Tag Archives: #career management

Finding Careers in #FinTech

Posted on by
1

Through the many meetup events I attend around Melbourne, people often ask me for career advice on which FinTech startup to join or follow. In response, I try to summarise where I see the current state of the sector, and clarify where they see a role for themselves – information I am happy to share here. I should preface my remarks by stating upfront that I am not a qualified career adviser (but I can refer you to people who are).

First, in choosing to make a career move to FinTech (or any other startup venture), it’s important to know whether you are looking for a similar role within a new business, or making a move into a new area such as product management, UX, content development or coding. Assuming you have acquired the necessary technical skills to transition into a new role, you still need to work out what your personal fit will be in a startup environment. Alternatively, you must demonstrate an ability to apply your knowledge and experience to the benefit of the new business, and a willingness to learn on the job (and perhaps even in your own time, and at your own expense). Accountants who can write code might be rare, but someone with a finance background and who is proficient in writing spreadsheet macros may have a better chance of transitioning into coding if they can build on this core expertise (e.g., helping to develop algorithms for decision-making tools such as stock-screening applications).

Second, FinTech within Australia is still largely based on P2P lending (including SME), payment solutions, banking apps and price comparison platforms, with some developments in financial planning (“robo advice”, stock tracking, portfolio management). Oh, and cryptocurrency, although since CoinJar relocated to London, this seems to have gone quiet…. While there are some B2B FinTech startups (e.g., Moula, Bluedot), they are still in the minority, so the current opportunities are mainly going to be within B2C solutions, or those playing in two-sided markets. This dynamic will also influence your decision.

Thirdly, everything we are seeing points to exponential growth in mobile banking, payments and financial services, but each vertical is taking a different approach because of their respective regulatory frameworks, transaction models tied to technology platforms and commercial processes, and the underlying lack of a true “single view” of customers. For example, within the next 10 years, 80% of new superannuation accounts will come via mobile engagement – which is why we are seeing a growing number of industry funds targeting a younger audience, aligning with “lifestyle” choices, and bundling financial planning and advice services. Rather than “big data” dumps, these super funds need demographic and psychographic data to support their digital engagement strategies.

Fourthly, FinTech is obviously important, but it can no longer simply play on disruption – technology is the enabler, and partnering is the way forward. If you have a track record in bringing parties together to collaborate, to form joint ventures, or to engage in any sort of co-branding exercise, then you will find opportunities emerging all the time. As discussed at a recent FinTech event, even large banks are realising the need to partner and collaborate on new technology, especially when it’s not part of the bank’s core expertise. However, as one superannuation fund director told me, it’s also challenging for large organisations to outsource part of their technology to smaller companies because they are giving someone else custody of their brand.

Finally, it’s difficult to predict what the FinTech jobs of the future will be (just as 10-15 years ago, roles in content marketing, social media and SEO hadn’t been thought of). A simple principle that has helped me navigate a zig-zag career path (to transition from the public sector into large corporations, and from full-time roles into a portfolio career) has been knowing my transferable skills at all times, and being aware of the need to replace and refresh them as required.

Next week: What I did on my holidays…

“I’m old, not obsolete”

Posted on by
2

In the recent “Terminator” sequel, Arnold Schwarzenegger coins a new catchphrase: “I’m old, but I’m not obsolete”. He may not be the latest android, but he has learned to adapt, he is still relevant and his purpose remains consistent. A bit like older workers, then: not ready to be consigned to the scrap-heap, consistent and reliable, and even capable of being upgraded (as Arnie is towards the end of the film).

Terminator Genisys

Remaining relevant is tough, even for a Terminator….  (Copyright 2015 Paramount Pictures)

A great deal of the discussion on employee engagement, business productivity, workplace flexibility and career transition talks about what we do with older employees, particularly those in their 50’s, who often struggle to find comparable work when they are retrenched or “restructured”.

Many 50-somethings can vouch for the fact that making a career transition into another full-time role can be extremely difficult. In my own case, I left my last corporate position just after I turned 50, and I soon realised it would be virtually impossible to find the exact same or similar permanent role elsewhere. So I embarked on a portfolio of interests (non-executive board positions, consulting work, contract roles and entrepreneurship) in order to remain “economically active”.

Over the past four years, in order to remain active, retrain and build my professional networks, I have:

  • completed the AICD Company Director course
  • served on a number of advisory and pop-up boards
  • launched this weekly blog, and written for 3rd party sites
  • coached business owners and entrepreneurs
  • competed in a FinTech hackathon and a MedTech startup competition
  • consulted in the education, public, NFP, publishing, manufacturing, technology and professional services sectors
  • joined numerous MeetUp and networking groups
  • participated in the Lightning Conference on Victoria’s StartUp Future
  • developed a new app for employee performance management,
  • trained as a presenter on community radio, and
  • become a participant and adviser at the Slow School of Business.

