Much of my coaching is with international bankers, lawyers, executives and business leaders, where it can be difficult to express creativity. Yet when I have noticed a creative streak and commented on it, clients have invariably opened up, revealing a completely different side from their cool, professional face.

There have been some exceptional discussions - a banker interested in fashion design, an engineer who wrote short stories, an accountant who was training to be a furniture designer and a lawyer who held exhibitions of his watercolours.

All were open and enthusiastic about their passions, but, in truth, none saw a way to bring that creative drive and energy to work.

This worries me. Creativity and right-brain thinking are becoming critical in the fast-changing business world, where innovation, ideas and quantum leaps in thinking are required. This has been underscored by many commentators, including Daniel H. Pink, who recently declared that the Master of Fine Arts is the new MBA, and Katharine Bell's conversation starter on these pages.

So why is it so difficult to bring creativity to work and what should we do about it?

The first part of that question is easy enough to answer: most business is routine, time-pressured and highly structured, leaving people little room to experiment or show creative flair. Unless you work at a company such as Google or Apple, creative thinking is normally done away from day-to-day work, at offsite meetings, in strategy units or by internal consultants or external advisers. Unleashing uncontrolled creativity is discouraged as it can result in disruptive change or chaos.

As to how you can bring creativity to work, let's step back for a moment. Ask yourself why you enjoy your creative passion so much. What does it allow you to do? To think laterally, to explore new ideas, visuals or perspectives? The opportunity to slow down, switch off or reflect? Or an adrenaline rush of excitement and energy?

The creative industries themselves can offer some direction in how to bring creativity to work. Ed Catmull, president of Pixar and Disney Animation Studios, believes that creativity is not an individual activity but rather involves groups of people from different disciplines working effectively together. He says teamwork, trust, clear values, strong leadership and dismantling the barriers that divide disciplines all help to foster more creativity at work.

The worlds of fashion, advertising and publishing also have some useful ideas. This summer I have been working with executives in all three sectors and have noticed some interesting differences in the way they operate compared with more traditional businesses.

First, fashion. The group I worked with made sure that managers were absolutely clear about its business imperatives, but also honoured the value of ideas, difference, expression and personal growth. Its leadership development programme included coaching by a film director to help senior executives 'fill the stage' as leaders - to know who they really were and how best to convey that. Executives were also encouraged to look good, feel confident and to become the best they could be, which translated into an overwhelming sense of vitality, individuality and energy.

The advertising industry offered further lessons: again, the firm underlined that it was first and foremost a business, but it nonetheless insisted that all staff - including the financial director and COO - had a creative pursuit. Evidence of those pursuits was on display in the firm's riotous reception - painted gorilla toes, a strange underwear 'installation', myriad self-portraits, puzzles and sculptures. Open spaces, shared dining areas, 'thinking' rooms and projects that encouraged interaction between the most senior and junior staff all contributed to the high-energy feel of the place. I also discovered that the company regularly invited students - of art, philosophy, music, literature, anthropology and religion - to look at their ideas from their differing perspectives.

Finally, to publishing, where I once worked myself as an editor and journalist. One of the most impressive aspects of publishing is how it manages to balance business rigour and creativity so effectively. A publisher once told me that he took his lead from the most successful writers on his list: highly structured and disciplined, they ruthlessly allocated their time to writing, thinking, family and fun. Publishers and editors are also amazingly adept at working both individually or in a team, at speeding up for deadlines or slowing down for creative thinking and never forgetting to step and regain perspective.

So there you are, a few ideas on creativity at work. Now I'd like to hear your views. What are your creative interests and are you able to bring them to work? What inhibits creativity at work? And do you have any suggestions about how your workplace could be come more creative?

For many of us, this two-week summer vacation is an oasis in our working lives. Thoughts of the office, the credit crunch and global world disorder float away as we enjoy time with our family and friends, lazy walks to the beach or golf course and long, relaxing evenings. It's a brief window of happiness when life feels as it should - relaxed, full and happy. But it doesn't last long: in a blink, we'll be back at the office and back in the middle of all the problems, difficult people and tough decisions we briefly managed to escape.

But imagine what it would be like if you couldn't wait to get back to work, if you were actually reluctant to leave your job even for a short break because you enjoyed it so much. I'm sure there are some such lucky people out there, but what about the rest of us? Should we expect to be happy at work?

As a business coach, I've noticed that more and more managers and leaders are expecting to derive more happiness and satisfaction from their work. They are often young, talented and successful people who view their jobs as routes to self-actualisation. Yet this shift in the purpose of work raises many questions: how much satisfaction are we entitled to derive from work? And should employers be expected to provide meaning and happiness as well as a job and salary?

Far from being a pipe dream, companies are now beginning to take the concept of happiness at work very seriously, and for sound business reasons. A recent research paper by Alex Edmans, a finance professor at Wharton, found that US corporations with the happiest employees have a financial performance notably better than lower-ranked companies.

Felicia A. Huppert, professor of positive psychology at Cambridge university, says happiness has been scientifically proven to make us live longer and healthier and work more successfully. Happy folk use the left side of their brains more and have better immune systems. This has obvious implications for the creative thinking and innovation that is so valuable for business today. Moreover, as Edmans says, employee satisfaction is a very effective motivational tool and a powerful method of retaining key employees.

Google is one US company that repeatedly wins plaudits for being a great place to work. At the top of Fortune magazine's annual list of the "100 Best Companies to Work for in America," the company is well- known for caring about employees' welfare and its emphasis on corporate social responsibility.

Here in the UK, Happy, a small IT training company, is making its own waves. It has won numerous awards for being one of the most inspired places to work and for its its approach to employee and customer relations. Here are some of its guiding principles:

• Create an environment where people feel good about themselves. Research has shown that managers spend three times as much time telling people what they did wrong as telling them what they did right. How often you can spot somebody doing something right?
• Give people freedom. When did you personally work at your best? Probably when you were given freedom and trusted to do it your way. Is this what you provide for your people? Have they been challenged, trusted and given freedom?
• Ensure your people are working within your organisation's principles and have clear targets. Make the framework crystal clear, then give people the freedom to work out their own way to achieve it - this will create opportunities for innovation.
• Feedback is crucial to job ownership. Ensure that your people regularly receive feedback from their internal or external customers. And ownership reinforces both responsibility and innovation -- if people genuinely have full ownership, they will make sure it works.
• Choose managers according to how good they are with people. Do you appoint managers on the basis of core skills or length of service, regardless of their ability to motivate, support, and develop staff?
• Ensure managers know how they are doing with their staff. Do your managers regularly receive peer and upward appraisals?
• Recruit for attitude, then train for skills. At the interview, do you test people on their ability to talk through their CV and their ability to do the tasks? What about whether they show positive attitude, how supportive they are to others, or their ability to cope with change?
• Systems, not rules. Trust everyone to do their jobs to the best of their ability - with a clear set of principles and a framework, but without detailed rules and instructions. Have you ensured that a process or system can be changed if any member of staff can find a better way to meet the needs of customers?
• Celebrate mistakes. Saying 'I got it wrong' is a sign of responsibility and an indication of an honest and open corporate culture. If people haven't made any mistakes, they probably haven't tried anything new. Does your culture ensure people remain open or does it stifle learning?

