Blog

Why I Founded mch and how mch’s Brand Came About

July 18th, 2013

Like many firms, mch tenders for some training and consultancy opportunities. The tender process often follows that of a typical job application: a written application and then (if mch is short-listed) an interview. At such interviews it is common for attention to turn to my own background, rather than just the company’s experience. At this point, I can invariably tell the unprepared interviewers: those looking at my CV for the first time. The ‘tell’ is often a raised eyebrow (surprise) or a furrowing of the brow (confusion).

I can appreciate such reactions as I’ve not taken the most direct route to running a staff development company for the charitable sector. Occasionally the interviewer pays me the compliment of being blunt:

“How does a PhD chemist end up studying Diplomacy and Trade, then work for McKinsey; only to become Chief Executive of an Aboriginal football and netball club?”

There isn’t always time to give a full answer to this question and I don’t always feel it’s appropriate to do so. However, it’s a perfectly reasonable question and I believe mch’s blog is an appropriate place to provide the full answer.

Essentially, from an early age I’ve considered myself very lucky. Lucky to have a loving family, lucky to have a home, lucky that I never went hungry, lucky to be born in a place where I had a right to free education. To quote the industrialist John D. Rockefeller; “every right implies a responsibility” and in addition to a sense of responsibility, I felt a genuine desire to do something positive with the skills and insights that I was lucky enough to be learning.

At the age of 17, it was time to decide whether to go to university, and if so, what to study. At the time, my best subject was chemistry and so I thought that through developing medicines, my desire to have a positive impact could be satisfied. So I went off to university to study Chemistry and gained a master’s degree and PhD in the subject. After seven years a decision had to be made:

1. Do I continue down the pure research (academic) route of drug discovery?
2. Do I move into the more commercial world of the pharmaceutical industry?
3. Do I think again?

With option one; while I could manage a laboratory, I didn’t think I had the academic ‘horsepower’ to discover anything that would one day find itself onto a pharmacist’s shelf. Furthermore, intellect did not guarantee success – I knew plenty of outstanding chemists who ended their careers with no major discovery to their names. Even if you were successful, you had to be very patient, as it could be many years before your discovery actually became a medicine.

With option two; I knew I would miss the loss of autonomy – I would become a small cog within a massive machine. Consequently, option three made the most sense and after some soul-searching the short list was either:

1. Working in government (perhaps the diplomatic service or international development)
2. Working in the charitable sector

Having a PhD in Organic Chemistry was unlikely to be much use to either and in an attempt to narrow it down to just one option; I studied for a Master in Diplomacy and Trade. I chose the course and institution because many of the other students were diplomats from developing countries, or were MPs/civil servants in local, state or national government. The course achieved its primary goal, as I graduated knowing that I wanted to pursue opportunities in the charitable rather than governmental sector. Essentially I was ‘turned off’ by the slowness of government and the adversarial, point scoring approach to working. While I saw some outstanding pieces of work in government, it also troubled me how often mediocre work was accepted.

At this stage, I was a ‘career student’ and a growing number of degree certificates was unlikely to be attractive to a typical charity. I write ‘typical charity’ as I did not have a strong calling to any particular charitable cause. Instead I felt that I could have the greatest positive impact through general management and leadership of an organisation. Consequently, I needed a fast track to gaining the management and leadership skills to be useful in the charitable sector. The solution was to work for a firm such as McKinsey. In a short period of time I gained a good understanding of what makes organisations successful. McKinsey also had the budget to provide professional development opportunities that no charity could match.

With the help of a mentor, I left McKinsey as soon as I felt that I could have a positive impact with a charitable organisation. Through a mixture of persistence, chance and naïve enthusiasm on my part and desperation on theirs, I became Chief Executive of Rumbalara Football and Netball Club. So began two of the most challenging and rewarding years of my professional career.

