Van Slingelandt - in for the long haul
L
orgamzation
ro What's NewS Issue 5 August/September 2000
-
After 18 months out of the Rl spotlight, Rik van Slingelandt is back in the saddle.
A vociferous supporter of the multi-domestic concept, his task is to bring about
the DGRI merger after Ton Toebosch's departure. And the Rl he plans to integrate
into the newco will be dynamic, positive and profitable. To do that, he needs a lot
of very credible decision-making so that people feel secure in an evolving
environment. Is he daunted by the task? asks What's NewS' Anne Lavelle. 'Why?'
he says. 'We're offering people the chance to be part of a first line bank in
Europe. Any banker would be crazy not to want a piece of that opportunity.'
m
L
It's not really that simpte, is itBef ore we get anywhere
with the multi-domestic concept, we'll be years down
the line. People need to feel secure now, to understand
what is happening in the organization, and where it is
going.
Do you know, I think it is that simple. We
are working on the creation of the higgest
retail bank in Europe. We're talking about
around 25% of the total European market
if you bring in all the potential coopera-
tive players. When I look at what is hap
pening to our own organization, what I
see is the chance to be part of the whole-
sale bank that services that giant retail
bank. We're in at the start, we can define
how it will be structured. Any process
with such a huge prize will be complex,
will be tough. But if we achieve even half
of what we're ainting for, it will be more
than worth it.
A lot of people seem to be finding it hard to see the
prize clearly.
It's human nature to be concerned with
your own issues, to want to know what's
going to happen to you, whether you'11 be
sitting on the same chair
next year. Whether you'11
get that new job you
want, whether you're in
an organization that can
fuel your aspirations. I un
derstand that. I'm in a
similar position myself.
My commitments as an
executive board member
have been reduced to a
minimum so that 1 can fo
cus on Rl and DGRI.
Over the next two years,
until the merger is final-
ized on 30 June 2002, 1
will be doing everything I can to move
this process along. At the end of that time,
a chairman will take control and we all
know that chairman is Uwe Flach.
Whataboutyou?
I don't know yet. But I think this endeav-
our is so important that I'm not even
thinking about my personal position. In
fact, I don't think we'll see the real results
of what we're doing today in my working
lifetime. It will take 10, 15, maybe more
years to bring the whole cooperative
moventent into a European context. I'm
not being altruistic. Rather, I'nt being real-
istic. You know, sometimes you just can't
rnake quick wins. You have to go for the
long haul. If we were doing nothing, if we
were sitting back hoping that our position
on the domesric market would be enough
to allow us to survive, rhen people would
be complaining that we aren't dynamic,
we aren't moving, we aren't creating excit-
ing and challenging opportunities for
them. In contrast, we've launched one of
the most exciting challenges of the new
century, of the new Europe, and people
still aren't satisfied. What do you want us
to do? You teil me?
Perhaps a bit more clarity about what is happening
and where we are in the process might help.
You're right. I think there has been a
problem with communication. The reason
- and I have been part of the DGRI steer
ing committee front the very beginning - is
that often you make progress that cannot
easily be translated into the kind of hullet
points we all like so much. In fact, you've
probably noticed that communication
around the merger has changed. You
don't see any more of those very legalistic,
and sometimes ineomprehensible, docu-
ments shooting round the intranet. Now,
we only communicate when there is some-
thing definite to say.
And within Rl itself?
There's been a lot of talking but we
haven't had a lot of decision-making. I
think that's what people want, that kind
of clarity. At the same time, we've got to
move the separation process along. And
the underlying rationale in that process
needs to be very clear as well.
Are you referring to the group treasury concept?
In the separation process, yes. That's one
of the higgest issues we're working on at
the moment. But we're also tackling issues
within Rl, such as capital markets.
What do you mean?
We all know capital markets is not per-
forming as it could. We need these prod-
ucts, we need the capabilities. The people
were doing well early this year, but in the
last few quarters results have heen disap-
pointing. I think the reason is that there
was no clarity. Now we've formulated a
clear policy paper so that everyone is on
the same page.
But it seems that those activities that make money -
STIR - will be separated from Rl and remain with
Rabobank Nederland (RN). Is that the strategy?
Okay, we will cerrainly lose the profits
generated by, say, STIR which will remain
with RN. But 1 know capital markets will
be profitable for us. We have the creativity
and the capability - people are making
money for Rl in capital markets around