What do you think about Happy's principles? Does your company or organization operate on these or similar guidelines? Are they realistic for your organization? Would your company be a better place - for leaders, employees or customers - if it followed these principles? Do you have any further suggestions?

Since 2006, Siemens has been mired in a corruption scandal that has seen several senior executives arrested over allegations of the use of bribes to land international contracts. They include Thomas Ganswindt, head of the telecoms division and Johannes Feldmayer, a member of the board. Heinrich von Pierer, head of Siemens' supervisory board, and Klaus Kleinfield, chief executive, have resigned as a result of the investigations but have denied wrongdoing.

Last year, two former officials were convicted in a Munich court of bribery and abetting bribery in a multimillion-dollar deal with the Italian energy utility ENEL. Both admitted paying kickbacks worth $8 million between 1999 and 2002 and said that slush funds had existed in the power division for many years. Siemens has said it will appeal the court’s ruling on the grounds that the legal situation in Germany was unclear at the time – the bribing of foreign employees did not become illegal under German law until 2002.

At present, nearly 300 current and former staff are under investigation for corruption. In May, a Munich court brought Reinhard Siekaczek, a former sales manager who worked at Siemens for 38 years, to trial. Siekaczek's defence was that he simply followed the orders of his superiors in setting up the slush funds. "It was actually no great art, no great system. It was relatively easy," he told the court. "The entire divisional executive knew that I was doing it." Siekaczek also said he tried to stop the bribes but was unable to influence his superiors.

Siekaczek's trial is likely to wrap up this week, coinciding with two other potentially explosive events for Siemens: the publication of its third-quarter results on July 30th and the likely announcement that the group is to sue its entire former executive board, seeking compensation for its alleged role in the scandal.

And it gets worse. Siemens is also facing a possible $1 billion fine by the SEC and has been named as one of 57 German companies listed in the Volker Report for alleged abuse of the UN’s oil-for-food program in Iraq.

No doubt Peter Löscher, the Austrian chief executive appointed in June 2007, will put a brave face on things this week. In his first year, he has streamlined and restructured the group, spent €1.8 billion clearing up the bribery system, introduced compliance training for staff and commissioned an internal investigation across several countries.
Löscher's senior executives privately claim that Siemens is now "the most squeaky clean company," but the smell of corruption remains.

So what can managers learn from Siemens' troubles?

First, who should be accountable if senior executives order managers to carry out questionable acts in the name of business?

Second, is it right or reasonable that companies can sue former executives for failing to act appropriately and damaging the company's reputation?

Third, should managers be able to sue their current or former employers if they end up in court for "following orders"?

What do you think?

With steely resolve, Pandit wrote down billions of dollars, closed scores of branches, jettisoned parts of the business, slashed jobs and cut dividends. He didn’t stop there. Next, he tapped sovereign wealth funds in Asia and the Gulf for nearly $30 billion, set up a new risk-management team, and cut the bank’s exposure to the sub-prime market.

Pandit’s latest initiative may be his boldest yet. His plan to overhaul Citi’s bonus system is an attempt to move the bank from a highly individualistic to a team culture. It is intended to cut down in-fighting among senior executives and promote co-operation across its investment banking, commercial banking, and wealth management divisions.

While other banks have reviewed their rewards systems in the wake of the credit crunch, arguably no one has gone as far as to base bonuses on the cooperation and performance of the company as a whole. Indeed, in an industry where rewards are inextricably linked to individualism and competition, this is little short of declaring war. Pandit Is said to want the system in place in time for next year’s bonuses, which is bound to stir up a hornet's nest of resistance among senior Citi executives.

Few bankers want to see their bonuses tied to businesses they cannot control, especially given the current volatile state of the industry. One online commentator in the New York Times recently wrote: “It will create even more innuendos and backstabbing by an already politically charged senior management…this will create a facade of where managers give the outward appearance of cooperation and will end up with hidden agendas and covert operations.”

So what is Pandit thinking? Is he on a groundbreaking mission to clean up Citi’s culture and make it more equable? Or is this a naïve – or reckless - attempt to change the fundamental nature of the beast? And what will be the effect on Citi in a year’s time? A more co-operative and high-performance workplace - or a wilderness of in-fighting and political intrigue?

In my experience of working with bankers, the collaborative, consensus-driven and sensitive manager is a rare creature. Where I have occasionally found them, they have been pressured to meet targets and drive results by bosses who are ruthlessly focused on the numbers. Even the banks that value soft skills and value collaboration are buckling under the current pressure.

Perhaps Pandit is a true visionary who is trying to change Citi’s culture for future generations: the checks and balances of team working will certainly curb the excesses of individual greed. But is this workable? Will this do more harm than good, given Citi’s current situation? What do you think?

Let’s take a look at a few fundamental questions to see if matrix systems are shaping up to the challenges of 21st century business. Here are some thoughts – drawn from my own experience and from Life in a Matrix, a great resource. Let me have your thoughts too.

Key challenges

• Multiple reporting lines can reflect the interests of functions, geographical regions and product lines, but they can also cause conflict, stress and confusion among staff if managers’ interests are not aligned


• Poorly defined management roles can result in turf wars or lack of accountability, which can erode organizational cultures


• Self-managing teams and individuals can free up management time and allow creative and flexible approaches to work – but not everyone can make the transition to self-management


• Organisations can set parallel priorities, but this does not always result in effective or efficient working


• Matrix systems are vulnerable to constant reorganization, which can disrupt the relationships that make them work: knowledge, experience and organizational know-how can be lost easily


• Responsive managers in a matrix can offer unparalleled opportunities for professional development, but inattentive managers can cause immense stress and over-work


• It can be difficult to keep track of who is overseeing performance if project completion is the key focus for businesses

How do you lead in the matrix?

