My blog

Category: Opinion

  • Letter from Australia: Ben Murphy on the coal debate

    Ben Murphy

    Sitting on this little red patch of dirt in the South Pacific Ocean, I’ve been trying to get some perspective on the craziness that’s upon us.

    How to make sense of the craziness in the news? One place to start is the global coal debate. The first thing to understand here is the basic difference between metallurgical (coking) coal for steel-making and other coals for energy production, concrete and paper manufacturing, to name only a few. Without this distinction the climate change discussion risks creating significant dangers, and the conversation around ceasing coal production will have an adverse effect on all of us. That’s because of these two coal sources is crucial to the existence of man kind.

    Let’s start with the basic question of where coal comes from. There are many varieties of coal in the world, ranging from brown coal or lignite to anthracite, also known as hard coal. All coal is formed when dead plant matter submerged in swamp environments is subjected to the geological forces of heat and pressure over hundreds of millions of years. Over time, the plant matter transforms from moist, low-carbon peat, to coal, an energy- and carbon-dense black or brownish-black sedimentary rock.

    That means there are two broad types of coal. In the first place, thermal coal makes up for about 65 per cent of all global coal production, also known as ‘steaming coal’ or just ‘coal’. This is widely used as the principal means of generating electricity in much of the world. It’s reliable and stable as a base load energy source and forms part of the energy cycle which includes nuclear, hydro, wind and solar energies to name a few. This is the source of much of the debate around finding renewable energy resources.

    But thermal coal must be distinguished from coking coal, also known as metallurgical coal. This is used to create coke, one of the two irreplaceable inputs for the production of steel, the other being iron ore. The property which really sets coking coals apart from other coals is its caking ability, which is the specific property required to make coke suitable for steel making.

    Now, coke is produced by heating coking coals in a coke oven in a reducing atmosphere. This is known as the caking process. This refined coking coal is then used in blast furnaces along with iron ore as the base minerals to make steel (pig iron).

    So, what will happen if those who win the argument and coal mining becomes phased out altogether?

    Well, in a world where coal-mining stops altogether, there would be an obvious and undesirable side effect: we would stop steel production. That would mean no more high-rise buildings, football stadiums, bridges, cars (Telsa included), trains, planes, air conditioning, computers, mobile phones, solar panels, wind turbines, power stations, refrigeration, hospitals, ambulances, shipping, recycling – and of course the needle used in the syringe that vaccinated you against the Covid-19 virus. It’s a scary but real prospect.

    Humans rely on steel, we have been making it for over 3,000 years. It’s in every facet of our lives and without it we stop. Transportation, communications, food production, economies and modern medicine rely on it. Take away metallurgical coal and you stop steel production.

    Here, we take a breath. There are smart minds looking to alternative fossil-free steel-making processes such as hydrogen steel which is gaining traction and significant investment as a future process. But realistically, we’re decades away from producing steel on anything like the scale we do today.

    Besides, so long as developing and emerging economies such as China, India and Indonesia are dependent on the production of steel – and so long as steel is heavily reliant on metallurgical coal and iron ore – it would seem the debate about stopping coal mining is in some sense a misguided one.

    It seems certain then that coal-mining will remain for some time to some degree. Thermal Coal and most non-renewable energy resources will be slowly phased down as we find and implement renewable alternatives. That’s a good thing, but it will take some time.

    If we agree that steel is important and therefore metallurgical coal must remain in our lives, then we have the parameters of a sensible debate. Perhaps we need to also start at the level of language by referring to thermal coal as ‘energy coal’ and ‘metallurgical coal’ as ‘steel coal’.

    The writer is the founding Director of AMC Supponor

  • Why lifelong learning should never stop

    Why lifelong learning should never stop

    Stuart Thomson

    Too often when we think about lifelong learning, it applies only to those who have been in the workforce for some time.  The reality is that the learning journey should never stop.

    The apparent confusion about terms is partly a result of ‘lifelong learning’ being misapplied to cover only more established team members who need to update their skills or if someone needs to re-skill after losing their job.  But this is all too little, too late.

    Instead learning needs to become a fundamental part of any role from the very outset, from Day One, not simply ‘added in’ later when gaps start to appear. We must get away from the idea that learning ends, or is at best paused, after sixth form, an apprenticeship or university.  

    New employees are often subject to a world of initial training and induction to ensure that they are up-to-speed in the new role.  But once that initial period comes to an end then there is a danger of learning silence.  That person has had their allocated training and the employer moves onto the next new intake.

    Sometimes new employees are expected to impart their knowledge to more established members as a sort of quid pro quo for learning on the job. There is no doubt that such a practical element is essential but there is no guaranteeing that either party is particularly adept at helping the other.  So, it may be that something more structured and formal is required as well.