For personal reasons, I did not extend my visa to continue working at Rumbalara and returned to the UK. Although the UK has no Aboriginal football clubs, I knew I still wanted to work within the charitable sector. For a number of reasons, I founded mch rather than finding a management/leadership role within the sector. The two main reasons were:

1. I felt that mch made the best use of my experience and skills and thus I could have the greatest positive impact through mch.

2. Having decided I wanted to become a father, I felt mch would give me a greater sense of autonomy to control my workload. In turn, this would give me the time and energy to hopefully have a positive impact on the most important job I have: being a dad.

Upon founding mch an initial priority was to develop a ‘brand’ and the associated website and other marketing materials. This was not something I was looking forward to. Given my lack of creativity, I’d need some help and previous encounters with marketing ‘experts’ had left me with the impression that a passion for fonts, colours and nebulous phrases was crucial to marketing success. To my surprise, the first (and only) marketing specialist I met did not start with talk of fonts and colours. Instead he simply asked why I had founded mch. After verbalising what I have written above, he asked a few more practical questions and then stated he had enough information to propose an initial brand for mch. Rather surprised (and pleased) that not a single reference had been made to fonts or colours; I awaited the proposal with interest. Today’s brand is essentially what was outlined in the initial proposal back in 2005. When I asked the expert how he had come to choose the simple ‘plus sign’ logo and the ‘Positive Impact’ strapline, he stated that (unbeknownst to me) I had used the term ‘positive impact’ several times to describe why I had founded mch. Since having a positive impact was a very personal desire, he had combined the positive symbols and wording with my initials MCH.

And that is why I founded mch and why the strapline is ‘Positive Impact’!

Insights from Recruitment

February 15th, 2013

As Chair of a social enterprise called DECIPHer Impact, I was recently involved in recruiting the organisation’s first Chief Executive. The process proved incredibly insightful for both me and the organisation. Here are a few of the insights:

Insight 1: The Importance of Multiple ‘Touches’

One of the key insights was the importance of having multiple phases, or ‘touches’ to the process. The first reason for this is because the role required multiple competencies and so multiple opportunities were needed to thoroughly examine and test them all. This leads on to the next reason – the need to explicitly test for the essential competencies. While important from my perspective (to ensure claims made in CVs had substance), feedback suggested that candidates also benefited. Specifically, testing allowed them to really see and experience what would be expected of them, if they were successful. This leads on to the third reason for multiple ‘touches’ - it encourages recruitment to be a genuinely two way process. There were multiple opportunities for candidates to ask questions and observe our organisation ‘in action’. There would have been no point in us deciding upon a candidate, if they still felt ‘in the dark’ about the role, the organisation or the staff.

The idea of multiple ‘touches’ also recognises that recruitment is first and foremost the start of a relationship. I learnt this very early on in my career when I went through the recruitment process at the management consultancy firm, McKinsey & Company. McKinsey is widely recognised for the analytical expertise it provides to clients and while this featured heavily at interview, significant weight was placed on the interpersonal qualities and potential ‘fit’ of a candidate. So much so that they gave it a name; ‘The Pittsburgh Airport Test’. The name stems from the fact that Pittsburgh Airport is more susceptible to bad weather than many airports. Consequently, the ‘test’ is based on the following hypothetical scenario;

‘I’m in Pittsburgh airport on a Friday night, trying to get home. The candidate, who now works for my organisation, is in the airport with me. The public address system announces that due to fog the airport is temporarily closed. Do I turn to the candidate and think; ‘Not only am I stuck in Pittsburgh, but I’m stuck here with you!’ Or do I think; ‘Well at least I’m here with you and we can go for a drink/meal to pass the time.’

At McKinsey, the test was often conducted quite subtly: they would book interview rooms in the 20th floor of a building, but the interviewer would come down and meet the candidate at the ground floor reception. The ‘Pittsburgh Airport Test’ was effectively what happened in the five minutes between the reception and the 20th floor. Was the candidate completely silent? Was the conversation completely work focused? Was the conversation genuine?