• Make sure the culture is robust, supportive and you have the right values and behaviours in place


• Ensure that you are a skilled communicator: networking, influencing, coaching and facilitating skills are paramount


• Draw up clear goals, objectives, and performance metrics for managers and staff and see to it that they are aligned vertically and horizontally


• Empower teams to make decisions and to resolve conflicts at an appropriate level


• Don’t tinker with the structure, but let the networks and matrix evolve over time


• Use your expertise and personal network to influence those over whom you have no formal authority

How do you work in the matrix?

• Bolster your communication, networking and coaching skills


• Think about who is making demands on your time and attention


• Decide how much effort and attention each part of your workload requires


• Work out how to manage priorities and where you can do trade-offs


• Understand your managers’ situations and identify potential pressure points


• Ensure that each manager is aware of your entire workload and push back against unreasonable or conflicting demands


• Keep your manager informed about what you are doing and your progress

What are the possible effects of the matrix – on people and organizations?

• Greater focus on short-term projects rather than long-term issues


• Shorter attention spans as multiple projects are carried out simultaneously


• Transactional relationships as managers and employees trade off priorities


• More flexible – or more conflictual - management relationships


• More open/supportive – or more political/destructive – organizational cultures


• Greater uncertainty – more ability to deal with ambiguity or less accountability


• More productivity, challenge and growth – or more stress, pressure and fear

What is the future for the matrix?

What do you think? Has matrix management passed its sell-by date? Is there any realistic alternative in sight? What improvements or ideas do you suggest? Let me hear your thoughts.

Only last week I heard one senior executive’s attempts to explain his direct, indirect and ‘dual solid’ lines of reporting across multiple functions, product lines, and geographic regions. He told me that in addition to running his own virtual team that spanned three time zones, he had responsibility for several head office projects, with the added problem of dealing with a line manager on one project who was his peer on another. By the time he had finished, my head was spinning.

Another manager told me how he was integrating a project team from a company which his own matrix organisation was taking over. As he went through each layer of complexity and challenge, he began to laugh – amusedly at first, but then with increasing despair. He confessed he was exhausted by the sheer complexity of the situation and was unable to answer my question: “At what point does all this become unworkable?”

This sounds like organisational hell to me, so why do companies continue to have such faith in matrix management? It is easy to see why it was regarded as a necessary innovation when it first emerged in the 1970s. Companies realized that vertically aligned structures did not address cross-functional or business-wide needs. Matrix structures broke down the hierarchies, allowing teams to share information across task boundaries and enabling managers and staff to build their knowledge and experience across projects.

By the 1980s, though, the belief in matrix structures was challenged, due to their inherent complexity and instability. Managers soon realised that they hindered rather than helped them work effectively: employees became confused over conflicting loyalties, with line managers retaining central control and dotted line managers imposing extra demands.

Yet matrix management continues today, even though we are arguably operating in a more complex environment than ever before. As well as the challenges of vertical and horizontal management, there is an unstable economic climate, advancing globalisation, strategic uncertainty and increasing levels of organisational rationalisation, mergers and takeovers. On top of this, organisations have been slow to realise the need for training in the skills necessary to navigate matrices: communication, influencing, coaching, negotiation and conflict management. The result is an almost impossible situation in which to lead or manage.

Despite the ubiquity of this problem, there are few resources for managers and leaders on the challenges of matrix management. Take a look at Kevan Hall’s very readable blog, and Christopher Bartlett and Sumantra Ghoshal’s evergree Matrix Management: Not a Structure, a Frame of Mind.

In the next post, I will examine some of the complexities of matrix management and offer some ways to deal with it. But first, what are your experiences of working in a matrix environment? Does it work for you or do you find it impossible to navigate? What are the daily realities for you and your staff? Do you think matrix management will survive, or do we need to develop a new system to replace it?

MORE ON MATRIX ORGANIZATIONS:
What Gets Lost on the Dotted Line (HMCL Article)

“I am here to answer your questions,” he says in his video clip. “Politicians get the chance in Prime Minister’s Questions [a weekly half-hour slot where MPs can grill the PM]. I think it’s time the public had a chance.” It’s not instant – we have to submit our questions by 21 June and he will answer the most popular “at some point soon”. But it was appreciated – a few hours after the announcement, the site had attracted thousands of subscribers.

For a heavyweight politician such as Brown this is a big move, prompted, no doubt by David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, who branded Brown “an analogue leader in a digital age”. Cameron, 41, set up his own site two years ago, offering a view of his home life that included a webcast of his family eating breakfast. This has turned out to be a powerful marketing tool for him and his party as his popularity ratings have steadily risen.

The next item was an interview with Jean-Pierre Garnier, the outgoing CEO of GlaxoSmithKline. Garnier, 60, has been a controversial figure during his eight-years leading the drugs manufacturer. Five years ago, shareholders voted against a pay package that would have allowed him to walk away with $36 million if he lost his job. He also drew fire for refusing to charge lower prices for HIV medicine in Africa and branding animal rights activists ‘despicable cowards’. Yet in the last couple of years he has managed to reverse his reputation and become one of Britain’s most respected businessmen.

On Monday, though, he was in the hot seat again. Having agreed to discuss GSK’s bird-flu vaccine for humans, Garnier instead found himself ambushed by questions about Seroxat, the company’s anti-depressant that has been linked to suicide impulses in young people. When asked whether GSK was prepared to make public all information about the potential dangers of the drug, Garnier became increasingly annoyed. The next question, whether he would leave a company that will “be honest” about the safety of its drugs, caused him to end the interview and walk out of the studio. “I am not interested in this question…” he said. “I wish you the best. Goodbye”.

We shall see whether Brown masters YouTube and attracts a new generation of Labour party supporters. But for Garnier, the evidence is clear: he is stuck in analogue mode. Unable to engage with his interviewer or flex his style, he revealed himself as a leader who is aloof, fixed and authoritarian. It’s difficult to imagine him engaging in a Q&A on YouTube-style with his employees or shareholders.

I’m pleased our politicians are using new media channels to connect with voters. That’s what we – especially the younger generation – expect. But are CEOs and business leaders up to speed yet? Does your CEO or boss communicate with you through a YouTube channel? Is he or she open to direct questions from you or the shareholders? If not, why not?

Or are you a leader who is considering engaging this way? What are the benefits? What are the problems? Are you aware of any leaders who are using this media in their companies? Does it work? Do you see any results in the workplace?

Let’s also hear some of the questions you’d like to ask if your CEO or boss gave you the opportunity to grill them online.

