Colin D. Ellis's Blog, page 13

Six ways to start your day productively

It’s a fact that the first thing that you do when you wake up is the most important thing for your day when it comes to your mindset for work. It’s a choice we all make every morning - often unconsciously - yet it can often be the difference between a good working day and a bad one.

Here are six things you can do to start your day off, as you mean to go on: 

Don’t Check Your Phone Immediately: You knew this would be at the top of the list! A Computers in Human Behaviour study found that smartphone use first thing in the morning was associated with increased feelings of stress and decreased productivity throughout the day. People who delay checking email for at least 30 minutes after waking reported feeling more relaxed and better able to cope with the tasks ahead of them. Don’t go down the rabbit hole too early in the day!

Expose Yourself to Natural Light: Research in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine shows that exposure to morning sunlight helps regulate your circadian rhythm. Just 15-30 minutes of morning light exposure can improve alertness, mood, and cognitive performance.

Physical Activity: A study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that morning exercise improves cognitive performance, attention, and decision-making throughout the day. Even a quick 10-minute walk around the block showed measurable benefits for executive function.

Mindfulness or Meditation: No, it’s not just some new age fad. Research in the Journal of Cognitive Enhancement demonstrates that just 10 minutes of mindfulness meditation in the morning can improve focus, emotional control and attention.

Have a healthy breakfast: A review in the journal Nutrients concluded that breakfast consumption improves cognitive function, particularly memory and attention and helps to sustain energy.

Prioritise your tasks: Research from Harvard Business Review shows that planning your day first thing in the morning (your 1-3 most important tasks) increases productivity by up to 25%. The gains are even greater if you do it the day before, as it improves your sleep too.

Our level of engagement at work is not just dictated by what the organisation provides by way of purpose, vision and values. It’s also dictated by how we ‘show up’. 

As a team, you could even work together to create accountability around one or more of these and help each other to be the best that you can be.

Developing a consistent morning routine not only improves daytime alertness and productivity but it also leads to greater confidence and happiness in everything that we do.

What’s one thing you can do differently to help improve your morning routine?

  Subscribe to Colin on Culture Sign up with your email * indicates required Email Address *

A sweet treat

A little treat every now and then can provide the perfect pick-me-up. Yet, it doesn’t have to be chocolate or flowers, or even anything that costs money. Sometimes a compliment on work well done, attitude shown or for being a good listener can work equally as well.

Compliments are free to give, yet priceless to those on the receiving end of them.

  Subscribe to Colin on Culture Sign up with your email * indicates required Email Address *

Grey hair, golden outputs

I’m 56 this year. At this age, my Dad had already been retired for 3 years, and yet I feel like I’m just getting started! Each one of the grey hairs, lines around my eyes and wrinkles on my forehead represents experience, learning, parenthood, success, loss, stress, heartache and plenty of fun!

When you are self-employed, age is no barrier; however, for many in employment who don’t have the luxury (or desire) to either work for themselves or retire just yet, age and the opportunities that come with our extended years can often be a huge barrier. In terms of opportunities in their current role and new opportunities.

Of course, age - like race, gender or disability - should never be an issue when hiring people, and yet it continues to be so. Indeed, age is always dead last in the DEI conversation.

Recent research from The Untapped Workforce: Why Employers Can’t Afford to Ignore Age Anymore - reinforced this. They found that only 13% of organisations say age is a top DEI priority over the next five years and that less than a third offer retirement planning support (with even fewer offering benefits specifically tailored to older workers), this despite older workers contributing over £600 billion to the economy.

The other side of the story is often that a minority of older workers seemingly coast towards retirement or as one gentleman said to me recently, ‘I’ve done my dash, it’s time for me to watch the race now!’ 

In my experience, this is a minority, with the majority recognising the importance of learning the skills required for our ever more digitised age and looking for ways to further expand their knowledge and build relationships with those who are younger than them. Indeed, the benefits of reverse mentoring - where younger and older employees share wisdom and knowledge - is something that I wrote about in Detox Your Culture (recently shortlisted for Business Book Award!)

