM to swoop in and save the day. But is this really something we want to be known for? In this blog post, I make the case for keeping your pants on under your trousers.

The idea for this blog started with a snatch of overheard conversation: an FM colleague was asked to describe their role in Facilities Management to which they responded: “we’re the people you turn to when it all goes wrong”.  It’s a description that many would agree with.  After all, Crisis Management is an important part of any Facilities professional’s role and most are justifiably proud of their problem solving abilities. It is these moments of extreme adversity that enable us to show people what we are really made of, prove our value and earn the respect that we truly deserve. These moments of converting mountains into glorified molehills become personal pinnacles of achievement, each one a badge of honour on our CV. Surely we should embrace these difficulties for presenting opportunities to bring our skills into the limelight?  Or should we? Before we get too carried away thinking about what a crisis means to us, maybe we should try to consider what it might mean to others.

No such thing as bad press?

It is said that there is no such thing as bad publicity, but I'm not sure I agree. Averting disaster and turning failure into success is undeniably personally rewarding, but whilst you are basking in the glory of being the man (or woman) of the hour, others may be looking around for opportunities to apportion blame and if you’re distracted by enjoying your moment in the sun, you could easily find yourself becoming a scapegoat. Now you may argue that this won’t happen to you because your organisation operates a "no blame" culture, but at the end of the day, human nature will almost certainly trump organisational policy and it is human nature to speculate about who got what wrong.

You see whilst we might be acutely aware that managing to get that aged chiller up and running in two days (even though the parts had to be shipped from Belgium) was nothing short of miraculous, there's a good chance your customers will just see it as one more failure that occurred on your watch.  Of course you and I know that that’s not really a fair assessment of the facts because………. you did try and replace it last year but the board wouldn’t release the funds. You may choose to tell customers this and shield yourself from the blame, but before you do that, maybe you should have a good think about whether this is a story that you really want to share.

The blame game

Blaming the boss may help build some common ground with your customers, but pointing the finger further up the chain isn't going to win you any friends there. These are the people who can directly influence your resources to do your job: unless you think you can use the situation to launch a full blown coup and win total control of your own budgets, sooner or later you'll be crawling cap in hand to them trying to get the money for something else.  These are people you need as friends not enemies.  Besides, there are those who will point the finger right back at you for not making the business case compelling enough.

Survival training

Ok, so I’ll admit the picture I’ve painted is pretty bleak, but there’s no need to despair just yet, for all is not lost. With the potential pitfalls I’ve described above, it’ll come as no surprise when I say that good Facilities people need to develop highly effective political skills to be successful in a corporate environment. Crisis is your opportunity to hone these skills.  Here are a few points to consider.

• Keep your cool.  At the end of the day, and even with the most meticulous planning, disasters will happen. They will still need to be managed and Facilities people will almost always play a vital role in doing this.  But be careful not to get too caught up in the drama. Do communicate your successes, but don't oversell them, you will build a far better reputation through calm efficiency in the face of adversity, than you will for rushing to the edge to pull the company back from the abyss.
• Be careful not to court disaster.  Career defining challenges might boost the adrenalin and raise your profile, but a Facilities Manager has a management responsibility to manage risk. When things go wrong make sure you take the opportunity to learn lessons and take action to prevent it from happening again.  If you ensure that any learning points form part of your communications strategy, you will be able to raise your profile by developing your reputation as a good risk manager.
• Think very carefully before pointing the finger - some people might think you're passing the buck and you could easily make powerful enemies. If the root cause sits further up the chain, a more strategic approach could involve outwardly shielding the responsible party and playing down the severity of their error, whilst speaking frankly to them about it directly. You may take a little more heat from your customers than you would if you just pass the blame onwards, but you can play this down by choosing your language carefully and in the longer run, you may well earn the gratitude of a powerful ally.