This week I want to set out some definitions of imposter syndrome and some useful steps for dealing with it. If you feel you are holding yourself back, or if you work with someone who displays this behaviour, read on.

It starts with recognising it in yourself and others. Imposter syndrome can be defined as a collection of feelings of inadequacy that persist despite evident success. ‘Imposters’ suffer from chronic self-doubt and a sense of intellectual fraudulence that override any feelings of success or external proof of their competence. They seem unable to internalize their accomplishments, however successful they are in their field. High achieving, highly successful people often suffer, so imposter syndrome doesn’t equate with low self-esteem or a lack of self-confidence. In fact, some researchers have linked it with perfectionism, especially in women and among academics.

Where does it come from? Some researchers believe it has its roots in the labels parents attach to particular members of the family. For example, one child might be designated the ‘intelligent’ one and the other the ‘sensitive’ one. Another theory is that parents can programme the child with messages of superiority: the child is so fully supported that the parents and child believe that he or she is superior or perfect.

Some common thoughts and feelings associated with imposter syndrome include:

“I must not fail” There can be a huge amount of pressure currently not to fail in order to avoid being “found out.” Paradoxically, success also becomes an issue as it brings the added pressure of responsibility and visibility. This leads to an inability to enjoy success.

“I feel like a fake” Imposters believe they do not deserve success or professional accolades and feel that somehow others have been deceived into thinking otherwise. This goes hand in hand with a fear of being “found out”, discovered, or “unmasked”. They believe they give the impression that they are more competent than they are and have deep feelings that they lack knowledge or expertise. Often they believe they don’t deserve a position or a promotion and are anxious that “somebody made a mistake”.

“It’s all down to luck” The tendency to attribute success to luck or to other external reasons and not their abilities is a clear indicator of imposter syndrome. They may typically say or think: “I just got lucky” or “it was a fluke”. Often this masks the fear that they will not be able to succeed the next time.

“Success is no big deal” The tendency to downplay success and discount it is marked in those with imposter syndrome. They might attribute their success to it being an easy task or having support and often have a hard time accepting compliments. Again, they think their success is down to luck, good timing, or having fooled others.

So what can you do to mitigate the negative effects of Imposter syndrome?

• Recognise imposter feeings when they emerge. Awareness is the first step to change, so ensure you track these thoughts: what they are and when they emerge.

• Rewrite your mental programmes. Instead of telling yourself they are going to find you out or that you don’t deserve success, remind yourself that it’s normal not to know everything and that you will find out more as you progress.

• Talk about your feelings. There may be others who feel like imposters too – it’s better to have an open dialogue rather than harbour negative thoughts alone

• Consider the context. Most people will have experience moments or occasions where they don’t feel 100% confident. There may be times when you feel out of your depth and self-doubt can be a normal reaction. If you catch yourself thinking that you are useless, reframe it: “the fact that I feel useless right now does not mean that I really am.”

• Reframe failure as a learning opportunity. Find out the lessons and use them constructively in future. This is a critical lesson for everyone.

• Be kind to yourself. Remember that you are entitled to make small mistakes occasionally and forgive yourself. Don’t forget to reward yourself for getting the big things right.

• Seek support. Everyone needs help: recognise that you can seek assistance and that you don’t have to do everything alone. This will give you a good reality check and help you talk things through.

• Visualise your success. Keep your eye on the outcome – completing the task or making the presentation, which will keep you focused and calm.

Do you have any further coping strategies for imposter syndrome? What works – and doesn’t work – for you? Have And what do you think Imposter Syndrome means for business – for example, which professions or sectors have a higher population of ‘imposters’?

Note: There are plenty of resources on Imposter Syndrome, including important work by Valerie Young and this further reading.

I have come across many instances of imposter syndrome among my coaching clients in recent years. Typically, they are managers on fast-track careers in their late 30s or early 40s who have been promoted to a new role in which their experience is being tested to the limits. Despite support from their bosses and feedback showing they have great operational, strategic and people skills, they often seem beset with doubts.

Take James, the 41-year-old head of a shared services division for a major U.S. financial services firm in London. He had been a very successful financial director and was promoted to a role that required him to integrate the operations of Finance, HR, IT, Property and Legal affairs. His fear was that he didn’t have the skills or knowledge base to deal with such varied professionals and was in a complete state of panic when he saw me. He was replacing a much older manager, he said, he came from a specialized function, he was shy, his influencing and presentation skills were poor, and so on.

Given that he was very well-regarded in the firm, and his 360 feedback survey indicated he had all the skills required, I challenged him: “What’s the real issue here?” He paused for a moment and then said: “I suppose I wonder why they chose me. I think they may have made a mistake.” Asked why, James eventually admitted that he knew he was competent, yet his father’s words were still ringing in his ears: ”He always told me, ‘Don’t take risks, stick with what you’ve got’”. James agreed that what might have been appropriate for his father wasn’t right for his life or career, yet 30 years on, he was still being guided by them.

James did manage to override his father’s “script” with more relevant and positive beliefs – and he has been very successful in his new role. Yet the same thoughts still creep up on him unawares and he feels he will never be entirely free of them. But in truth, this may not be such a bad thing: James is always alert, thoughtful and self-aware about his management style – in fact, he’s a very humble guy, which is why he’s so well respected.

One of the reasons I think clients open up to me about imposter syndrome is that I’m a long-term sufferer too. I can trace it back to my schooldays, more than 30 years ago. I went to a high school far from home and had an irrational fear (or had perhaps been told) that my classmates would be much smarter than me. I worked hard to prove I was their equal, and won a place at Cambridge. This should have reassured me, but instead I found myself in an even bigger dilemma: I felt like a complete imposter. Every single day of the three years I spent at college felt like my interview day – I was waiting for someone to tap me on the shoulder and tell me there had been a mistake in admissions. I also felt the pressure of being one of the first small intake of women in the college’s 470-year history – but unlike many of the other women whose fathers, brothers, uncles or grandfathers had been students there, I had no sense of family belonging.

Thoughts that I wasn’t smart enough, I didn’t belong, and I would soon be found out helped propel me through school, college and work, driving me to achieve higher and higher results. Even today – and despite the evidence of degree certificates, books published, and a great career – I am still wondering whether I got here by luck or accident.