Given that the life expectancy rate (in the Western world at least) continues to rise alongside the cost of living, there will be many more older employees in the workforce in the future. It’s important that organisations remember this and look for ways to retain their current people and hire new ones, too, especially given the golden opportunity for value delivery.

Thankfully - here in the UK and in Europe too - there are some great examples over the last 3-5 years of organisations that are actively age-friendly that others can learn from:

Aviva implemented a "Mid-Life MOT" programme, helping older employees plan their careers and retirement transitions.

Barclays launched a "Bolder Apprenticeship" programme specifically targeting career changers aged 50+, with a structured reverse mentoring

One-third of the B&Q workforce is over 5,0 with options specifically designed for employees approaching traditional retirement age

Whilst BMW launched a (much talked and written about) "Today for Tomorrow" initiative redesigning production lines specifically for older workers, resulting in productivity increases across age groups

In a business landscape obsessed with disruption and change, older workers offer the rarest commodity: perspective. They have already survived the mistakes your younger talent is about to make, so retaining and hiring older workers isn't just about experience; it's preventative intelligence worth millions in avoided failures.

  Subscribe to Colin on Culture Sign up with your email * indicates required Email Address *

The Farmers Market

Last weekend, I went to a farmer’s market in my home town of Winchester. What makes any market a ‘market’ is that each stallholder brings something different - attitudes, behaviours, values - and we collectively decide what's worth trading in.

This collection of differences makes it a place worth visiting and doing business in. Workplace culture is the same, although we often don’t think of it in this way. 

Often, organisations will try and cast their culture in stone

WE ARE THIS

WE DO THIS

WE VALUE THESE THINGS

WE BEHAVE LIKE THIS

The intentions are often good, yet it’s what people bring on the day that makes the difference and defines the kind of culture that it actually is.

Too many professionals behave as if they're mere shoppers at this cultural ‘market’, passively accepting whatever's on display. ‘That's just how things are here’ they will say, as if to publicly absolve themselves of the responsibility for change.

Yet your organisation's culture exists by consensus, maintained through thousands of micro-interactions, decisions and behaviours every single day. When someone makes a sarcastic comment in a meeting, and everyone laughs nervously rather than challenging it, that's a consensus. When deadlines are regularly missed without consequences, that's a consensus. When innovation is celebrated only in speeches but punished in practice, that's consensus, too.

The moment you recognise that culture is a social agreement is the moment you reclaim your power to change it. You don't need permission from senior leadership to demonstrate emotional intelligence, to collaborate effectively, or to recognise a colleague's contribution.

Cultural change doesn't require a complicated, expensive transformation programme. It requires people with the knowledge and courage to break the consensus, to trade different goods at the market and to create an experience worth visiting every day of the working week.

  Subscribe to Colin on Culture Sign up with your email * indicates required Email Address *

On-demand and in-demand

In today's hyperconnected workplace, there's a critical distinction that often goes unrecognised – the difference between being 'on-demand' and focusing on what's 'in-demand'. This distinction isn't just language semantics; it sits at the heart of genuine productivity and how we feel about our work.

Being 'on-demand' means existing in a perpetual state of reactivity. It's the constant pings, dings and pop-ups from Teams, the never-ending email notifications, and those all-too-familiar ‘URGENT! priority shifts that break your day up into frustrating bursts of attention.

Research consistently shows that context-switching (asking your brain to focus on one thing and then another and then another and so on) can reduce productivity by up to 40%. Each interruption doesn't just steal the moments of the interruption itself – it steals the recovery time you need to regain focus to do the rest of the work that needs doing.

Contrast this with focusing on what's 'in-demand' - this is the work that genuinely moves the needle for your organisation. This means dedicating proper time and thought to the projects, initiatives and thinking that create actual value. It's about working on what matters rather than being perpetually available.