As I said, disasters do happen and as a Facilities Manager, you'll almost certainly have to be part of the solution, but I hope I've adequately demonstrated in this blog that there is much to gain by not always making too big a deal about being the hero.  Maybe next time you've got to save the day, rather than rush to the nearest phone box, like me, you'll take a more strategic view and keep your pants on under your trousers instead.

SLAs: A help or a hindrance?

A report from the debate at the 32nd FM Forum in Stansted

There was a sharp intake of breath from across the room as Liz Kentish posed her opening question in the debate about the usefulness of SLAs.  The assembled delegates looked around the room to find only two half-raised hands in response to the request about who would consider getting rid of their SLAs altogether.  One of those hands was mine, although I had only half-raised it – I’ll get to that bit later.

To be honest, our expectations going into the debate were quite modest. Being on as the last show of the day (and after the bar has opened) is not traditionally the best slot, but I’ll admit we were pleasantly surprised by the turnout and even more pleasantly surprised by the extent of audience participation. It would appear that SLAs are a contentious topic. In fact, this very report is a product of the ongoing interest we received after the debate.

I think it was a strong and diverse panel – that’s something that always helps a debate go well.  With myself (Jason Gurd) providing the client-side view, Robert Cunliffe the service-provider perspective, Adeyemi Adeboye providing expertise of operating PFI contracts. The debate was chaired by the BIFM Deputy Chair, Liz Kentish.

The panel put forward their cases and invited input from the audience.  There was some initial discussion about whether SLAs served any real purpose, with myself suggesting that most of us just settle for supplier’s out-of-the-box SLAs anyway. I’d already made the point that, getting to me in 4-hours wasn’t really all that impressive when you considered how far I could get from Stansted in 4-hours.

It was debated whether SLAs offer more protection to the client or the supplier, with cases being made for both sides. There were suggestions that SLAs were more often stick, than carrot, a get out-clause, if you like and the practicality of actually using that stick was also discussed. 

 Adeyemi and Robert both made strong cases for SLAs being a way to manage expectations and although there was a general consensus that they couldn’t replace a good client/supplier relationship, Adeyemi was able to use his knowledge of PFI to demonstrate that there are times when the client is significantly removed from the delivery.  This led to the almost inevitable question about whether FM is too procurement driven, followed by an equally inevitable round of “procurement-bashing”.  It was light-hearted, but I did step in to support our procurement colleagues by pointing out that it was down to FM’s to demonstrate leadership and influence in specifying services, but that we also need to make use of procurement functions to help us buy more effectively.

There was a lot of discussion about whether drawing a “line-in-the-sand” was a good thing when it came to service standards or not. I argued that, whilst there is a case for KPIs, continuous improvement demands that we seek to improve. Adeyemi countered by talking about the mechanisms which can allow SLAs to develop. 

There was also a great deal of discussion about whether SLAs could really enhance the client/supplier relationship, with Robert providing one of the most interesting examples of the night about how SLAs could be used to support organisational objectives, such as offering Local Authorities SLAs relating to creating local employment.

It was a pretty heated debate and I think most people were genuinely disappointed when it came to a close. I don’t think we managed to resolve the question, but I do think we managed to make a room full of FMs decide to think a lot harder about what SLAs they will ask from their suppliers in the future. 

To wrap this report off, I’d like to leave you with the closing thoughts of each of our panellists & chair;

Robert Cunliffe       
@robertcunliffe 
http://fmfuture.blogspot.co.uk/


“SLAs should be intertwined with KPIs and penalties or credits to ensure that the service provider has a framework to understand the quality expectations of the customer.  SLAs  & KPIs should not get in the way of building a good relationship between supplier and customer to further improve or enhance services so the customer is genuinely happy, however they provide a safety net should the relationship deteriorate.  To provide a true partnership SLAs and KPIs should focus on outcomes or the customer’s business priorities, as only then will the supplier really understand what the customer really, really wants.”

