Rl organization
What'sNewS Issue 7 July 1999 5
Let me throw in a few more examples
here. Within RI, I'm told, we have around
the same number of customer relation-
ships as we have people. It's what I'd call a
five-star hotel, hut we're not running a ho
tel and we're certainly not charging the
prices. So that seems to be out of whack.
We need to focus more on customer fran-
chises, building customer franchises, and
that is what the strategie review team is
doing. Another ratio that bothers me is
front office/back office - I think it's out of
balance. So looking again at these three
ratios, it must be clear to everyone that we
^ieed to do something. That is why we
need to cut the cost base, primarily in
mini-Euroland. At nty lunch sessions with
sta ff, I stress the need for austerity, but I
also encourage people to reach out to the
SRT so that they are part of the process. It
is very much up to people themselves to
take charge of their own destiny.
So these measures are part of the strategie
review process?
Basically what I'm trying to do at the
present time is carry out 'no regrets'
moves to cut the cost base. We've done it
in London, we will do it in Utrecht and in
head office while we are working on the
strategy. At the end of the summer we wi
have a strategy paper which will lead to
an operating model. I guess that will be
around mid-September.
Will that clarify the Meta concept (seeJuly
12 News Flash) and other proposals that
have been under discussion recently?
The member banks division wants to get
closer to their customers. If you look at
the deep relationships that really do exist
with those customers, then it makes sense
to move the relationship management of
those accounts closer to where the day-to-
day relationships are. That is with the
member banks. However, we would still
retain a number of relationships at the top
end and in E&A, and we would provide
the product support. So you have a
situation where the relationship with most
customers and transactional activities,
such as cash management, will move to
the member bank division.
^las that been decided?
We're working on a final proposal for this
now. The basis of this proposal is that all
of the products, the corporate finance-
type capabilities will be provided by RI
much in the same way that Interpolis
supplies insurance product support. If this
works out, then everyone would have the
best of both worlds. The relationship
management is close to where the social
contacts are, and the product
management is where the expertise is.
Can you explain the role of a works' council
- known in the Netherlands as an OR - in
this? For many staff outside Holland the
How does this consensus model rhyme with
the Anglo-Saxon accountability model of
which you are a proponent and which you
would like to see embedded into Rl?
I believe in being decisive at the top, yes.
Equally, I believe in creating ownership of
the plans you make. That is why I spend
time with people communicating, sharing
ideas with them. And that is why you
should also spend time with the OR - that
also creates ownership. You can have a
great plan but it is a worthless plan if you
Hulshoff (second left) - 'I believe in creating ownership for the plans you make. We do that by
communicating, at the lunches I have with staff, but also at meetings like this one'
concept is incomprehensible.
As an institution, an OR has been part of
Dutch industrial relations for many years
(see also sidebar on page 6). It is a consul-
tation body which has a say in and must
give approval for any reorganizational
changes within an organization. There is
comprehensive legislation and regulation
in this country, and in sonte other Euro-
pean countries, on what requires OR in-
volvement. Obviously, if you are consider-
ing splitting up businesses, as we are doing
in RI, and which involves employees mov-
ing to other sections of the organization,
then this constitutes a case where you
need the approval of the OR. So we are
keeping the OR informed in terms of
progress. When we come to proposals for
the Netherlands, we will consult with the
OR on issues relating to the staff.
can't implement it. And a plan can only be
rolled out successfully if there is a buy in
process. You can't stuff it down people's
throats. So running proposals by the OR
first ain't bad at all; it can work very well
with a decisive organization.
This is something of a deja vu situation.
We've had strategies and plans in the past.
The problem seems to be implementation.
I don't look back. I'm more interested in
the future. However, as you've raised the
point, let me say this. I think there were
probably multiple reasons why great plans
were not implemented. Maybe it was a
lack of a buy in process, maybe wavering
at the top about the plans, maybe there
was a culture where people were going
their own way, maybe there was a lack of
continued on page 8