The most successful teams I work with have mastered this distinction. They've implemented communication plans and protocols that respect deep work time. They are good at identifying and annexing non-urgent queries. They distinguish between true emergencies and manufactured management urgency.

The solution isn't complex, but it requires courage to push back against the prevailing culture. 

Block out focus time in your calendar. Turn off notifications during deep work sessions. Make time to eat away from your workspace. Train colleagues to respect these boundaries. Perhaps most importantly, lead by example - demonstrate that being unavailable sometimes means being more valuable, always.

Your most important work isn't waiting for your response; it's waiting for your undivided attention. When you shift from being perpetually on-demand to intentionally working on what's in-demand, not only will more work get done, but you’ll feel better about yourself, too.

  Subscribe to Colin on Culture Sign up with your email * indicates required Email Address *

The Dark Triad Toxic Leaders

A friend of mine sent me a paper recently - this happens a lot! - which centres around the toxic behaviour of oligarchs and how they relate to politics. The paper mentions the ‘Dark Triad personality traits’, and reading the paper got me thinking about how these traits relate to work, especially if they are demonstrated in leadership positions.

The Dark Triad was first conceived by Delroy L. Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams in 2002 and describes three distinct yet interconnected personality traits, all sharing a manipulative and unsympathetic approach to people. 

The three types are narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavellianism. Research indicates a significant overlap between these traits despite their conceptual differences.

Narcissists typically exhibit exaggerated self-importance, excessive pride, self-centredness, and a struggle to empathise with others.

Psychopaths demonstrate persistent anti-social behaviours, act on impulse, prioritise self-interest above all else, show limited emotional response or concern for others, and experience no guilt for their actions.

Whilst those displaying Machiavellian characteristics tend to manipulate others strategically, dismiss ethical considerations, lack emotional connection with others, and pursue personal advantages through calculated means.

Many of us have come across one (if not all) of these leaders in our working lives, and they not only undermine physical and psychological safety but generate a level of toxicity that is difficult to address without legal intervention.

How does this play out in the workplace?

Narcissistic leaders:

Create cultures where dissent is viewed as disloyalty

Take credit for successes while blaming others for failures

Demand excessive admiration and special treatment

Foster environments where employees compete for favour rather than collaborate

Research by Grijalva and Harms (2014) found that narcissistic leaders initially charm and energise organisations but ultimately create cultures of fear and compliance that stifle innovation and authenticity. A good example would be Adam Neumann, the former CEO of WeWork. His grandiose vision portrayed WeWork not just as a real estate company but as a world-changing movement. He cultivated a cult-like corporate culture, and his leadership ultimately led to a failed IPO in 2019, his forced resignation, and a company valuation that plummeted by over 80%.

Psychopathic leaders:

Display shallow emotions and limited empathy

Making impulsive, high-risk decisions affecting others' livelihoods

Use punishment rather than empowerment to motivate

Create unpredictable work environments that breed anxiety

Boddy's (2011) research on "corporate psychopaths" demonstrated how these leaders significantly reduce corporate social responsibility, employee well-being, and productivity while increasing workplace bullying. A good example would be Bernie Madoff, who orchestrated the largest Ponzi scheme in history and demonstrated classic psychopathic leadership traits. Without remorse, he betrayed thousands of investors, including charities and foundations. His utter lack of empathy was evident when his fraud collapsed in 2008. He was sentenced to 150 years in prison, where he died in 2021.

Machiavellian leaders:

Manipulate information flows to maintain power

Create politically charged environments where alliances matter more than performance

Reward loyalty over competence or results

Undermine potential successors who might challenge their authority

Studies by Belschak et al. (2018) found that Machiavellian leadership behaviours correlate with decreased trust, reduced knowledge sharing, and higher employee turnover. A good example would be Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of Tyco. He personified Machiavellian leadership through his political manipulation and self-serving actions. He created a culture of cronyism whilst using corporate funds for personal extravagance. He served over six years in prison before his 2013 release.

