Dear Juniper: agony aunt

FAMILY AFFAIR

Last year I left a large US house to join the management of a family firm on the Continent. The idea was that my experience would help bring the thinking of this much smaller business forward more quickly, especially the need to rationalise parts of it while making management more professional.

As I say, that was the idea. The practice is very different.

Every time I open my mouth in meetings to suggest ways in which the business could change I get "The Look". It's a faintly patronising expression that insinuates I'm overstepping the mark and is often accompanied with words like "the family wouldn't like it" or "the family has traditionally avoided such a direct approach". Why did they hire me if they didn't want the benefit of my experience and, more to the point, what am I going to do about it?

Yours, anon

Dear Anon

You wouldn't be the first person to join an organisation as a "change agent" only to discover that the organisation doesn't really want what it hired you to do. Family businesses, once established, tend to be conservative and respectful of family traditions. Managers in family businesses also tend to tread carefully with regard to family wishes, whether family members are active in the management structure or not. That's the downside.

The upside of your situation is that, in hiring you, someone in the family has clearly spotted a broader need for change and has done something about it. At the heart of this will be a concern about the long-term interests of the business. Don't be surprised by or put off by "The Look". Rely on the business imperative when describing why change is necessary and be as concrete as possible about how any change you are suggesting impacts that imperative and what near-term benefits it will bring to the individuals involved.

Juniper

LEADER OF THE PACK

In your reply to my plea for some sense about bonuses last month, you told me to try "turning my thinking upside down". You cannot be serious. I am still wondering whether your answer was gagged by the political correctness about people skills and teamwork that is infiltrating investment banking.

Your advice that I let more people put their signatures on my deals by making them think they are contributors, and worse still, accepting they should be paid bonuses is not only wrong-headed - it is soft-headed. Only about 15% of people in investment banking really contribute to the top line. We are the leaders of the pack and, without us, other people wouldn't get their salaries, never mind any bonuses.

Garth Reed

Dear Garth

The leader of the pack is, as the expression indicates, part of a pack. The leader is out front and focused on going forward while giving direction to those coming up from the rear. Leaders depend on the size and strength of the pack for their own progress and survival.

It is the same with teams in investment banks, especially as they are now part of much bigger businesses operating in tighter and more complex markets. The leader may be the biggest contributor to the top line, but there is a middle line and a bottom line to worry about, too.

Few deal kings have the skills or inclination to give attention to anything much behind the front line. Banks that get ahead of the game - by rewarding people who can manage the business and not simply bring business in - will be less vulnerable to swings in the market. Politically correct or otherwise, it doesn't strike me as soft-headed to give the rest of the pack a share of the rewards.

Yours ungagged, Juniper

BULLY BOY

The head of our equities division is a bully. Things have got so bad that two people in the sales team I manage have left the company. Both told me they would rather join the line of out-of-work traders than toe the line for a sociopath who delights in publicly humiliating people. I know I need to report this to someone senior to me before any more people leave, but I also feel intimidated by him.

What makes it worse is that the head of equities is so smarmy at managing upwards that his superiors think he is more golden boy than bully boy. Any suggestions?

Sales manager, equities

Dear sales manager,

Get over it. Really. Here's how. First, understand that bullies bully to hide their inadequacy. They project their own weaknesses on to others and your head of equities is no exception.

Second, you should realise that if you and other members of your team had grouped together against the bullying sooner you would already know how quickly a bully's false sense of power and control can crumble. Third, you can do much to recognise and protect future targets from bullying. Typically it is the more independent, self-starters in a group, people who have little interest in controlling others or being "thick" with other team members, that a bully targets.

Fourth, without team collusion a bully cannot publicly succeed at picking on people on the sales desk. Teams collude by silence, turning a blind eye, joining in the ridicule, or distancing themselves from the target. They do it because they feel uncomfortable, vulnerable and in danger of being ridiculed themselves. This is how a bullying management style works and, sadly, trading floors have cultures where this kind of behaviour can prevail.

If I were in your situation I would report it immediately. Whether you feel able to report it or not, as a team manager whose members are clearly being damaged by this situation a unified counterattack of some kind is your responsibility. Brave it out.

Juniper

Juniper first appeared in The Rise of the Player Manager by Philip Augar and Joy Palmer, published in 2002. Palmer's other publications include Delivering Exceptional Performance. She can be contacted at www.player-manager.com