I wish I’d known it earlier in my career, but “Imposter phenomenon” (read Pauline Clance and Suzanne Imes's The Impostor Phenomenon Among High Achieving Women) is common among women. It was first used in the late 1970s to describe of high-achieving US women who harboured a secret sense they were not as capable as others thought. In the 1980s “impostorism” was related to people with anxious personalities, although researchers have since documented fears in men and women from all backgrounds and ages, and in adolescents. A recent article in HBR, The Dangers of Feeling Like a Fake, linked “neurotic imposters” with perfectionists, who set “excessively high, unrealistic goals and then experience self-defeating thoughts and behaviors when they can’t reach those goals…perfectionism often turns neurotic impostors into workaholics."

Perfectionism and imposter syndrome seem to be emerging more and more in my work and I have been wondering why this might be. Is it a response to the greater pressures of business – the desire to control things as it becomes increasingly clear that we are less able to control anything? Or is it the result of too much – or too little – information, education or training?

What do you think? I’d like to hear your thoughts about imposter syndrome. How would you describe it? Are you a manager or leader who has occasionally felt like a fraud at work? When did you feel that way and why? Or have you worked for someone who suffered from imposter syndrome? What happened to you and the team? What should we look out for?

Next week, I’ll set out some definitions for imposter syndrome and strategies for dealing with it. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing your responses!

Commentators and banking experts believe the industry will recover in the medium to long term, but the short-term fall-out is tough. As an executive coach with many clients in the banking sector, I have been observing how individual bankers and their teams have been dealing with the crisis at a human level, beyond the strategy and business.

Of the hundreds of investment bankers I have worked with, I have noticed some striking similarities. First, they are usually smart, focused and tenacious. Second, they are adaptable and capable of dealing with huge amounts of complexity and uncertainty in their day-to-day roles. Third, they live in a black-and- white, transactional world. If they meet their budgets, they get their bonus. If they don’t…well, better not go there.

Beyond these three fundamentals lie some interesting differentiators. Of all the professions, banking seems to draw people from the widest range of backgrounds. Some have Ph.Ds in mathematics or quantum physics, others left school at 16. Some have worked their way to the top in a single bank, others have hopped around a number of banks. Some are career bankers, others have changed mid-career. I have come across nuclear scientists, concert pianists, sports professionals and artists who have found their way into banks.

Despite of all the energy, intelligence, and undoubted talents they bring to the industry, banking remains – at least to outsiders like myself – curiously inert and soulless. The obvious reason would be that, unlike other professions, bankers are motivated primarily – sometimes solely - by money. Intellectual, entrepreneurial or creative considerations come a long way behind financial motivators. However, the relentless focus and drive that is needed to make money result in organisations where individuals become highly transactional and efficient. People skills are eroded and undervalued. The cultures are transactional, short-term, full of conflict.

One thing I have long observed among bankers is their marked ambivalence towards their careers – and it is becoming more evident as the banking crisis deepens. Few appear to have made the profession their first choice. The financial rewards are initially a great draw, yet for many they become a trap. I have lost count of the number of people who are desperate to leave, but want to last for another five or 10 years, to pay off the mortgage, see their children through school, or build some financial security for their families.

As the banks have admitted huge write-downs, as senior industry figures have been fired and the industry has been criticised, their usual confidence, ambition and certainty have given way to self-doubt and an admission that the industry needs to put its house in order. However adaptable bankers are, the current challenges could prove a turning point. In recent months, many bankers have told me it is a challenge too far: many have never dealt with such uncertainty or the increasingly negative perceptions of their industry.

These factors, together with the pressures of daily business, the relentless drive for profits, the lack of job security and the fact that many are ambivalent about their careers, mean that many are seriously questioning how long – or whether - they want to stay in the profession.

So what do all the bankers out there think? How are you dealing with the current challenges? What do you think the future holds for you? What qualities will leaders need to withstand the current crisis and where do you look for inspiration?

Go to the Complete Downturn Survival Guide

Where to start? On the operational side, there were technical errors, mechanical failures, and little system testing. On the management side, there was arrogance, complacency, poor communication, and a refusal to listen to staff and technical experts. Staff were poorly trained, morale was low, and goodwill had long evaporated.

Alistair Carmichael, a Member of Parliament put it well: “It’s a national disgrace, a national humiliation. Where is the leadership? There is a ferocious amount of buck-passing between BA and BAA. No-one is prepared to take responsibility”.

T5’s short and troubled organisational history is destined to enter the text books as a case study in how not to manage a large-scale operations project. Here is the first draft – I’d like to invite readers to respond to the facts of the case and offer suggestions to the key executives: Mike Forster, BAA’s director of strategy, and Willie Walsh, BA’s Chief Executive.

What went wrong on the day:

1. Logistics and planning
According to baggage handlers, the problems had started weeks ago. Rather than having proper training, handlers say they were simply shown around the terminal. On the opening day, handlers and other staff were unable to get into the BAA car parks. There were no staff and no spaces, meaning they arrived two hours late for work. When they got into the terminal, signage was poor and staff found it difficult to navigate the building. Union representatives said workers “didn’t know where to go”.

2. Technical and human errors
T5’s computer system didn’t recognise staff IDs. Doors that should have opened were locked, 17 out of the 18 terminal lifts were jammed, the transit system that moves passengers from the main terminal to the satellite terminal broke down, and the carousels, escalators, walkways and electronic screens all failed. The supposedly state-of the art baggage-handling system (12 miles of belts and tracks capable of handling up to 12,000 bags per hour) crashed around 11am. It had never been tested in a ‘live’ terminal. Bags only came off the first incoming flight from Hong Kong because managers were drafted to drag them off the plane. As pasengers arrived, the baggage piled up, overwhelming staff.

3. Lack of leadership and hubris
With hindsight, the extent of management complacecy within BA and the BAA is astonishing. BAA’s Mr Foster declared only last week: “We have a world-class baggage system that is going to work perfectly on day one”. Yet baggage staff had repeatedly reported hitches that had been ignored by management and the BA office that should have sorted out their concerns was closed last week. Early images of Mr Walsh cheerily greeting passengers from the first incoming flight from Hong Kong were soon replaced by scenes of angry passengers seeking information and embarrassed executives hastily reading from damage-limitation scripts

4. Low morale and goodwill
BA and BAA have long struggled with poor staff morale and goodwill has evaporated over the years. Staff say that morale in recent months has been so bad that many staff didn’t even turn up for training. On the day, disorientated baggage handlers and stressed ground staff became surly and unhelpful as the problems unfolded. Tempers frayed and there were reports of dust-ups between colleagues. There were not enough staff to cope on the day and fewer still volunteers to help out. “Whenever in the past BA got into a mess, people helped out, but morale is so low people won’t do it any more,” said one cabin service director.

