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.
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.
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.