Adeyemi Adeboye 

@Yemmycornelius


“Forums like these, which bring the provider and the client together to discuss how the equilibrium of demand and supply of service agreements could be improved upon, is not only a necessity but a requirement for an enhanced and positive experience.  SLAs in this modern business age are here to stay: Whether you achieve your strategic goals and objectives will be down to how you structure your service level objectives in relation to your organisational goals."

Jason Gurd 

@jgurd

http://everythingfacilities.blogspot.co.uk/

“Even I’m not enough of a maverick to completely dispense with SLAs all together, but I do think FMs should give serious thought to what SLAs they ask for and whether they really need to be accepting all of those out-of-the-box ones.  I would suggest you might get a better service if you dispensed with the majority of your SLAs and focussed on the ones that are really important to you.”

 

Liz Kentish (Chair)  

@FMCoach   

http://www.lizkentishcoaching.co.uk/

“I love it when FMs get together and talk about what works!  Our debate at the FM Forum demonstrated that there is of course a place for SLAs, but they must be regularly reviewed and amended when services change.  Key to service delivery and managing expectations is the relationship between the service provider and the client, whether in-house or not.  One of the courses we run is influencing skills and managing relationships, and the feedback is always that this is what really makes a difference - get it right, as an FM, and your life will be an awful lot easier!”

And the survey says.........

We asked one hundred Facilities Managers what the golden rule of FM was? And they said......... “keep your customers happy”.  Then we asked..... how did they know how happy their customers are, or, if they were more or less happy than they used to be?

And they said......... “Um, well, I’m not sure really. I mean they don’t complain as much for a start. I suppose you could always do a workplace satisfaction survey of some kind, but what sort of questions would you ask? And do they really tell you anything useful anyway?”
 

OK, so I admit the opening part of this blog is somewhat fabricated, but it is a situation that many FMs will recognise.  The consensus of opinion seems to be that surveys are a good idea in principle, but the results don’t often tell you that much.  I disagree.  What the results usually tell you is how well the survey was planned out before it was published.

The whats, whys and wherefores

The problem is that most surveys start life in exactly the way described above.  Someone makes the decision that we need to find out how happy our customers are, someone else suggests a survey, then everyone starts brainstorming the questions, someone writes them down, they get circulated and a load of junk comes back.

For a survey to be an effective tool, you need to break the process before the brainstorming, wind it back a few notches, accept a few universal truths and put a little thought into the whats, whys and wherefores. 

The truth?  You can’t handle the truth!

One of the first things you need to establish is why you are measuring satisfaction.  It sounds obvious, but it’s not.  If we’re honest about it, many surveys don’t set out with the altruistic objective of simply finding out how happy people are, cynically, many are sent out as a way of trying to prove that a certain standard is being delivered.  If your objective is more cynical, you should be warned that it could well back-fire. The people most likely to respond are those who have something to complain about. 

Of course if your goal is to find out what is wrong so you can try and fix it, well..... you’ll rarely have a problem finding people who will tell you what is wrong. Fixing these things of course is down to you and you should be aware that if you’re the one asking the question, then you’ll be setting an expectation that you will act on the information you’ve asked for. 

Great expectations

Sometimes there is an assumption that survey results can tell you how well the service is being delivered. Usually they can’t. The customer’s response to the survey depends on how well their expectations are being met.  But expectations are a slippery business and they should not be confused with truth or fact. They’re not always fair, logical or reasonable and they can change based on experience. You may be delivering gold-standard service, but if the customer expects platinum-standard they will mark you down.

A survey can be a useful  way to gage and measure your customer’s expectations and as we’re all fond of saying in the world of Facilities Management: if you can measure it, you can manage it. Expectations are no exception.  My recommendation is that you actively invite comment and welcome discussion. The information and engagement you get in return will often teach you far more about service performance than the actual statistics. It also shows you customers that you value what they have to say.

iPads and holidays

Something very important to understand about your workplace satisfaction survey, is that the only people really interested in it, are you, maybe your boss, and everybody with an axe to grind.  Think back to the last survey you filled in – it was a pain right?  Why did you do it? Oh that’s right, you wanted to win an iPad ..............