5. Lack of communication and crisis management
Passengers said one of the major causes of frustration at the terminal was the total breakdown in communications from BA. There was confusion about whether hold baggage was being accepted, with some flights leaving with baggage, others without. Passengers said no one was on hand to help and there were no announcements or information on monitors and websites. By 5.30am on first day, 200 passengers had queued for information on cancelled flights, with only two of the 26 information desks operational. Some passengers came to the airport only to find their flights were delayed. Others were told their flight was cancelled when it was actually scheduled to take off. When BA and BAA executives finally emerged, they misjudged the mood badly by mentioning “teething problems” associated with a “bedding-down period”. Eventually, a full day aftere the fiasco, BA’s CEO admitted, the opening was “Not our finest hour.” He offered a “promise to do better” and disappeared.

The consequences:

1. Customer relations
Five days on, 250 flights have been cancelled and there is still a backlog of 15,000 bags. Thousands of passengers had their travel plans disrupted, some were stranded for days and BA added insult to injury by initially being unable to find passengers any hotel rooms. Tens of thousands of BA customers were affected by the chaos, many of whom have vowed never to use the airline again.

2. Reputation and image
The opening of T5 has been described as a huge embarrassment to BA and a humiliation for BAA. What should have been an opportunity for BAA to rehabilitate Heathrow as one of the world’s great airports and for BA to improve their record on baggage handling instead turned in to a nightmare of delays, passenger confusion and chaos.

3. Costs
BA’s shares fell 3% on T5 opening day, wiping £90m off BA’s value. In the coming weeks, we shall know the full extent of the financial damage to BA and BAA. In the meantime, Mr Walsh has resolutely ignored calls for his resignation, saying he intends to see things through and “learn from the mistakes”.

We know what went wrong. In the days and weeks to come we'll find out more about why and how. But many thousands will pass through Terminal 5 by then. What advice would you give BA and the BAA right now? What do they need to learn from this crisis? What do they need to do to restore their reputation and put things right with their customers?

For more on the airlines see:
The Airline Industry Whistleblowers
Assessing American's Apology
Delta-Northwest's Interactive Public Relations
American Airlines Needs a Newsroom

What I hadn’t realised was just how endemic the phenomenon appears to be - as the comments the post attracted - and continues to attract over a month later - from people around the world. It appears to be happening every day, to a whole range of people, at all levels and in all sorts of companies, from India to Africa, Asia, the U.S., and Europe.

Here are some of the comments from people who have either been made scapegoats themselves or who have observed others suffering the same fate at the hands of their managers. I have grouped them under themes in order to try to make more sense of the phenomenon, plus a couple of questions at the end that remain unanswered for our commentators. My sincere thanks to everyone who sent in their comments and suggestions - from personal experiences to practical ways of dealing with scapegoating and suggestions for reading material. (I recognize this is very long, but that demonstrates how important many of you found this topic.)

Prevalence of scapegoating
This is one of the facts in professional life.(Anon)
One can find this vice practised all over the world. (Audrene Loke )
Scapegoating is becoming the ‘norm’ in the corporate world (Anon)
It is very common in small start-ups when it is all about the interests and directions of the CEO (L)
I don't believe there are managers out there who haven't been targeted as scapecoat one time or another throughout their professional career. ( A Wong)
Scapgoating is well known in the healthcare industry (Dinesh Patel)
This is schoolyard bullying in a corporate suit. (T.L. Scott)
I know of endless number of cases wherein managers have damaged the self-esteem of their subordinates. (Uma Arora)

Who is scapegoated?
Successful senior executives (Angela Blackburn/Kate)
Whole teams ( Anon)
Foreign-born engineers in Silicon Valley (Miai)
Junior staff (Amitava Mukherjee)
Quiet people who get on with their jobs (Anonymous)
All levels and in all functions of any organization. (Farooq Ahmed)
A new senior manager dismissing a reportee manager: "I don't like her; it's chemical". (Out Loud)
Inter-departmental in large corporates (Virender Vaira)
Generally to a 'nobody'. (Vijay)
People with as much as 30-40 years of experience. (pm)
People who do not have a voice.(pm)
Green employees with little or no experience (Oluwafemi Abioye)

By whom?
The boss (Anon)
The CEO (Anonymous)
Brilliant, well educated and successful young executives who grossly abuse their power and authority with no negative consequences (Angela Blackburn)
Those who are more visible to senior management and have more say (Vijay)
Above-board staff who have played politics - seeming them as a sincere, trustworthy and ever performing staff... (Oluwafemi Abioye)

When?
When an unfavourable result occurs and performance is poor (Mike Sewell)
When a new person has taken over as boss.( Anisur Rahman )
Whenever there’s a change - a new person is hired, a merger, a change in existing responsibilities or some other performance based initiatives. (LH Wong)

Why?
[This is] an old and very human tendency. Scapegoating exists in families, among friends, partners and as described above at the work place. Always has. (Mahadevan Sundarraj)
Globally we have lots of wrong pegs in wrong holes in terms of leadership - until leadership qualities are addressed the ugly incidence will continue to spread like cancer in our work environment. (Oluwafemi Abioye)
Less focus on hard work, more focus on quick progression and higher rewards leads to the short cuts. More focus/pressures on results and less focus on the route adopted to attain the results. (Farooq Ahmed)
All the actions are driven by the fear of what the result will be & how the boss will take the meaning. (Anon)
Scapegoating is often resorted by people with a herd mentality (Anonymous)
To create confusion and chaos, to blame rather than fix the problem itself. (Gyan Chand)
Pressures and desires to survive & compete, leading to manupulative tendencies (Virender Vaira)
So an individual may remain in good books of their superiors. (Pm)
Because of the inability or inefficiency of the boss to lead from the front and take onus of his / team resposibilities. (Arun)
Management playing a polical game, pitching one race group against the other. (miai)

Effects of scapegoating
Once scapegoating is observed and condoned, it will spread like fire, demotivate hard working employees who play by the rules and morale will spiral downwards. (Lena Lim )
Solid organisations stand to lose excellent staff thru this unethical practise. (Audrene Loke)
In many cases it takes people months and sometimes years to recover and reconstruct themselves from the damage. (Uma Arora)
10 years on I have not recovered - even today I am suffering because of this and unable to come out of this in my professional life. (Prasanna Kumar)
"Skin saving" attitudes [prevail rather than] than a real work (Jayant)
I was scapegoated by my CEO. I was the star performer now I am in therapy. This is a truly detrimental practice but its sadly the truth in business. (Anonymous)
Many workplace psychological crimes go unreported - the victims and oppressors stay quiet because they don't want to risk their jobs. (Uma Arora)