    It should not be a case of simply being thankful for whatever support you are given.  Instead, we should all be more demanding about the training options open to us, especially early on.  Problems often arise when there is a gap between an induction and then a return to training.  That gap must be filled.  The bigger the gap, the more there is to fill.

    The gap is what causes problems.  These will vary depending on the role but could include an unfamiliarity with current thinking or new technologies, or lacking the skills necessary to cope with a new challenge.

    Some employers will allocate funding or a learning budget per person but that does not always apply to everyone across an organisation.  Again, there can be an over-emphasis on more established team members.  This lack of equality across an organisation needs to be challenged.  Employers could also have a bigger role in communicating more about the potential options available.  It would make joining them even more attractive.

    But we also have a personal responsibility as well.  Even if funds are available then it is up to us to use them. That means being able to identify where our weaknesses are, what we need to improve and frankly how we can continue to get ahead of others as well (internally as well as externally).  We all need to challenge ourselves and ask how we can be a leader in our chosen field and what training support we need to achieve that.

    Looking at what others are doing and being inspired by them is a good starting point.  But also look through training brochures and check the courses available. Consider what your professional and trade bodies offer.  Maybe try and spend time with other teams in your own organisation as well.  The role of mentors too can be hugely helpful in helping identify what to address.

    There needn’t though always be a cost associated.  Many bodies offer free or low-cost options, especially to existing members.

    It doesn’t need to be all about you either.  If there is a common need across a team then employers could provide you all with something as it may be cost effective for them.  Certainly, that has been my experience when dealing with training on public affairs and reputation management issues.

    Teachers, lecturers, trainers of all types have a role in getting us into good habits focused on ongoing learning.  So too do employers.  But we must take responsibility and hold employers to account on training and remind them of the benefits – not least improved retention and loyalty.

    We need to beware of the emergence of learning gaps and think about lifelong learning as the truly continuous process it should be.

    The writer is Head of Public Affairs at BDB Pitmans

  • Economist Roger Bootle on the positive side of AI

    The chair of Capital Economics has an optimistic view about the impact of Artificial Intelligence

    It seems strange to recall now that before the ghastly Covid pandemic descended on us there was a massive obsession in the media and elsewhere about Artificial Intelligence and robots. The conclusion was fundamentally negative. Most people argued that this great technological improvement was going to bring some form of impoverishment: basically, we were all going to lose our jobs.

    I got stuck into reading it all – and found that most of it was written by non-economists. I discovered they had their economics upside down and it was time for an economist to get to grips with it all, which I did. My take on the subject was fundamentally optimistic, so my book stands out from others on the subject.

    You’ve got to start with the history and the technological improvements which have been going on for ages. Since the Industrial Revolution, we’ve had a wave of improvements which have knocked out various jobs and skills, and in some cases industries. Others have sprung up to take their place. For me, the question was why should AI be any different?

    When you got down to the specifics what the pessimists focused on was that essentially there were going to be no areas where human beings will be able to compete with robots. They say that AI will be different as past machines had to be operated by human beings. I looked at that and thought: ‘That’s bunkum.’

    For a start the capability of robots is massively exaggerated in the literature put out by the enthusiasts. Every time I go through an airport, I chuckle at the AI-enabled automatic passport machines. When they work, they’re fine: rows and rows of officials guiding you here and there. When they don’t work, humans come into play. If we go onto robots, they’ve been going on in industry for forty or fifty years but the idea of the omni-capable robot is a long way off. They don’t have sufficient manual dexterity; they can’t plump a cushion or tie a shoelace.

    Of course, those shortcomings could theoretically just be temporary. But more important is the question of what you think human beings are. I quote someone as saying in my book that “the human brain is just a computer which happens to be made of meat.” I think that’s fundamentally wrong. There’s something about the way the human mind works which is very different from the way a computer works: we use instinct and make great jumps which a computer can’t make.

    The central thing is that human beings are social creatures and like to relate to other human beings. They’re naturally suspicious of machines and sympathetic to other humans.

    Take medicine as an instance. Not only is there room for great advances in record-keeping but also in diagnosis and some people suggest this will lead to the redundancy of medical professionals and surgeons. This is complete and utter nonsense. Human beings needs to interact with and trust other human beings. You’re not going to go along to an AI surgery and hear a robotic voice say, “You’ve got to have your leg chopped off” – and just go, “Okay.” We’ll need to have human beings intermediating between us and the robots and AI.

    At the moment, robotic surgery has bought some terrific advances but what it hasn’t done is make surgeons redundant. What it has done is make surgery much more accurate, reliable and quicker and potentially have it done at remote distances. I see a whole range of jobs where humans beings will want to interact with other human beings. There’s one thing which robots will never be better at than robots – and that’s being human.