Do you have any of these leaders in your organisation?

How to deal with Dark Triad leaders

To combat the Dark Triad, organisations need to implement robust governance systems with regular, meaningful (this is key) leadership evaluation. Create psychological safety for honest feedback at all levels. Establish clear term guidelines with escalating performance expectations. Most importantly, value organisational cultural health over individual leader entrenchment. As the paper I read suggests, the most effective protection against toxic leadership is to ensure that they remain genuinely accountable to those they lead.

Practically, this means:

Regular leadership effectiveness reviews with escalating performance requirements

360-degree feedback with increasing minimum thresholds

Board evaluations of executives with growing independence requirements over time

Succession planning is becoming more rigorous with each year

Regular cultural pulse-checks to gauge organisational health and effectiveness

Leadership effectiveness is about balancing continuity with fresh ideas and preventing the concentration of power that gives rise to the Dark Triad and enables toxic cultures to take root. Only by implementing a robust governance approach to keep these traits in check can organisations ever hope to create vibrant cultures where continual high-performance flourishes.

  Subscribe to Colin on Culture Sign up with your email * indicates required Email Address *

The Middle Management Crisis

 

Almost under performing culture that I work with has one thing in common, a crisis in middle management. And yet, middle managers themselves, are often not to blame for this situation, despite being an easy target.

In this episode I explore the ongoing crisis in middle management, highlighting the pressures faced by middle managers and the need for education and evolution to address these challenges.

Takeaways from the episode include:

54% of middle managers feel burnt out due to increased expectations.

Organizations need to rethink how they educate middle managers.

Education and evolution are crucial for middle managers' success.

Good managers foster high engagement and vibrant cultures.

Listen now   Subscribe to Colin on Culture Sign up with your email * indicates required Email Address *

Friendships at work are optional

This is my friend Rohan and I in Tenerife in the 1990s (the last great decade, mainly for my hair, obviously). We both went to the same high school, Rainhill and knew of each other. He played rugby, I played football. That’s how we did it back then.

We started working together shortly after we both finished school at the NatWest Bank and became really good friends. We went to nightclubs and gigs together, and of course, we holidayed together too!

We worked together for about 6 years and stayed in touch before I emigrated to New Zealand. We’ve met up since I’ve been back in the UK, and we picked up exactly where we left off 30 years ago!

Post-pandemic, many people are feeling ever more disconnected from their teammates.

According to research, 69% of employees report dissatisfaction with their social interactions, 43% experience a lack of connection with colleagues, 38% indicate they don't trust their co-workers, and 22% don't have a single friend in their workplace.

But is having friends at work essential?

Well, employees who have best friends at work:

Are 1.4x more likely to receive praise

Feel a stronger sense of well-being

Benefit from 137% more personal development support

Have a 35% higher commitment to quality

Are 1.2x more likely to say that they have the opportunity to do what they do best every day

Are 50% more connected to their company.

Which is great. Yet, many - if not all - of these benefits are also achievable through a dedication to building relationships grounded in respect and understanding, with a willingness to work cooperatively for the good of the team.

Interestingly, friendships can often be a barrier to productive work. Friendships can lead to cliques, in-jokes and cause alienation of others. I worked with a team of 9 people a few years back who were great mates and joked with each other all the time. They loved coming to work but were rubbish at getting work done!

Safety and respect for each other should always, therefore, be the goal, with friendships being optional. Many people just want to come into work, do a good job and then go home to their families and friends, and that’s absolutely fine.

That’s not to say that employees should avoid team-building activities that aim to bring people closer together. They just don’t have to keep getting closer after the event is over!

Collaboration requires relationships, not friendships, although if you’re lucky enough to meet someone you have a connection with, it can enhance your life in so many ways.

