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

Rabobank Bronnenarchief

blad 'What's news' (EN) | 2000 | | pagina 10