    Of course, that doesn’t mean we’re not seeing the more menial tasks removed in favour of robots doing more. Checkout tills are still a nuisance at the moment, but they will get better. Translation is another interesting one. When these translation apps first started they were useless; now they’re not bad. Google Translate does a pretty reasonable job. Basic accounting and basic legal services are also possible.

    It won’t undermine the need for labour for people at the bottom of the heap. It’s the clerical positions which will change – people doing admin and clerical type jobs. I suspect they’ll be replaced. But overall, I see it as something which will massively increase productivity over time.

    Roger Bootle is the Chair of Capital Economics

  • Jim O’Neill on the MINTs, Goldman v government, and how countries become successful

    Jim O’Neill on the MINTs, Goldman v government, and how countries become successful

    former Chief Economist at Goldman Sachs and former Commercial Secretary to the Treasury Jim O’Neill

    After my paper published by Goldman Sachs coining the term ‘the BRICs’ – which referred to Brazil, Russia, China and India as crucial emerging markets – I used to engage with other countries’ finance ministers. Occasionally I’d find countries annoyed not to have been included in the acronym.

    In 2013, I coined the term the MINTs, to take into account Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey – all of which seemed to me interesting countries.

    Today, the country that has the biggest viable basis for being irritated that it wasn’t included in the BRICs acronym is Indonesia. It’s a very interesting place – it’s another significant commodities producer, but it has weathered the past decades better than Brazil or Russia. 

    Of course, what makes Indonesia additionally interesting is that it’s a very large Muslim country which practices reasonably openly quite a few aspects of modern capitalism. So it has very positive demographics. 

    In terms of conceptual potential, I’m also very interested in Nigeria – though there you’re talking not in the next 20 years but in the next 40. If that crazy place could have a proper economic policy framework it would become extremely big in the African context as its demographics are just incredible. It’s an extremely young population with great capacity for productivity. 

    This is where economic outcomes come down to political leadership. Brazil, Russia and Nigeria, have all been impacted by poor governance, and we’ve seen that with India this year with the virus. In 2000, I developed the Global Sustainability Growth Index, which included around 190 countries. We statistically examined hundreds of variables, and ended up including about 15 which seem especially important for economic growth. Among the things that really matter is the strength of a country’s institutional framework.

    That index today shows China scoring much higher than any of the other BRIC countries – and interestingly India scores lower than Russia or Brazil in spite of its spectacular demographics. 

    But we have our own inequality and problems here at home – I hope Boris Johnson is genuine about his levelling up agenda. He’s only been in power a relatively short period of time, and because of Covid, we haven’t even had a proper budget or multi-year spending review yet: everything’s been a policy response. Boris seems to struggle with rhetoric and the whole idea that a prime minister should under-promise and over-deliver. He’s raised very big expectations – and these are things which will take a long time to deliver on. So far, there’s very little evidence that he is delivering on it. 

    I retain a close friendship with George Osborne, and with Whitehall officials. When I worked in government, to my pleasant surprise I found the quality of the staff in the Treasury to be just as good as at Goldman Sachs – but with greater public spirit. The hard thing for me was that I wasn’t a member of the Labour Party; I was there to execute a technical role. But I was surrounded by ministers who were obsessed with where they were in terms of political horse-trading. 

    I found their motives troubling. They would decide what to support based on how it would help them in their next job which is extremely different to Goldman Sachs. Even within the same party, competing ideologies were different – often irreconcilably so. In that sense, I witnessed first-hand the ridiculous developments within the Conservative Party: I was shocked as to how crazy it was.

    By comparison, I was lucky at Goldman. They were mad enough to offer me a partnership to join – I was only the fifth. They’d taken on a lot of risk themselves. But I was daunted – then as now, the image of Goldman was intimidating from the outside. It was full of remarkably smart and incredibly driven people. They had 300 people in the place with their own views on the dollar – many of whom were smarter than me. But it really is a meritocracy in there. So long as I delivered the goods, nobody gave a damn about my background.

  • 2022 Highlights: Opinion – What does the business leader of the future look like?

    2022 Highlights: Opinion – What does the business leader of the future look like?

    By Bianca Robinson

    In my role as CEO of CEO Sleepout UK – a charity whose mission is to unite business leaders around a call to end homelessness for good, I see all kinds of leaders who want to make a difference, who want to see a fairer, more equitable society, and a kinder, more compassionate world. 

    They come to a CEO Sleepout for one night, sleeping out on the hard ground, braving the noise and cold at Lord’s Cricket Ground, or Emirates Old Trafford in Manchester, or St James Park in Newcastle (and many more venues across the UK) – and we unlock a deeper understanding of what it means for a person to be homeless.

    My message for each and every business leader or exec who takes part is that they have an immense power and the opportunity to use it to help create the world they want. They can choose to lead with purpose. 

