If you have been in business for at least 12 months, have between 2 and 249 employees, and want your business to do better, then read on…

The Skills Funding Agency is offering grants to help leaders of eligible organisations to pay for training and development to help their businesses grow. The grant will pay for 50% of approved training (excluding VAT) up to £1,000. For example, if the training costs £1,000 plus VAT, you can claim back £500. If the solution costs £2,500 plus VAT, you can claim back £1,000.

Solutions need to be linked to one or more of the following:

1. Developing a highly effective personal leadership and management style,
2. Creating an effective business culture,
3. Planning and developing your business and its teams, or
4. Building high performance across your business.

These are quite broad headings, and I would be surprised if you can’t think of something you would like to improve that doesn’t fits into this criteria.

For more information, or a no-obligation chat, call me on 07913 895798 or email me on edhart@yourfbs.co.uk today!

It got me thinking. What was the worst thing that could happen? If the plan didn’t work, there was still a business, a reputation, and a lot of goodwill. Life might not be easy, but life would carry on.

When starting a business, it is essential to know what your bottom line is. If the idea doesn’t work, when is the right time to walk away, or change the plan?

To some, running a small business is almost a hobby – the impact of financial failure is minimal due to other streams of income (for example a partner’s salary). But if the consequences of failure are more material (no money to pay the rent, buy petrol, or eat), then knowing when enough is enough starts to seem sensible.

Motivation to succeed is often fuelled by an appreciation of the consequences of failure.

In the same way that success can be measured in terms other than pounds in the bank, so can failure. Working out what you want, or what you don’t want to lose, is harder than you think when you start to think beyond the bank balance.

I am not suggesting that businesses should always worry about the worst case scenario, but I would suggest that having the option to quit while still ahead is better than the alternative.

So, having identified the worst case scenario, now it’s time to focus on the positives, aim high, and succeed!

If there is a defining difference between the British and American culture it is about the role of money. In America, everything has a price. In Britain, I believe that we place a greater emphasis on support, that has no price. Whether it’s volunteering on a regular basis, caring for others, or just being there to help out, the value of what we give is worth far more than the value of our financial donations.

I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t be giving more funds to good causes, but it is also worth stopping to think for a moment about the value of your time given to help others. As businesses know, time is money, and is equally valuable whatever you do with it.

There is a debate about whether charities should record the value of non financial contributions (particularly volunteers time) in their accounts to show the true value of their “receipts”. Needless to say this has been contentious. After all, is an hour of one person’s time worth the same as another? Do we value time on the basis of what it is worth to the giver or the recipient?

What we give is personal and should reflect our ability to give, which might mean its less about money, and more about our skills and experience. To me, the important thing is that we give what we can to the community that we are part of. Sometimes just giving time is the most valuable donation of all.

I have been taught that a good Finance Director knows everything, and that a really good one will get everyone else to do it for him (or her). I am not so sure any more. I think a good Finance Director knows how to find out everything he doesn’t know, and that a really good one will help others to do the best they can. After all, a really good Finance Director knows the financial situation, has a good idea of the aims of the business, and a pretty good idea of what every department is trying to achieve. I agree that generally it is up to others to make things happen.

More than any other department, Finance is judged by a very simple metric, is the business performing as well as it can. It’s existance is not about sales, or marketing, or brand awareness; and yet a good Finance Director is assessed on how well the business as a whole is doing.

So what has this to do with pensions? Well, it reminded me that I don’t know everything about pensions, but I do know the questions to ask to ensure the business is compliant. I also know what to ask to see what plans the business has in place to make the most of its staff and goals to see if it is as successful as it can be.

A good Finance Director is good with numbers; a really good one knows what questions to ask. How good your business is depends on how well you can answer the questions.

Usually, non-executive leaders are responsible for the strategy, and executive leaders for the operations of the organisation. Board meetings are often the time and place where strategy is determined and translated into operational aims and objectives. For example, the non-executive leadership may take the strategic decision to start working in a new territory. It is up to the executive team to agree operational aims and objectives, such as sales targets, market share, or brand awareness.

Ideally, non-executive leaders are chosen because of their experience, wisdom, and ability to consider long term implications. Good executive leaders are able to act swiftly on short and medium term issues.

To me, the most interesting aspect of being a non-executive leader is the monitoring of operational activities. The biggest mistake a non-executive leader can make is to get too involved in operational details; equally, it can be disastrous if the executive leaders start to change the strategy.

The best saying I heard about being a non-executive leader was “Noses in, Fingers out”. It has been excellent advice.

There is a perception that professionals in the public or third sector are not up to the demand of the private sector. The cut and thrust of commercial life, with private equity funding, hard nosed corporate deals, and focus on the bottom line is thought of as a tougher environment than the soft, touchy feely world of charities and public services.