What should managers do?
The same techniques we teach our children to use when dealing with bullying apply here. Regardless of whether we are the bullied or the bystander, staying clear, staying silent only supports the behavior. (T.L. Scott)
“Each manager or leader should at least communicate with two levels below him” or may be three levels. (Farooq Ahmed)
There should be something called organizational journalism - people should have a free voice to express their views at all levels so that before someone tries to make a scapegoat, it gets viewed in a very negative light by all concerned.(Uma Arora)
This would be typical issue for internal audit as shareholder's value being destroyed by either team, CEO, who ever. (Martin Skakala)
Build trust and exercise ethical behavior at all times. It starts from the top. Remove the scapegoater if identified and proven, this person is neither a team player, nor does he or she has interests of the organisation as a whole, but only that of himself (Lena Lim)
Blame-placing should be discoraged - fixing problems is more important than finger pointing. (Jim Wile)
Regular 360 degrees feedback will go a long way in ensuring that such instances, if any are not left under the cover before the annual review / appraisal cycle. (arun)
Management has a role to play in being explicit about accountabiltiies and managing both the team and individuals. It is management's responsibility to have a real, objective understanding of the performance and people issues behind unsatisfactory results. (Mike Sewell)
Managers should have an insight of the situation and try to investigate causes that lead to an individual be scapegoated. (Anonymous)
A cross-functional team should be put in place to examine such incidents to identify the scapegoater and he/she should either be eliminated or kept on strong vigil to avoid further damage. (Amitava Mukherjee)
Being specific and demonstrating visible and 'public' attempts to rectify the situation are advisable. (TL Scott)
Incorporate ethics and leadership courses more effectively into our schools, beginning in high school all the way through grad school. (Angela Blackburn)
Managers need to be more skilled and committed to spotting and stopping bad behaviors at the onset. (LH Wong)

What should victims do?
Keep good records of everything, and I mean everything, that you've done during the course of your work day.... from telephone conversation to e-mails to any other written documents. (A Wong)
Quiet, consistant, firm, ethical behavior has rewards greater the the price paid. Have a plan not to be a victim and hold to your standards! (Rick Lorenz)
Sometimes the best thing is to get out of Dodge. Some organizations are toxic. (Rick Maurer)
Don't allow yourself to become a victim.Trust your instincts and never, never stop networking so that you do not feel trapped in a position that may negatively impact your self confidence and long term success. (Angela Blackburn)
Remaining can eat away at the employee’s sense of self-worth. When the only feedback you get is negative, it’s hard to keep remembering that it isn’t you. (Rick Maurer)

Purushotham Kumar V has this great outline of steps to take:
One should not only be good, but also be smart enough to prevent being scapegoating target. In my view, the following can be the steps to deal with scapegoating:
1. Build trust and confidence with peers, superiors, manager and manger's manager.
2. Keep eyes wide open: observe who have the attitude to blame others when things fall apart, can be very minor situations. Those who take personal responsibility for failures are trust worthy folks.
3. Build protective fence from blamers, because these will be the potential candidates for scapegoaters. The protective fence includes building visibility, trust and confidence with the potential scapegoater's manager, peers and other infulential folks in the upward hierarchy.
4. Maintain all documentation and evidence for all good work, communication, interactions with potential scapegoater. Maintain memo / document minutes by asking directed questions.
5. Communicate and attempt build positive relationship with the potential scapegoater. Try understand his/her perspective and analyze what you can do to bridge the gap.
6. When scapegoating seems peaking beyond acceptable threshold, raise the alarm, expose the scapegoater, use some of the documentation and evidence (still save some for later use, just anticipating counter moves by the scapegoater's supporting party), invoke witness and support from the scapegoaters superiors and peers. Do some social service by doing your best to ensure the scapegoater does not continue in the environment.
7. If the upward hierarchy environment is hopeless, remove yourself from the environment before situation lands you as a scapegoat.

Last but not least, sympathy will only bury the victim into the problem. Let each target ask him/herself "what in me allowed scapegoating".

I’d like to open up the debate again by building on these questions:
* Why is scapegoating happening so much now?
* Who are the targets and why?
* What are managers’ responsibilities?
* What can the victims do?
* What can the rest of us do about it?

Three respondents also have further questions:
* Diana: How does the scapegoater choose his or her victim? What is the profile of the victim? Male or female?
* Mayra Coppin: When this occurs in a direct reporting relationship, what are the most effective responses?
* Jim Wile: What about management's involvement in and encouragement of scapegoating?

Let's get to the bottom of this issue and see if we can construct some more useful, pracical approaches to ensure it doesn't affect too many more individuals, teams and companies. I look forward to hearing from you.

Read all of Gill Corkindale's Letter from London posts.

I was always curious about how he managed to get these executives to open up about these feelings of loneliness. His answer was novel: more often than not, he said, the main photograph on their desk didn’t show their wife or their children, but their pet dog: “The only one they could really tell everything”.

Of course, many British CEOs have a coach as well as a pet dog these days, but, humour aside, why should it be lonely at the top? As a management writer and editor on the Financial Times, I grew weary of hearing senior executives trot out this well-worn cliché. Yes, executives have huge responsibilities and workloads, busy schedules and critical decisions to make -- but they also have small armies of assistants, executives and advisers to help them manage these things. The problems start when, instead of using their private staff to support them, they turn it into a shield to protect them from the realities of their leadership or organizational culture.

While some CEOs, especially introverted types, will gladly hide behind their assistants and senior executives, for others, this distancing from reality often happens imperceptibly, without their knowledge. I remember this happening in a company where I once worked: the previous CEO had been open and available to all staff. Anyone could make an appointment to see him within one day. Staff respected that and only went to see him when they had something important to discuss and they appreciated the fact that however long they spent with him, he was fully engaged. When he left, his deputy took over. Things changed quickly. It once took me three calls to get through to his assistant who quizzed me about why I wanted to see him. She then made an appointment for four weeks later, which was cancelled after a week. I never tried again. After a year, he left, an unpopular and remote leader.

When CEOs become shielded by their team from the everyday realities of their business and from those lower down the corporate ladder, they can become vulnerable. They lose touch with what is happening on the ground, they become disconnected from staff and customers who can give them valuable, ‘unspun’ information, and they become unable to see new threats and opportunities. As my colleague Michael Roberto has pointed out in his recent column, leaders become detached and their interaction with staff becomes stilted and highly orchestrated.