    Leading with purpose means bringing your personal values, particularly those that relate to environmental and social responsibility to the heart of the organisation and embedding them with baked-in policies, procedures and activities that allow them to live and breathe through everything you do.

    This type of leadership – or stewardship – means you assume responsibility for your patch and to make sure that it leaves a robust and thriving footprint that enriches society rather than depletes it.

    So why is it so crucial that we see leaders with purpose emerging now? I always make a point of letting my business audiences know that it’s fantastic to enjoy the fruits of their hard work, blood, sweat and tears – and savour every success. But I ask them to challenge the definition of success: if success has come off the backs of low-paid workers, or at the expense of the environment, then can you really call it success?

    Leaders like Dan Price, the CEO who cut his pay by a million dollars so all workers could make at least $70,000 per year is one of a cohort of leaders demonstrating a collaborative version of success – success that returns value to a number of stakeholders: the workforce, the families of those workers, the community, society and the environment.

    Right now, we’re seeing a convergence of market forces conspiring to make a step-change in the way we do business. Of course we have the global climate emergency, but the pandemic has also highlighted the question of front line workers, who are traditionally the lowest paid, but are now more highly valued than ever before. We’re also seeing global growth rates peaking and AI on the cusp of obliterating a swathe of traditional jobs.

    All this is taking place as a new generation – the first to be digital native, comes to the fore. Young people born between 1995 and 2000 (Gen Z) make up 25 per cent of the workforce. They are natural problem-solvers. They are socially conscious and values-orientated having grown up with the world’s problems, causes, disruptions and social movements surging through their veins via the device at their fingertips.

    Coming of age during the global financial crisis of 2008, Gen Z has a healthy dose of scepticism when it comes to how businesses interact with society. They have higher expectations for the businesses they support and work for than any previous generation. 

    Gen Z is already spending and their spending power is growing rapidly:. They are looking for leaders who model honesty, accessibility, accountability and transparency. This means our leaders must use the power they have to rise to this opportunity. Young people are a vital market force driving a fairer, more equitable and more sustainable world.

  • 2022 Highlights: Stuart Thomson on the Crucial Role of Public Affairs

    Stuart Thomson

     

    All organisations come with their own jargon, language, and structures. Understanding all that can be a full-time role. Public affairs can play a critical role, but it may not be talked about or can be a small part of a larger practice area. So, what it is all about and why should you take it seriously?

    The work a public affairs team focuses on involves influencing public policy outcomes. That means fundamentally knowing their way around policy making including politics, politicians, and Parliament. They are the people who know how government works.

    The foundation of any good public affairs operation should be to use the information, insight and intelligence gathered to play an active role in an organisation’s operations.

    An effective public affairs team, for instance, uses their political knowledge and understanding to inform an organisation’s assessment and management of risk. Politicians and government can bring attention to an issue but, crucially, also have the power to inflict operational damage.

    But it is not all down beat, good political insight can bring potential market and commercial opportunities with government as well.

    The public affairs operation may stand alone or can sit within a wider communications department which may itself be called external affairs. It can be part of a marketing function. For other organisations, it reports into the head of legal. There is no right or wrong organisational structure as long as its voice can be heard. It should all be about the constructive role it plays and how best it can engage and feed into the work of other parts of the organisation.

    In particular, that means having a role in the wider reputation management of an organisation. Having a strong reputation is critical with a range of audiences, not least political ones. Developing a strong reputation takes time, effort and resources and the public affairs team should have a critical role. Not least, it needs an organisation to consider all aspects of its delivery against the standards expected of itself. That can mean difficult and challenging conversations but unless any gap between ‘saying and ‘doing’ is removed then there is a potential for reputational damage.

    Any public affairs role is also well positioned to help grow a reputation through, for instance, thought leadership which can be tied into political and policy development. There are obvious ways in which a public affairs team can work closely with different parts of an organisation.

    Let’s take the HR function, for instance. Public affairs may have a role in the internal communications of an organisation so there is a direct relationship with HR. Public affairs will be very aware of the need for employees to act, sometimes vocally, as champions for an organisation. They are your best advocates. Employee relations and governance are also critical elements of an organisation’s reputation.

    Government and politicians always want to know how well run any organisation is, but employee relations are often an area where a ‘say-do’ gap can emerge, and rhetoric and reality diverge.

    So, whilst HR and public affairs fulfil different roles they often need to work together. This can also happen if something goes wrong. If someone on the management team were to misbehave then HR obviously needs to lead but the communications and reputation management are critical as well.

    So, what about the skills needed to be part of a good public affairs team? Firstly, it is about being a policy navigator and understanding how policy is made and what the processes are, as well as the audiences.

    Secondly, you need to be a strategy developer – that is, able to develop a public affairs strategy, pulling in the information and knowledge needed to do so. Thirdly, it helps to be a communications expert. That will include, everything from message development through to being able to work with the channels needed to get out to audiences.