I beg to differ.

Having worked in both sectors, I can happily state the obvious, that they are different. Beyond that, the range of stakeholders in a third sector organisation requires more than attention to profit and shareholder return. Financial sustainability is key to every organisation, but so are the people.

The single minded pursuit of profit in a commercial business is sweetened by the financial rewards that individuals are offered. The third sector has long realised that such incentives can be offset by greater flexibility, offering a quality of life, and recognition of the difference that each person makes.

Those who lead commercial organisations usually do so with a combination of the carrot and the stick. As an employee, this simplifies the relationship. In an organisation that is led by passion, profit is not enough to be deemed a success.

A shareholder’s primary duty of care is their financial return, a board of trustees asks for far more than that. Trustees are quite rightly harder to please. The commercial world could learn a lot from them.

It wasn’t a criticism of what had happened, clearly it had all been a great success, but it told me nothing about what it all meant about the future. As a board member, I am expected to discuss policy and strategy. I often describe the ideal place for a board to be as 1 mile above the organisation, and 5 miles out in front. This enables a board to set an appropriate strategic direction for the organisation to travel.

The report I read was telling me that where the organisation had been was spot on. But it gave me little indication of what that meant about the future. Had we been too pessimistic about our goals perhaps? Was there anything to learn from what had happened that should suggest we move in a different direction, or to new fields of work? I felt like we were being asked to drive a car using the rear view mirror to help us navigate.

When composing a report, I apply the 20:80 rule. The first 20% of a report should be about the past, telling the reader about what happened, the good, the bad, and the ugly facts. The remaining 80% should be future focussed, answering the question “So what?”. This is not as easy as it sounds, but makes for a far more informative and useful document on which to base strategic decisions.

A client of mine actually describes themselves on their website as “self-effacing”, and see this quality as helping make them attractive to potential customers, by being seen as not pushy. Others I have spoken to, talk about how they struggle with collecting money due from clients, and how they are worried about being rude. On the other hand, we can probably all think of someone who succeeds through relentless salesmanship.

As usual, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I would suggest that you can be incredibly persistent without being annoying; by being polite, or by pointing out the (potentially mutual) benefits of getting what you want, for example. In theory, with humour and good grace, it may be possible to be rude, without becoming annoying.

In business, and to an extent in our personal lives, persistence is a key skill to getting what we want.

The point of being persistent is to keep asking for something you want, until you get it. Becoming annoying suggests that the person you want it from has reached a point where they don’t want you to have it.

My client was without doubt employing some of the brightest, most knowledgeable, people in their field. But he was frustrated by their unwillingness to demonstrate through actions that they had bought into his vision, to take risks, or to stop “playing it safe”.

He acknowledged that the organisation’s culture was changing, from being fairly autocratic, to one of empowerment and delegation of responsibility, but he couldn’t get his team to take the initiative.

After talking with some of his managers, I had one of those “light-bulb” moments. I knew that my client was well respected, in his field, as well as by his colleagues, but I hadn’t realised just how well he was respected. His managers were afraid of failing, and in particular, of failing in the eyes of their boss – my client.

I had read recently about the poor results of the England rugby team. There was little debate about the quality of the players, and how their collective ability was, on paper, excellent. But they were lacking that something special, that bit of magic, which turned them into a winning team. The writer surmised that they were in complete awe of their manager, Martin Johnson. Johnson is an inspirational leader, who has achieved the ultimate goals in the game (including captaining the England team that won the World Cup). The players, so the theory went, were afraid of taking risks, of trying something adventurous, in case they failed.

My suggestion to my client was simple. He needed to convince his team that he had trust and confidence in their abilities. Telling them was not enough. He needed to demonstrate through examples what his reaction would be when they failed. I even suggested that he create a situation in which one of his staff was “set up to fail”, so that he could show them how supportive he was.

Empowering people who are not used, or willing, to fail is not easy. Demonstrating your trust and confidence in them requires a special kind of management. I hope for England’s sake that Johnson has cracked it. Have you?

Much has been written about the “demise” of the Birmingham Post, and the genuine concern at what will happen to the journalists who are losing their jobs. I sincerely hope that those skilled at writing will find new employment, albeit in a different market. I would far rather read, or listen, to someone who knows their subject and can present it well, than someone who writes and broadcasts just because they can.

The proliferation of Blogs, and the ability for anyone to write when, and on whatever subject they choose, has been cited as the end of quality reporting. I would disagree. I have more faith in readers and listeners exercising their choice to read and listen to what they like, and to switch off what they don’t like.

I also believe that there is a duty for those who know what is going on to share their knowledge and expertise.