As part of my plan to become familiar with new technology, I have also built a side-project to record and release my own music via Bandcamp and Soundcloud, incorporating many iOS apps for which I am a beta-tester.

Not all of this activity is remunerated, yet the people I work with all tell me how much they value my unique input and original insight, and so I keep on doing it. Given the need/expectation to work longer, and the continued tinkering with tax, super and income rules and policies, I’m not sure many of us can ever think about full-time “retirement” (whatever that now means).

I’m aware that there are some ad hoc initiatives to engage older workers as mentors for new entrants to the workplace. While such projects are well-meaning, and may have some desirable benefits, they are not yet financially sustainable, and don’t address the core issue that the expectation of full-time, permanent, lifelong employment is no longer realistic, and we will all have to adapt to these new circumstances.

On the few occasions I have considered full-time roles, I am staggered that so many prospective employers seem incapable of thinking outside the box: on the one hand, they say they want diversity and fresh thinking; but on the other, they resort to the habit of appointing square pegs for square holes.

There is a real sense among many of my peers that their age counts against them, because either employers don’t believe they can learn new technology or processes, or that their previous seniority means they are only interested in roles where they can wait out their retirement, or simply “direct traffic”, rather than getting their hands dirty. Which is both insulting and demoralising. I recall one early discussion where the recruitment consultant said, “despite what the ad says, the business just wants a safe pair of hands – someone who has done the exact same role in a similar organisation for the past 20 years”. How does that support diversity, in particular, cognitive diversity?

So, my question to employers, hiring managers, industry bodies and policy-makers is: when will you truly embrace the challenge of (and opportunity for) change in your hiring and employment practices, and how do older age workers fit into your thinking (if at all)?

Next week: Startups, VC’s and Entrepreneurs

The changing economic relationship of #work

Posted on by
2

Whether or not we are comfortable with the notion, the work we do can come to define us. In some societies, family names are derived from our forebears’ occupations or professions (Butcher, Baker, Smith, Cartwright, etc.).  The rapid shift to the knowledge economy is challenging our traditional economic relationship with work, and what it means to be an employer or employee. For example, the idea of a “job for life” within the same industry, let alone the same company, is no longer the norm.

Workers leave Waterhouse Mill, Bollington, Cheshire, UK (1959)

Workers leave Waterhouse Mill, Bollington, Cheshire, UK (1959)

“Welcome to the working week”

This past week I have been listening to the latest thinking on the nature of “work”, from the perspective of technology and its impact on task-based activity (courtesy of Donald Farmer from Qlik), and from the perspective of organizational culture and its importance in motivating knowledge workers (courtesy of Didier Elzinga of Culture Amp). If you are not familiar with either of these thought leaders, than I thoroughly recommend them to anyone interested in organisational behaviour, career development, business transformation and lifelong learning.

Technology and changing demographics require each of us to reframe our ideas about work as a homogenous lifelong activity, because the economic bargain between employer and employee is no longer as simple as a 40 hour working week and a regular paycheck.

Reframing “employment” #1:

By 2020, average job tenure will be 3 years, and around one-third of the workforce will be employed on a casual basis (part-time, temporary, contractor, freelance etc.). The proliferation of services such as Freelancer, O-desk/Elance, Sidekicker, 99designs, Envato and Fiverr are evidence of this shift from employee to supplier.

“The Dignity of Labour, Pts. 1-4”

Around 200 years ago, at the height of the Industrial Revolution in England, the typical worker was employed in a factory or mill, lived in housing owned by the employer, and was paid some or all of his wages in the form of vouchers that could only be spent in shops also owned by the employer. A hundred years later, my grandparent’s generation were still exposed to the practices of indentured labour (“master and servant”) or the idea of “going into service” (as domestic workers). My father’s generation is certainly the last in my family to have had a 30-year salaried career within the same organisation.

So, in just a few generations we have transitioned from the idea that employment provides for all our needs, to the increasingly common perception that every worker is in fact a micro-business, supplying their labour to multiple employers or clients via fee-based services. (The potential irony here is that in a world of freelancers and contractors, the time-based or task-linked approach to employment pricing starts to resemble Marx’s idea of the labour theory of value…..).

