In the past, many companies posted general visions, which also included some basic ethical rules, but didn’t always worry too hard about seeing them implemented at all levels. Today, when a single tweet can cause disarray on the stock market, it is essential to pay much stronger attention to defining the main values on which the company’s operations are based – and then ensuring that these are understood and adopted throughout the firm.

The main steps to achieving this goal are:

• Define the core values of the company
• Identify for each value the set of behaviours that most reflect these values
• Identify which behaviours are unacceptable, because contrary or not in alignment with the core values
• Decide on rewards for aligned behaviour and sanctions for unacceptable behaviour
• Train the management team, with a particular focus on them leading by example and also on them supporting positive behaviours
• Communicate clearly to all staff the expectations for their individual, personal, daily work
• Take stock periodically of the attitudes toward the behavioural standard (because this will give the clearest indication whether the values are really being “lived” at all levels of the organization)

With these simple steps even large multinational firms can avoid much grief.

However, two of the most telling indicators of the true operating culture of a company are the personalities of its original founder(s) and of the current CEO. Examine how the company works, takes decisions, treats its employees, develops its key processes or any other major operational matter, and in most cases the core values that lie behind the approaches selected reflect those of founder and current CEO, regardless of the economic branch(es) in which the company is active.
Why is this important? For anyone deciding to take up a position there, it can make an enormous difference how even senior employees are treated. But also, as the culture affects performance and performance in turn impacts on share price, an examination of the culture is highly relevant for investors and/or banks.

So, next time you want to size up a company, take a moment to identify the core values , through questions such as:
• What drives employee behavior?
• How are people motivated?
• How are the main processes determined?
• Where is employee morale on a scale of 1-10?
• How are decisions made?
Then compare the answers with the known character traits and attitudes of the founder(s) and/or the CEO and you may be surprised how much consistency there is.

Dispassionately analyzing a situation, one can usually find a window of opportunity even in the worst setback. When we are too emotional about something that has happened we may not see the potential for improvement or any options to move forward.
Such a level of dispassion, even in truly difficult times, can be developed. It requires practice, concentration and an understanding that we are all responsible for our own lives. As long as we blame someone else (or a given set of circumstances) for our misery, we give that person or situation the power to make us happy or sad. If we “take back” that power and assume the responsibility, we can also change something in our own behavior or attitudes, which can in turn improve the situation

These are just a few of the questions one can ask, and are by no means scientific, as each of them can be influenced by factors other than your leadership qualities. However, taken together, even the answers to these questions will give a good first indication of how appreciated you are as a leader!

Company culture has almost as much impact on a person’s behavior as does the influence of the country in which they grew up. It is often said that large concerns today have adopted an “American” business culture. This is only partly true. The culture of a company derives from the values with which it was founded, combined with those of other companies it has acquired along the way. And usually is best observed in the written and unwritten rules guiding the behavior of most managers and staff.

Professional culture is best understood when comparing the mindset, approach, business style and habits of different groups: economists vs. engineers, for example. The training and practice of a profession has a major impact on how one responds to a particular set of circumstances.

Last but not least, as developments speed up a larger cleft is opening up between generations. Older staff members have longer experience; the younger ones tend to be more technologically fit. Alone these differences can cause misunderstandings if not taken into consideration.

Often what we bitterly criticize in others reflects most strongly our own inner fears and doubts.  And usually it is either what we most fear in ourselves (and try to stamp out by seeming to act the opposite way) or what we feel (again, motivated out of fear) that we must do most to avoid.

If, the next time you feel really angry or frustrated with someone, take a good, hard look at yourself: your attitudes, behavior, needs, fears. And try to figure out what it is that you want or need to change in yourself. Doing so may significantly reduce the frustration you are experiencing with the other person, and hence improve your relationship.

Let me explain my question.

Traditionally, German development cooperation has operated on the twin premises of neutrality and altruism. In the minds of the majority of development workers, capitalism and for-profit operation were considered unwelcome at best and anti-development at worst. It was fine to support (for example) a poor farmer or a struggling entrepreneur, as long as he was small. But if he expanded, took on larger properties, became more commercial, or even took over a number of factories (employing hundreds of workers) he suddenly became uninteresting, impure.

Changing this mindset to accommodate real, proactive cooperation with German industry requires modifying the underlying VALUES for development cooperation throughout the entire system and is a major challenge.

Last weekend I was privileged to attend the “Eichholzer Development Days”, a two-day conference held by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Union of Catholic Entrepreneurs in Schloß Eichholz near Bonn. This meeting gathered politicians and leaders of organizations in the development field to discuss directions and trends in development policy.

One recurring theme of the weekend was the role and potential of the private sector, particularly the German Mittelstand. In the meeting there appeared to be universal support for this idea which, although not new, has recently gained political tailwind through the public comments of the new Liberal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development.

This may sound rhetorical, but it is sincere. I was recently thinking about the elaborate schemes the EU (and other donors) have for selecting who carries out their projects.

Basically, the prequalification phase consists of consulting firms preparing descriptions of completed projects and some financial data. These are mechanically assessed (how many times does a particular buzz word appear in the project description?) and the company is either put on the short list or rejected. During the tendering phase, the company is supposed to comment on the TOR (demonstrating knowledge and competence in the area of the project), provide a more or less detailed approach to carrying out the project and propose CVs of experts who have committed to carry out the work as planned if they are selected.

It all sounds logical.

In practice, project descriptions are manipulated to fit the requirements of the new project, sometimes significantly. All too often, either an outside expert or a specialized business development department with little contact to the project implementers prepares the proposal. This poses the risk that the incoming team is not fully in agreement with the approach written on paper, even if some parts are prepared by the Team Leader.

The business of doctoring curricula vitae is as old as the consulting industry itself.  Despite the attempts of the EU to control this practice (requiring employers’ letters confirming the assignments listed in the CV, which poses its own challenges), I have seen large numbers of CVs in which – due to the creative presentation of the experience – the areas of expertise were radically transformed.

So in effect, this produces a large number of companies carrying out creative writing, referring to people they barely know, with whom they may or may not have worked, vying for projects, the substance of which they may or may not know anything about.

Then in the implementation phase, the problem is compounded. Most large consulting companies delegate much of the project coordination work to young, relatively inexperienced staff, partially due to the high volume of administrative and logistical support required. And partly for the reason that, due to competition, the margins achieved are too small to pay more senior staff to support the project unless they have paid days to do so.

The question I would raise is: how does any of this make a consulting company qualified to carry out development projects? They may be good at writing proposals, at charging competitive prices, at selecting freelance experts to carry out the projects, but how much remains in the company itself?

I have painted a very grim picture, which is certainly unfair to a number of committed and qualified companies and individuals.  On the other hand, everyone who has been involved in this business knows what I am talking about.

So what can be done? I believe a rethink of the approach to hiring expertise and implementing projects is necessary, and will comment on this in future blogs.