    Other things are important too. You need to be an audience engager, and have the ability to know and understand stakeholder audiences so that you can identify what drives them, how to communicate with them and how to work with them over a potentially prolonged period. It’s also key to be a risk analyser, and possess the ability to consider a raft of information, as well as knowing and understanding politics, to identify potential risks. But also, how they should be addressed as well.

    That’s not all. You also need to be a networker – both inside and outside of the confines of work. It also helps to be a partnership developer, with the ability to work with a range of audiences, outside of politics as well, to build appropriate coalitions of interest.

    So look out for the public affairs in your organisation, you may wish to work with them. They can be hugely useful.

  • 2022 Highlights: Letter from Bucharest -Jonathan Cathey on progress as the first casualty of war

    Jonathan Cathey

     

    The first casualties of wars are often the young soldiers who have been sent to fight them.  Next, the civilians who can’t or refuse to leave the conflict zone and get caught up in the fighting, or who, in the case of Russia’s utterly senseless assault on Ukraine, are deliberately and callously targeted with horrifying brutality.  These tragic losses are vividly and heartbreakingly visible, and displayed in daily media for all to see, but as ordinary civilians swap work-clothes and laptops for fatigues and weapons, there is another casualty that rarely comes into view until long after the smoke and dust has cleared, the diplomacy done and armistice agreements are signed.

     

    In Ukraine, with the vast proportion of the remaining population focusing all of its efforts on repelling the invasion, this casualty is nothing other than all the things they were doing and all the progress they were making before they were invaded.

     

    When the fighting eventually stops, there will be obvious and immediate priorities for the government of Ukraine: the resumption of vital supply chains to deliver food and potable water to the population; re-establishing essential services such as power and sanitation; supplying medical aid to those in desperate need; and shelter for those without it. Essentially, the most urgent objective will be the relief of immediate suffering and with most of the world on its side, we can reasonably expect that many nations will help to deliver the aid and assistance that Ukraine will need.

     

    Next comes an assessment of the damage, and the beginning of a lengthy journey of post-conflict repair and reconstruction, starting with vital infrastructure that has been purposely and cynically targeted by Russian military commanders, such as hospitals, schools and emergency services. Then important cultural institutions such as government buildings, museums, libraries, and churches. At the same time, people’s homes must be rebuilt, hopefully, but not necessarily in the same place that they were before, and so the list goes on.  All this will take place throughout a period of unimaginable grieving.

     

    If the Ukrainian people take on this enormous and daunting task with the same heroic determination that they have now become famous and admired for, and that has inspired the world during the past months, then we can be sure that this process will not stall, but it will still take time. To understand the level of destruction in parts of Ukraine that has been savagely meted out by Russia we could compare with Hamburg in WWII which was also badly damaged by extensive bombardment. Hamburg took more than 40 years to rebuild.

     

    With so much that has been turned to rubble as a direct consequence of Vladimir Putin’s vicious shelling of civilian infrastructure, rebuilding Ukraine will likely take decades. National treasures such as the Mariupol theatre which has been completely destroyed, and is likely the site of an unthinkable civilian massacre, are works of architecture that take many years to complete at the best of times. But it won’t be the best of times, because there will be so many wounds to heal, and so many lost to mourn.

     

    As I boarded a flight from Bucharest to Paris today, there were many Ukrainian passports in the queue.  Special announcements were being made to inform them of arrangements to meet them at Charles de Gaulle airport, and I wondered how long it would be before they would be able to return to their homes, or if they ever would. I noticed that there were few adults amongst the groups and many children: presumably many of their parents had stayed to fight.  Then I wondered, what were they all doing before all this? What is it that won’t happen anymore because of this?

     

    It is astonishing to think that an advanced and civilised nation, that was peacefully pursuing its interests in areas of science, medicine, technology, art and business, has now been reduced to the task of primary construction. Many important projects and initiatives will now stall and be delayed, perhaps indefinitely. For example, in 2020 a national poll showed overwhelming support for the legalisation of medical cannabis to relieve a range of conditions from chronic pain to post traumatic stress disorder.  2022 was the year that legalisation was set to take place, and this was firmly prioritised in President Zelensky’s government agenda.  Medical cannabis has also proven life-saving for children suffering with rare forms of intractable epilepsy for which existing treatments are ineffective.

     

    In the worst cases this condition can be fatal, although this is rare but that is exactly the point: the social agenda of Ukraine has progressed so far since gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, that by 2022, the business of politics and government was even able to help tiny minorities of the Ukrainian population who would otherwise suffer.  When the many are able and determined to look after the needs of the few, that is when a nation has reached the higher apex of progress and civilisation.  We might also ponder that medical cannabis is still illegal in Russia.