My life has been richer through the friendships I’ve built through work. However, my career has been more successful as a result of the people with whom I’ve built strong, respectful relationships with.

Have you built strong friendships at work? How did they contribute to your well-being and enjoyment of work? Did the team flourish, flail or fail?!

  Subscribe to Colin on Culture Sign up with your email * indicates required Email Address *

Red Tape

The term ‘red tape’ serves as a metaphor for bureaucracy and dates back several centuries.

The practice originated in 16th century England, where government officials and lawyers began using red cloth tape to bind legal documents and official papers. Unlike string which could easily be untied, the tape provided a more secure binding that showed evidence if tampered with. Red was chosen specifically because the dye was expensive, making it difficult to counterfeit, and the colour stood out visually.

By the 17th century, Charles V, King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor, introduced a system requiring all matters of state importance to be bound with red tape to ensure they received priority attention.

The metaphorical use evolved during the 19th century, particularly in Britain, as government bureaucracy expanded. Officials had to cut through actual red tape to access documents, creating a physical barrier to quick action. This literal process gradually transformed into our modern metaphor for excessive bureaucracy, rules, and formality that delay decision-making.

Of course, this is all very interesting (or not depending on whether this kind of history is your thing), yet in reality, red tape persists almost everywhere and has caused endless cultures to stagnate or turn toxic as good people battle to get work done.

Most red tape is utterly needless, yet it stems from an intransigence to change it (‘it’s too hard’) or else it serves someone to maintain it. As a senior manager in the public service, the procurement process was a particular bug bear of mine.

It was always a ‘3-month process’ regardless of whether I was hiring a person or we were buying a printer. Yet, the expectation of the leadership team was that everything needed to be done yesterday.

As a pragmatist, I always wanted to find the common ground between the two - ‘buy it now’ and ‘follow the process’. Yet, whilst I found that I could temper senior leader expectations, the 3-month process was cast in stone, despite the fact that no one could ever tell me why it was 3 months. ‘That’s just the length of time it takes, Colin. ’ ‘BUT WHY????!!!’

Researchers Hamel and Zanini estimated that red tape costs US businesses alone over $3tn every year, yet still, organisations allow it to prevail.

So, what’s the answer?

Of course, wantonly circumventing the process would run counter to the culture you are trying to build, so you just need to focus on some (not all) of the things that need to change.

Then, as a starting point, identify those areas where red tape is justified (physical safety, ethics, laws, etc.) and put them to one side. Then, look at the areas you can influence and come up with solutions as to how the red tape could be - if not done away with altogether - amended, such that each party gets a little bit of what they need. 

Ensure that the changes you want to make are reinforced by the tangible value that they can add. Time/money saved are the two big ones, but also think about morale, engagement, retention of key staff too.

The first time you present your solutions you’re likely to be met with a ‘no’, because change is hard for anyone to think about, let alone undertake, but remember that a ‘no’ is just the first stage of the negotiation process.

Keep reinforcing your case, making it easier to understand and ensure that you present your solution to the people that make the decisions (not those responsible for maintaining the red tape). Be relentless in your determination to make improvements, keep selling the value of the change and remember that resilience is key. 

And you will get there. We did that with that procurement process. It took about a month, but we got the changes that we were looking for, which were then implemented across the organisation and made everyone’s life easier.

Endlessly moaning about red tape will never remove it from your work, but taking action will. If you are able to prove the value that can be added by removing the red tape, then you will ensure that history will never stand in the way of progress.

  Subscribe to Colin on Culture Sign up with your email * indicates required Email Address *

Defined vs. Undefined

Defined (adj.): - clearly marked out as to extent, outline, or form

Undefined (adj.): without fixed limits; random in form, extent, or application

The only pathway to consistent high performance and success is through a defined culture over which people have agency. The other pathway leads to confusion and chaos. 

Which pathway are you on?

  Subscribe to Colin on Culture Sign up with your email * indicates required Email Address *