I’m presuming your facilities survey budget probably doesn’t even stretch to a year’s supply of post-it-notes, so do try to accept the fact that most people will not want to fill it in.  Sorry - that’s just how it is.  But if you do want to maximise your returns, the most effective way is to make it really quick to do and really, really, easy. Think pretty hard in advance about the format and agree a few principles up front.  Here are some of my suggestions:

Keep the number of questions to a minimum
If you can, aim for less than ten. If it takes more than 60 seconds, most people will be turned-off from doing it.

Use a simple scoring system. 
I like 1-to-4 rather than 1-to-5. It stops people sitting on the fence – Is it good or not?  If you do use 1-to-5 then personally I suggest you treat 3 or below as a failure. Are you content that your customers are satisfied with your service?  You shouldn’t be: the golden rule of is to keep your customers happy, not satisfied.  

Phrase your questions exactly the same way
Keep your question and answer format the same for every question.  If you know that 4 is always the top score and 1 the lowest, it’s much easier to answer the questions. If your question change polarity half way through, people often won’t notice and will score it in the same manner as the one above. You may have to rephrase a question to switch it from positive to negative to do it (i.e. instead of how dissatisfied, how satisfied). If you don’t you may get anomalous results in your data.  Remember most people are just scanning through it as quickly as possible to try and win that iPad.
Use simple language
Use everyday language and avoid jargon. This is true of all good communications and your survey is no exception.

Be realistic
Finally, be pragmatic about what you can realistically learn from your survey.  It’s a useful tool for continuous improvement and gauging the general feeling, but if you want to know the ins and outs of how your service is performing or perceived to be performing, well I’m afraid you’re just going to have to do it the old fashioned way: get up from the desk every now and again, take a walk around the building and ask your customers what they think.  And to be honest, if you do that, your survey statistics will look a lot friendlier too.

Future FMs: Are the signs already there?

One of the most hotly debated topics in the Facilities industry at the moment is the question of how we get young people to choose a career in FM. Well we could try answering that question about the future, by taking a closer look at the past. Specifically: our own pasts.

Here's another interesting question: what sort of young person would choose to work in FM?  It sounds tongue-in-cheek, but it’s a serious question. Whilst most FMs will freely admit they fell into the industry, as result of chance, luck, bad-karma, etc, at some point or another they all made the choice to stay. The first question: Why?  The second: With the benefit of hindsight, could we have predicted that they would? Were the signs there all along?

Should I stay or should I go (now)

I am an FM who chose to stay. In this blog I'm going to take you on a jouney into my deepest, darkest, past. Think of this as either as a journey of self-discovery, or if you prefer, an accident investigation.  Cue the wobbly screen effects.........

I'm turning back the clock to the early 1990’s.  Thatcher is still running the country, Rave music is on the rise and we are all about to discover that Robin Hood was actually an American.  Oh, and a scrawny fellow called Jason is starting his teens: the beard (and glasses) are a decade away. Ever safety conscious (even then), he uses enough hair product to make his head  impact-resistant.

As a kid I think I was (relatively) normal.  Well, I wasn’t (exceptionally) weird. I mean, I wasn't still hanging out with my imaginary friends at secondary school and I didn't sit around quietly pulling the wings off of butterflies. Outwardly at least, there seemed no sign that I was destined for a career in FM.  Actually, there was no real sign that I was heading in any particular direction at all.....  Maybe that was the first sign.

Lacks direction.......

If you’d asked the pre-beard Jason what he wants to do when he’s older, he’ll confidently tell you that he wants to work in an office.  He’s going to spend the rest of the decade figuring out that an office is a location, not a career. 