“Cottage Industry”

It’s also interesting to note that before workers were employed in factories, and as agrarian labourers transitioned from toiling in the fields to working in manufacturing production, they were hired on piece-rates, working from home in the form of (literally) cottage industries. Of course, this was not exactly self-employment, as their tools (looms and lathes) were probably provided by their “client” who also set the prices (for raw materials and finished goods), had exclusive rights over the finished goods, and determined the number of units required. But, within the constraints of meeting target numbers and societal norms such as Sunday observance and customary holidays, these labourers were “free” to work for as many hours as they wanted, and at times that suited them. So, like many contemporary issues we still seem to be struggling with, flexible working arrangements are nothing new….

“Work is a four-letter-word”

Aside from connecting with your purpose, understanding your personal value proposition and knowing what you are “worth” in the market, one of the biggest challenges I see for employees/workers is the paradox between shorter careers (witness the increasing unemployment rates among older workers) and longer working lives.

Thanks to medical advances, we are living longer, but there is a mismatch between workforce participation rates and increased welfare and social security costs, leading to continuous policy tinkering on pensions, tax and superannuation.

As individuals, we need to build up sufficient financial assets to sustain us both post-retirement, and during erratic periods of personal income. As “free agents”, we have to learn to live with:

  • increasing job insecurity (companies continuously de-layering and restructuring)
  • significantly different career paths (compared to personal aspiration/expectation)
  • rapidly changing working environments (hot-desking, co-working spaces)
  • greater self-reliance (“bring your own device”) and
  • heightened resilience (“shape up or ship out”)

“Opportunity”

The good news is that the model of portfolio, portmanteau and protean careers means that new jobs and new forms of working are emerging all the time – and with personal resilience etc., come flexibility, adaptability, knowledge sharing, skills transfer and new opportunities for personal development, along with self-defined roles, self-directed learning, self-managed performance and self-determined accountability.

We are no longer defined just by what we do, but how/where/why/when we do it.

Reframing “employment” #2:

A friend recently asked me for some advice on how to transition from “employment” to “self-employment”. She has regular part-time work with one organisation (which she views as employment), but wants to find more of her “own work” with other clients. She does not want to give up the part-time gig just yet, but feels that it is preventing her from growing her own business. So I suggested that she should see herself as being self-employed already, and that the part-time work is her first client, allowing her to build a portfolio of new business.  

“Earn enough for us”

What does this brave new world of work mean for employers – in particular, what is the new economic bargain organisations need to have with their workers?

If companies are no longer willing/able to offer long-term, permanent employment opportunities, how do they manage their labour requirements, attract and retain the best talent (when they need it), and engage highly motivated and skilled people?

First and foremost, the idea of workplace flexibility has to be truly reciprocal – but obviously aligned and clearly articulated – to be of any real benefit to both parties.

Second, if employers are increasingly reliant on freelance resources, this does not obviate their obligations to invest in their workforce – whether that includes benefits, training or rewards and recognition – the same as they would have in their employees.

Third, companies will need to do an even better job of attracting and retaining the skills and knowledge they require – and be willing to offer different kinds of incentives (e.g., opportunities to work on engaging projects and to collaborate with interesting people) beyond basic pay and conditions.

Fourth, employers may have to adjust to the idea of “syndicating” their talent resources (“it’s the shared economy, stupid”) not just within their own workplaces, but across their client organisations, suppliers, service providers and other collaborators – sometimes, even their competitors. Employers can no longer expect to have a total monopoly on their workforce talents, unless they make it really interesting, financially or otherwise…

Fifth, if companies continue to espouse the message that “our people are our best asset” then they need to update their asset management model to demonstrate they mean what they say. For example, more needs to be done in helping employees to retrain and up-skill (for jobs and roles that haven’t yet been thought of), even if that may mean employees are more likely to move on. The amount of goodwill that this will create in the wider community cannot be underestimated.

Reframing “employment” #3:

Employers and HR managers are re-assessing how they evaluate employee contribution. It’s not simply a matter of how “hard” you work (e.g., the hours you put in, or the sales you make). Companies want to know what else you can do for them, how you collaborate, do you know how to ask for help, and are you willing to bring what you know to the role?  

Finally, rather like their employees, employers are increasingly expected to connect with their purpose and to align their values with their objectives. New entrants to the workplace are better informed about the organisations they work for and want to work for, because free agents know they have a choice.

Next week: How to work with Boards

5 Challenges for Performance Management

Posted on by
Reply

I recently facilitated a round-table discussion on Performance Management, with senior executives from commercial, not-for-profit and public sector enterprises. Our topic was current practice in Performance Management, and was hosted together with my colleagues at Bravo Consulting Group.

At the outset, we posed a number of discussion points, including:

Are there direct correlations between Performance Management, Employee Engagement and Productivity?

How is Performance Management linked to Rewards, Recognition and Compensation?

Do your people understand the context for Performance Management?