     

    So, the question is how long will it be before Ukraine can reach that point again?  Russia’s barbaric invasion has caused obvious damage and unforgivable casualties that are all too glaringly obvious to see, but the enduring damage of Putin’s crimes will run deep for years, and probably decades to come.  By the time the houses are rebuilt, cinemas are open and actors once more tread the boards of Mariupol theatre, children who were about to be saved in 2022 may no longer be here to see it.

     

     

    Jonathan Cathey is a marketing and branding consultant

  • 2022 Highlight: Stuart Thomson – Beware Closed Minds Around You

    Stuart Thomson

    A creative working environment should recognise the abilities and contribution of everyone. Sadly, despite what they may say, not all organisations live up to the high standards they claim to live by.  But don’t give up on them.  Instead, think about how to encourage change.

    Starting a new job is always accompanied by a high level of excitement and expectation.  For those entering the world of work for the first time, there is trepidation but enthusiasm as well and, for most, a real willingness to get involved.

    Most organisations appreciate that input and drive, but some seem less willing to make the most of the opportunities.  Certainly, there can be structures and hierarchies that prevent voices being listened to but, more often than not, it is about the people. 

    Having such a closed mind goes against every leadership book you read or podcast you listen to, but it still happens.  The closed mind might be a result of a fear of being made to look bad, a poor personal relationship or, more simply, intransigence on their part.  An undying belief in ‘the way we’ve always done things’ should not be underestimated.  So those with a closed mind either don’t listen or don’t recognise the contributions that come their way.  They simply end up being dismissive.

    If you are faced with such a situation then do not downgrade your expectations. 

    The initial knee-jerk reaction is to look for a new job.  That is certainly one option but not one that guarantees success.  It is a cliché to say that the grass is not always greener but that definitely applies to the work environment.  All roles and employers have their challenges.

    Instead, your best option, and one that may help you in the longer-term, is to stay and fight to be heard.  If you can be successful, then opening up the organisation will not only be hugely rewarding personally but will enable you to make an impression which can only help in your career. Whatever the challenge is, consider your strategy and what it should include:

    • Are there any champions you can look to work with?  You don’t have to do this alone.
    • Try to work with and not against people, so recognise their opposition but try to address it.
    • Always be clear on the benefits and try to use real life examples or information rather than relying on instinct.
    • Are there internal teams that can help, such as HR?
    • Do you understand the structure of the organisation so that you know who to talk to?

    Remember, there is nothing wrong with applying some pressure and many will thank you for it.  Many employers often know when there are closed minds and are looking for ways to change.  You are providing the constructive encouragement they need. 

    Communication is critical.  Issues often arise and closed minds take root when the communication is poor.  Instead of organisations being able to deal with problems they don’t because the right people are not made aware.

    The input could be for a piece of client work, internal practices or focused on something more structural.  The same lessons and thought processes should apply, regardless.

    So do not give up and simply look to move on.  Rather, make every effort to help open the closed minds.

     

  • Special report: Tim Fitzgerald’s deep dive into the personal assistant sector

    Tim Fitzgerald

     

    My LinkedIn bio and Masterclass website blurb says…

     

    For 20 years, I have been assisting successful and busy HNW individuals and families as a private assistant.

     

    I represent those who need highly experienced and flexible support – someone to represent them confidently, discretely, and efficiently in all matters relating to their private lives.

     

    To my principal(s), I am a personal Swiss Army knife.

     

    I have been featured in The Financial Times, I am consistently approached for the top PA roles, and I am considered one of the best in the market.

     

    All the while, being part of an industry that is only 4% male.

     

    Sounds pretty good, right?  What is doesn’t say it that I fell into the industry by fluke – and that I blagged and bullshitted my way into one of the most high-profile roles in London at one point. It doesn’t say how A/B testing various approaches to things like job applications, CV structure, and interview techniques eventually resulted in success. Nor does it say how personal development and private study led me to some of the winning formulas and ideas that are now part of the one-to-one courses I give to aspiring assistants, 2nd jobbers, and the experienced PA’s and EA’s out there..

     

    Would you like to know how I did it?…. One word: Mindset.

     

    In my first interview as a PA I only asked one question at the end; more for clarity than anything else. “So, you tell me what you want, I go do it, you’re happy and you pay me for doing that. That’s it?!”.  It sounded too good to be true. What I didn’t understand back then is that it can be a nightmare on multiple levels for some people. Many people get stuck on the question of: ‘What if’.  What if I can do it?! What if I can’t find it?! What if I can’t arrange it?!  But to me that was easy-peasy.  My mindset was already in a place: I believe there is a way around everything.