The final reason for multiple ‘touches’ is based on an appreciation that we are all human. We have good days, bad days and mediocre days. While steps can be taken to maximise the likelihood of an interview falling on a good day, it is not always possible. Consequently, such a process mitigates against the ‘all or nothing’ stakes that go with single interviews.

Insight 2: Keeping it Simple – Focusing on the Answers to 3 Questions

A multiple ‘touch’ process enables more informed decision making. However, what is it that you should be deciding upon? While detailed marking frameworks have their place, for me decision making is based on three simple questions:

• Can this person do the job?
• Will this person fit in?
• Will this person do the job?

The first of these questions can readily be answered by how a candidate performs in the practical tests. The second is answered through the ‘Pittsburgh Airport Test’. Answering the third, is less straight forward, as a judgement needs to be made on a candidate’s motivations for applying. Again, having multiple ‘touches’ is helpful in this regard, as it’s likely to put off those with only a passing interest. However, remembering to ask the obvious questions is also important e.g. Why this organisation? Why this role? So can paying attention to the type and order of a candidate’s questions e.g. Is salary the first thing they ask about?

Valuing one’s intuition is also important: when they explain why they want this job, do you really believe what they’re saying?

Insight 3: If in Doubt, Don’t

‘Our people are our most important asset’.

This is a cliché I came to respect during the recruitment process. Consequently, if I couldn’t give a strong ‘Yes’ to the three questions above, candidates did not progress, no matter how much I liked them, or how skillful they were in certain areas.

But it Takes Too Long and Costs Too Much

In terms of time and money, the above process may appear overly onerous. However, with recent research indicating that it’s two and a half times more expensive to replace a staff member than to retain them, getting it right first time is likely to pay off in the long run.

Time will tell whether it worked for us!

Making Development Stick

December 6th, 2012

As a provider of staff development, making development ‘stick’ is something of great interest to mch. To this end, we try and incorporate a range of activities before, during and after our training to encourage participants to remain aware of their development issues and maintain the consistent application required for genuine, lasting improvement.

A technique that has long been used by trainers is the ‘public declaration’ approach. The theory goes that if you articulate your goal to at least one other person, then you have more chance of success than if you keep the goal to yourself. The rationale for such an approach is that sharing your goal increases your accountability and thus your commitment.

However, recent research suggests that making your goals public can have the opposite effect from what you intend. One explanation for such a finding is that the very act of telling your goal to others gives you some sense that you’re closer to reaching it. Essentially, your brain is tricked into thinking you’re making progress when you’re not.

For those who like to examine the detail, the research paper in question can be found by clicking here. Alternatively a three minute TED talk summary of the research can be viewed here.

What does mch make of this? Well, our view is that development is undoubtedly a ‘contact sport’ which requires the engagement of others. The key issue is telling the right people and in a work context this often means those you work most closely with. In addition to telling them your goal, success depends on receiving specific and timely feedback so that you know when you are progressing and when you are regressing. This in turn requires high levels of trust and rapport between you and your colleagues. A piece of research which supports our thinking can be accessed here.

Melbourne by Night

December 5th, 2012

After a great tip to Australia to assist Whitelion and Open Family Australia with their staff development, it’s now a bit of a shock to be back in cold and dark Britain!

Do you have the happiness advantage?

September 4th, 2012

A common held view is that happiness follows on from success – achieve a goal and you will become happy. Recent research published in the Harvard Business Review suggests the opposite is true: those with a positive mind-set are more likely to perform better in the face of a challenge. Furthermore, while our genetic make-up and our environment undoubtedly contribute to how happy we are, the research suggests well-being is surprising malleable – simple practices, consistently applied can have a dramatic impact.

Click here for a full overview of the research and the simple practices that can improve well-being.

Research such as this has led to the term ‘positive intelligence’ becoming more and more common. For those that would like to find out more about this area, Shirzad Chamine’s book, ‘Positive Intelligence’ is a good place to start. Shirzad’s website also offers two free (and short) assessments which may give you an indication as to your current state of well-being.