Michael has some great ideas to help CEOs prevent themselves from becoming isolated at the top. Another idea that will appeal to CEOs -- especially younger ones -- is Ram Charan’s concept of ‘social acumen’, which he describes in his latest book, Leaders at all Levels. Social acumen helps leaders build networks that help them avoid becoming isolated at the top. Leaders with social acumen develop a broad range of social networks that permeate the company, including subordinates, peers, and superiors, he says. These networks often extend beyond the business to include customers, suppliers, regulators, politicians, and various interest groups. “The relationships tend to be durable because they are built on trust, and that trust allows information to flow both ways, exposing the leader to new ideas and different ways to see things.”

In the modern business world, where matrix-based structures are replacing hierarchies and partnership models are replacing competition, communication and networking are emerging as the key skills for leaders. Social acumen and engagement are critical for leaders if they are to engage, inspire and retain their people. It is no longer acceptable or reasonable for leaders to complain it is lonely at the top. If leaders are lonely, they are not doing their job properly.

What do you think? Is it reasonable today for leaders to complain about being lonely at the top? Do you have any messages for your CEO? Are you a leader yourself? If so, are you fully engaged with your people or do you still feel isolated?

Read all of Gill Corkindale's Letter from London posts.

If, as I argued last time, personal branding is now a prerequisite for career success, what does your brand need to offer? I was happy to read your responses. Now I'll weigh in.

Your personal brand needs to be:
• Compelling to your audience
• Authentic
• Consistent
• Well-known

So what do you need to do to make it happen? Here are some ideas, based on my own thoughts, together with Tom Peters’ work and those who have developed his ideas over the last decade:

• Rethink the way you view your career. Don’t think of yourself as an employee but as an asset to that you own. Forget your job title. Ask yourself: What do I do that brings value? What I am most proud of?
• Reassess your loyalties. Put loyalty to yourself first. Then be loyal to your team, your project, your customers, and your company.
• Be authentic. Be honest about who you are -- your attributes and qualities. If you know yourself, you can promote an honest brand.
• Learn from the big brands. Identify what makes you distinctive from the competition. What have you done recently to make yourself stand out? What would your colleagues or your customers say is your greatest strength?
• Make yourself visible. Build your profile internally and externally. Ways to do this include networking, signing up for high-profile projects, showcasing your skills in presentations or workshops, writing for internal or external publications, volunteering for committees or panel discussions at a conference.
• Be consistent. Ensure that your message is consistent. If it is erratic, it will undermine your efforts. Everything you do -- and choose not to do -- contributes to your personal brand, from the way you talk on the phone to the way you behave at meetings or write emails.
• Balance substance with style. Don’t forget that the way you do things is often as important as what you do. Do you speak succinctly? Do you command attention? Do you look the part?
• Build and manage your marketing network. Your friends, colleagues, clients, and customers are an important marketing vehicle for your brand. What is said about you will determine the value of your brand.
• Learn to influence. Use your personal power, your role and your network. But use them sensitively and intelligently, or else you will not be regarded as a credible or trustworthy leader.
• Seek feedback. It’s critical to keep checking the value of your brand. This can be done by formal methods such as 360 feedback or informally, by asking people around you for honest and constructive feedback on your performance. Another good way to check is to go for job interviews, regardless of whether you wish to change jobs, which will help you test your market value.
• Reassess. Keep checking what motivates you. What's your personal definition of success? Write yourself a personal statement about why you work and check it regularly.

What do you think? Is personal branding vital for success at work? Is the concept relevant only to Western executives or is it also important for managers in emerging markets? Are there any drawbacks to marketing yourself in this way? If so, what should you do about it?

Read all of Gill Corkindale's "Letter from London" posts.

MORE ON PERSONAL LEADERSHIP:
Five Steps to Building Your Personal Leadership Brand (HMU Article)
Anchor Yourself: Keeping a Sense of One's Essential Personal Identity Is Key to Weathering the Storms of Leadership (Chapter)
Becoming a Resonant Leader: Develop Your Emotional Intelligence, Renew Your Relationships, Sustain Your Effectiveness

How wrong I was.

Now, every other client I coach now asks me for suggestions on how to raise their profile and improve their personal branding at work. Almost everyone is realising that it is not enough simply to sit back and expect recognition and promotion for a job well done.

While most executives recognise the power of personal branding, some people are better at it than others. Confidence and culture are the major determinants of how far people will go with their personal brand. More individualistic cultures, particularly those of the English-speaking world lead the way, with some of the most shameless examples of personal branding. The worst I encountered was a Canadian pharmaceuticals executive, now a venture capitalist, who asked me to ghostwrite a novel based on his career to promote him and his achievements to the world.

At the other end of the scale are executives from communitarian cultures, such as those in Asia, Scandinavia, and Africa, who feel genuinely uncomfortable singling themselves out for special attention. It can be an uphill struggle to convince them that, in a global world, personal visibility is important for their careers. Of course, the notable exceptions to this rule are China’s Generation Xers -- the generation of only children dubbed ‘Little Emperors’ -- who have no difficulty promoting themselves.

So why the change? Why is it more important than ever to develop your own brand? I like the words of Seth Godin: "Many of us are taught to do our best and then let the world decide how to judge us. I think it's better to do your best and decide how you want to be judged. And act that way." But beyond that, some important forces have emerged in the last decade that make the Brand You concept critical to business and career success. They are:

• Globalisation: international integration (through economic, technological, socio-cultural and political forces) which is proving to be a levelling mechanism for talent and opportunities.
• Organisational changes: globalisation and increased competition are forcing organisational change and restructuring, which are in turn increasing mobility, uncertainty and fluidity.
• Project-based work: team-based assignments are short-term and fast-moving, which can quickly affect reputations
• Career management: responsibility for managing careers has passed from employer to employee. Successful executives recognise they need to be ‘appropriately selfish’, putting their loyalty to themselves above their loyalty to their company.
• An increasingly competitive society: in every walk of life, it has become important to learn how to stand out from the crowd in order to win better opportunities
• The inexorable rise of brands: branding has become pervasive in all societies as a means to distinguish goods, services and personal preferences. Social networking sites such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and Bebo show how branding has moved squarely into the personal domain

What are your thoughts about the forces that are driving the power of personal branding? Are there any more lessons we need to learn from these forces?

I look forward to your comments -- and next week I'll give you my suggestings for developing your personal brand.

Read all of Gill Corkindale's "Letter from London" posts.