     

    In that first job, it was made clear to me by my principal that, “it is not about you, it’s about me”.  I made her laugh when I replied, “I grew up in an all-female household, so I’m used to being a second class citizen”.  That was partly a joke, but there was also truth to it. I was already accustomed to not being the centre of attention in a house of two older sisters. The mindset was already there. What I had to learn was the actual job.

     

    I should have been fired at least once a month in that job, but I was fortunate that my principal wanted to mould her PA. She wanted it done in her way. Fast forward ten more years and two more principals and I thought I knew it all.  I did not. But what I took with me into new roles was the starting point of ‘it’s not about me’. That gave me the chance to study the new Principal and find out how to perform. It wasn’t about my ego and who I was. That would’ve only got in the way. I learned to focus on them and to figure out the rest out as I went.

     

    After 21 years in the sector, I can now be found working for a lovely family and using all of my know-how and every single one of my skills to make sure they have smooth sailing in their lives.

     

    The Job Itself

     

    Wikipedia:  A personal assistant, also referred to as personal aide or personal secretary, is a job title describing a person who assists a specific person with their daily business or personal tasks

     

    I agree.  That is what a personal assistant does. What it doesn’t tell you is who a personal assistant is, or what makes you succeed or fail as one. It also doesn’t tell you which innate abilities lead to doing the job well, or which character traits translate into being a PA. Finally, it doesn’t tell you what mindset is required to perform at the top level and earn the top money.

     

    What I discovered in just three short phone calls over the course of a weekend at the end of Summer ’21, changed not only my understanding of the sector but what it was most definitely lacking.

     

    ThePAmasterclass.com  

     

    I was messaged by three contacts of mine asking for help with various arrangements.  These were highly successful people within their respective industries, all with their own assistants.  Why on earth did they have to ask me for help?  This was especially odd as what they needed in each instance was easily accomplished. Clearly, they didn’t feel their own assistants were capable.

     

    Out of a sense of frustration I jumped onto LinkedIn on the Monday morning and told everyone that I was going to upgrade anyone who wanted it. I would lift the veil, and tell the truth, and hand over all the tips and tricks of my trade, and instil a new way of thinking.  I would launch a closed-door Masterclass for 20 people with one of London’s leading personal assistants.

     

    72 hours later I was sold out! This was a surprise. I didn’t have a website, venue, or even talking points. I spent the next week building a shoddy site, putting together a curriculum, and begging for venue space among my contacts.

     

    What I anticipated being a four-hour session turned into eight hours. I thought it would just be listening ears, but the day turned into a deep dive workshop and lengthy Q&A. Each attendee had their own needs and wants.  I realised that there was no one-size-fits-all formula for upgrading an executive assistant / personal assistant. That then became the first and last group Masterclass.

     

    I have since moved to one-on-one sessions where I cater to exactly the areas the pupil wishes to focus on or needs the most. I have FaceTime and IRL sessions with self-funding individuals, have been booked by employers wanting a tailor-made session for their existing assistant (minus the ‘job hunting’ part of the curriculum).  I have conducted group sessions for a company’s team of assistants with a focus on mindset. I have also become part of an HR onboarding package for new assistants joining the firm; it is a way to iron out any creases and make sure assistants are at their best in their first week.

     

    Whether corporate or private bookings, my intention has stayed the same; to not only provide valuable an abundant content but also the opportunity to benefit from my support and advice after the Masterclass.

     

    The Sector as a Whole

     

    There a two main job titles that ultimately make up the industry.

     

    An Executive Assistant is someone who typically supports in a business capacity in a 9-5 office environment.  The role involves diary management, travel arrangements, expense reconciliation, call handling, and some light personal arrangements.  It tends to attract those who have an interest in business to some degree and who like structure and a team or office environment.

     

    A Personal Assistant is a broad term but typically revolves around the lifestyle and personal requirements of the principal. No two days are ever the same; just as no two days are ever the same for anyone’s personal life. Social, travel, family, extended family, medical, household, and research and procurement can be just some of the items that feature in the assistant’s day. Those who do well in this role enjoy being of help and have a genuine love of variety.

     

    The support sector is large.  According to a longstanding and well-known recruitment agency, 18,000 people are new to the sector each year.  The average personal assistant salary in London is £37,134. This is 24.6 per cent more than the average national salary for personal assistant jobs. Personal assistant jobs in London have gone up 37.7 per cent year-on-year as have the job vacancies. As of writing, there are currently 6,236 London personal assistant vacancies.

     

    By comparison, executive assistant salary average is only slightly higher at £38,704.  Vacancies in London however have only gone up 1.0 per cent year-on-year. As of writing, there are 1,588 London executive assistant jobs. This would go to suggest that there is a growing demand for personal assistants and that the pandemic affected the number of EA’s required in office spaces. Maybe.

     

    The top executive assistants in London can earn £70,000 pa and a top earning personal assistant can pull £85,000 pa.  With longevity and generous employers, these roles can see six-figures when bonuses are factored in.