We also discussed the true costs of Performance Management systems (time, resources, software, administration), as well as the different attitudes of management, team leaders, HR and employees toward current processes.

The good news is that all the organisations represented are running annual or semi-annual employee appraisals. There was also an increased focus on performance outcomes (i.e., it’s not just about effort expended on job-defined tasks, but more about what is being achieved and how). And our participants reported the importance of using appropriate tools to deliver effective employee communications around corporate strategy, organizational goals, change management and project roll-outs to ensure greater alignment with, and context for Performance Management.

However, we identified a number of key challenges and critical issues facing any organization that takes Performance Management seriously, or who wishes to increase the effectiveness of their current practices:

1. Negative Perceptions of Performance Management

Despite the widespread use and acceptance of Performance Management systems, there remains considerable negativity around the process, the context, and the even discussions themselves. There appears to be a sense of foreboding when it comes to the mid- or end-of-year appraisal, a fact that was borne out for me just a few weeks ago: I was in the furniture display area of a well-known department store, when I overheard the floor manager say to one of her sales colleagues: “Mike says he’ll do your one-on-one at 3pm today.” What might appear to be a fairly innocuous statement visibly filled the employee with dread, at the prospect of his annual review. Surely Performance Management discussions should not be fraught with such unnecessary anxiety or stress?

2. Performance Management Systems Are All Different, And Too Rigid

Our round-table participants all reported using different software (and paper-based) systems, which is understandable given the proliferation of HRMS tools that support Performance Management. But many of these systems resemble accounting or project management software, and lack more qualitative or cultural performance measures. Alternatively, systems tend to be rigid, process-driven applications that often take a checklist and compliance approach to conducting Performance Management. They can also suffer from a “one size fits all” solution, and don’t readily help organizations to develop meaningful performance measures or point-in-time indicators, mainly because they are backward-looking and use retrospective data. Shouldn’t Performance Management help employees move towards the job that they want (and towards their longer-term career objectives), rather than confining the discussion to current or out-dated tasks?

3. Formal Processes Are Disconnected From Informal Processes

By making it a “process” (and an infrequent one at that), Performance Management becomes artificial, and divorced from day-to-day reality. This can result in performance issues being stored up and only “discovered” during the formal appraisal – which will add to the anxiety and stress if long-term resentments about manager-employee behaviours and relationships are only brought to light during the Performance Management process. A common outcome from the formal Performance Management process is a corrective or punitive response, due to the absence of continuing efforts to manage and direct performance. Why should employees only hear feedback about their performance at the end of the year, when it might be too late to address the issue, leading to knock-on implications for remuneration, recognition and promotion. Shouldn’t Performance Management be part of the everyday dialogue between colleagues?

4. Many Managers Are Simply Ill-Equipped To Have The Performance Conversation

Without the appropriate skills to foster meaningful and open dialogue with their direct reports, managers end up having to manage the Performance Management conversation, rather than helping their people self-manage their own performance. This awkwardness is compounded if there is a lack of organizational context for Performance Management; worse, poor performance is ignored or circumvented because managers do not feel confident to start the dialogue, which is not fair to the individuals concerned if they are not given the opportunity to discuss what might be the root cause of a performance issue. If there is no dialogue around Performance Management, how can employees know what they are being held accountable for, or appreciate the consequences of not meeting performance goals and objectives?

5. Performance Management Systems Ignore The Middle Majority

Most Performance Management systems (certainly the ones I have been exposed to) end up using forced bell curve distribution analysis to classify employees according to high, middle, low and under achievement categories of performance. I recall one former colleague who used to cite Garrison Keillor when annual appraisal ratings had to be allocated according to the expected distribution curve: “Well, that’s the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.”

When we asked our participants “what keeps you awake at night?”, one CEO commented that he worries about the middle 60%-65% of his employees – the bulk who “do a good job” – because more of his attention and focus is on the high and low performers (the top and bottom 15%-20% respectively). This “bias” can distort management perspective, and lead to disaffection in the middle band, unless there are adequate ways to recognize and reward solid performance independent of annual compensation or promotion. (This issue is particularly acute in Australia when we consider the impacts of slower economic growth, comparatively high wages and sluggish productivity – yet, employers face a war for talent as new and highly valued skills become harder to resource.)

Conclusion

If Performance Management could become a continuous dialogue, backed by meaningful performance criteria and underpinned by a greater emphasis on employee self-awareness and self-directed Performance Management, then organisations could spend more time on strategy and execution, and less time on managing individual performance. Not only would this create greater cost efficiencies in the Performance Management process itself, it would likely lead to improved productivity outcomes because there would be more clarity and engagement around goals, outcomes and incentives.