Looking back, I don’t think I wanted to work in an office, I just didn’t want to do manual work, education, healthcare, the forces, or any of the other options that seemed available.  Mind you, none of the traditional office careers appealed either. I didn’t mind accounting, sales, marketing, etc, I just don’t think I wanted to commit to one thing the rest of my life.  I guess somehow, I just had the feeling that, in the meritocracy of the commercial world, I’d figure it out somehow.  In a sense I did.

When he sets his mind to it........

Lack of direction probably wasn’t the only sign. I do know some people who describe me using the words “academic” and “intellectual” but scoot forward a handful of years to my GCSEs and I have the exam results to prove that I'm neither.

I took my GCSEs in 94 and my grades were straight across the middle of the spectrum (predominantly B's).  For years, my school reports had read “could try harder” and my exam results were no exception. But still, they were probably better than I deserved and many teachers expressed surprise at just how well I’d done, considering the effort I’d been putting in. These days I think of it as an early example of my possessing one of the most useful skills in an FM’s toolkit: the ability to pull a rabbit from a hat when it really matters. 

You see, when it came to exam time, I figured out that the things I would be tested on were actually all in the syllabus. I took the view that I wouldn’t worry too much about  the stuff I knew reasonably well, I’d focus on my areas of weakness and I’d pretty much disregard all non-syllabus stuff, so that it didn’t take up valuable short-term memory space.  I might not have worked hard in the run up to the exams, but my revision plan was actually pretty tightly focussed for rapid up-skilling in a short space of time.  It meant that, although I didn’t get the top results, in most cases I got at least one grade higher than predicted. Knowing how to prioritise limited resources in order to achieve a result is essential for an FM. 

Asks a lot of questions.....

Those who’ve only ever known me as an adult, where I’m renowned as a voracious seeker of knowledge, skills and qualifications, are often amazed to learn that I mostly found school boring.

At school, I couldn’t see how the things I learned would be of use to me. With hindsight, I think some of my teachers struggled to convey those practical uses to me.  It wasn’t because they didn’t understand it, it was just that they had never actually used their skills in anger, and lacking practical experience to fall back on, their teaching just seemed to lack depth. So when my teachers tried to impart their knowledge, I tended to probe and challenge it, to see how much they really knew.  I’m sure it was very irritating for some of them, although those who really knew their onions, never seemed to mind. 

This willingness to challenge an expert about their subject matter and put their knowledge to the test can be irritating in a teenager, but it can make adults extremely effective and I think schools should do more to encourage it.  As FMs we deal with experts all the time and we need to level the field, making sure that what they say actually makes sense and is not just an attempt to blind us with science is incredibly important.

Should focus on academic subjects.......

Another reason I found school a little boring, was the pressure applied on me to take academic subjects:  yes I could do them, but I would have probably found practical subjects far more engaging. 

As a boy growing up at a time when there were only three TV channels, I spent a great deal of time playing with Lego, putting together Airfix kits,  making tree-houses and generally doing practical things.  But a few years later, all my teachers saw was a child capable of achieving academic results. It was implied to me that if I could achieve academic results, practical subjects were in some way inferior.  It’s not a view I subscribe to at all.  I think my life might have turned out very differently indeed with a couple of decent results in Design & Technology related subjects.

That said, I never lost was my ability to use tools and generally do things of a practical nature as the staff at my local DIY store will attest.  I can safely say that, a willingness to get one’s hands dirty and an ability to handle a screwdriver the right way round, are also very useful FM skills to have.

What’s the story?

So what has this trip down memory lane taught me? It’s taught me that if we want to attract young people into FM, we could do worse than starting with those young people who might end up getting into it later in life anyway: Good all-rounders who know how to work smarter, rather than harder. The kind of young people who aren’t sure what they want to do, but who enjoy doing practical things and have the cionfidence to challenge their experts. Some of these young people, might well be the FMs of the future.

So........  Having given my story; my challenge to my FM colleagues out there, is to share theirs.  There’s a comment section below, please use it to tell me your story and let’s see if between us we can identify some of the FMs of tomorrow.