     

    Who’s Hiring?

     

    With the advent of the remote working Virtual Assistant, even relatively low earners can get business or personal support of some kind.  I have seen all walks of life advertise for an assistant. Old money, new money, celebrities (from A-D), foreign wealth, new to London, occasional visitors, relocators, musicians, authors, start-up entrepreneurs, overwhelmed single parents, the list goes on. In general, it is the overwhelmed who seek private support.

     

    The Future of the Sector

     

    10 years ago, before Open Table or Seven Rooms, to get a seat at a top London eatery took connections and savvy.  Equally, the reservations desk needed to be diary magicians to fit all the VIPs in. Now, and even more so since the pandemic, these apps are not only the interface for the diner but also for the restaurant. The availability you see, is what they see.

     

    My point? I don’t see a time when the principal will login to something in order to make all the arrangements they need when they can pick up the phone to someone who knows them personally; who knows what they like and how they like it done. Only so much can be done by the principal themselves before the overload happens again.

     

    In short, the assistant isn’t going anywhere.  It doesn’t matter who is reading this – if I gave you me for the day, I would be rushed off my feet with all the to-do’s you have in your life.  Wealth or success just adds to the list.

     

    What’s next?

     

    I am writing a guidebook based on my sessions of The PA Masterclass.  It distils the curriculum into the essential information to help those who are considering the industry or getting back into it after time away.  It’s also geared to help the move from 1st to 2nd job.

     

    Unfortunately, I can’t see everyone who requests the Masterclass as I’m in a live role and short on spare time.  Also, not everyone can afford the Masterclass but I want to be able to give advice to anyone who needs it in whichever way I can.

     

     

  • Iain Dale on his experience as a business-owner: “There were a couple of times when I nearly couldn’t pay the salaries”

    Iain Dale on his experience as a business-owner: “There were a couple of times when I nearly couldn’t pay the salaries”

    Iain Dale

    I’ve now founded or run seven different companies. Tony Benn called me once his favourite Thatcherite entrepreneur and I’d say to him, “Well, how many Thatcherite entrepreneurs do you know, Tony?” and he said, “Well, you’re the only one.” 

    I suppose all my companies have worked to one degree or another but I’ve never particularly made any money out of them – but then I never went into them to make money which is maybe a mistake! But then most of them have revolved around books and publishing – and anybody who knows anything about books and publishing knows that it’s not a particularly lucrative area.

    But I’ve employed a lot of people over the years. I would like to think that most of them would think I was a good employer, and that I treated people well, and that I paid them decently. You learn a lot from running your own company. I remember when I started the bookshop Politicos in 1996, I don’t think I really comprehended that cash flow is more important than profit at that time. I started off with very little money myself – perhaps around £20,000 to put into from a pay off from a previous company. I raised another £40,000, but it was madness to start a business like that, with essentially no working capital. 

    I did it for seven years, and it was always on a financial knife edge. I was always thinking about, “Who do I pay now? Who do I put off paying?” There were a couple of times when I nearly came close to not being able to pay the salaries at the end of the month and that really concentrates the mind. 

    Anybody who employs people knows that you make some wrong decisions. I was saying all this to the managing director of a FTSE 250 company in the late 1990s. I’d just employed somebody as a bookshop manager, and had to get rid of him after about a week because I just knew that he wasn’t up to it and that I’d totally misjudged him from the interviews. He said: “Don’t beat yourself up about it. If I get one in three hires right, then I think I’m doing well.” So that gave me a lot of comfort, actually.

    I have had to sack people too. Anybody who thinks that an employer finds that an easy process is deluding themselves. It’s awful. Often it’s happened that I’ve had to get rid of people for different reasons – and it’s probably the main reason I don’t want now to start another company. I don’t want the responsibility of it – and it is a huge responsibility. 

    When I was running Biteback Publishing, I think at one point we had 20 employees –  and that’s the most I’ve ever had at any one time. And I really thought, “If I make one wrong decision here, I put 20 people out of work”. That to me was the biggest responsibility that anyone can have. I left about two and a half years ago now, and I thought I would miss it. In actual fact, I haven’t missed it as much as I thought, and I think I know why. It’s because the responsibility of it all preyed on my mind a lot more than I realised at the time. It’s such a relief not to have to worry about cash flow anymore.

    So all in all, I like what I’m doing now, especially the radio broadcasting. I actually don’t enjoy writing; in fact I have a major case of Imposter Syndrome about that. I’ve always been able to talk. If I never appeared on television again, it wouldn’t bother me at all, and as a result I’ve done very few television programmes. Writing for me is really a way of bringing people to the radio programmes. Really I’ve edited about 40 books but only written two. So I’m very lucky to do what I’m doing and I don’t miss my life as a business-owner one bit.