Rail bosses spend £10,000 a week on flights – because it’s cheaper than trains

[Fleetmaster]

50 air tickets a week - mostly international - is a tiny amount for an organisation of over 40,000 people.

The average cost of each ticket is something like £46.

It’s a nothingburger of a story.

It was 985 domestic flights in one year. That equates to one return flight a year for every middle manager in an organization of 40,000 people, assuming that manager has 81 direct reports, which seems reasonable. A bog standard office or factory would have team leaders looking after ten employees each, and the very first layer of actual management might see someone overseeing anywhere from five to ten team leaders depending on the precise business.

Parts of NR are surely very simple and analogous to cubicle farms where you can easily manage far higher numbers of employees. Many engineering functions no doubt allow for large numbers of employees to be overseen by limited numbers of managers. So you do very quickly get to a point where you have to assume this is either quite a lot of high ranking managers taking quite a few domestic flights, or a handful of senior managers taking frequent domestic flights.

There is a real story here, and the story is, why exactly are these people being paid to sit on metal tubes at 50,000 when alternatives exist? For both budgetary and climate reasons. It's a genuine question, since while I have worked for engineering firms, many with time critical repair functions, NR is not one of them, so I am baffled as to what they are doing that requires them to be there in person and at short notice. At all, never mind nearly 1,000 times a year.

I have never worked for an engineering company where for example trade conferences or regulatory appointments, the things where for social or indeed legal reasons you might need to be there in person, weren't scheduled months in advance. Even those are going digital these days. And it isn't like NR managers have any of the commercial need that accounts for most other in person business travel, is it? TPE or Southern can't shop around for different railway suppliers, can they?

 

[yorkie]

The first question of course is why are they even travelling?

What exactly is the nature of this business that requires them to be at a certain place at a certain time, and presumably at short notice? In person attendance at international conferences is understandable, as is the fact international travel is only really feasible by air. But for everything else, what the hell?

It would of course hardly be a surprise to learn that a government owned company under huge budgetary pressure was never allowed to invest in the technology that makes such travel redundant.

I wouldn't want to work for a company that did everything including all meetings remotely, even if it was theoretically possible.

You cannot do everything remotely. Outside of things like site visits you need to build relationships with people you work with, your stakeholders including suppliers and customers. It's important to get 'out and about' to see what's actually happening on the ground.

In my (non railway) employment I'm regularly out seeing what is happening on the ground across our diverse business. I have colleagues in other departments who try to run the business via Teams from their spare bedroom, rarely get out and meet people or see what is happening on the ground. They are so remote from reality that it's becoming an issue....

Exactly.

 

[Fleetmaster]

You cannot do everything remotely. Outside of things like site visits you need to build relationships with people you work with, your stakeholders including suppliers and customers. It's important to get 'out and about' to see what's actually happening on the ground.

In my (non railway) employment I'm regularly out seeing what is happening on the ground across our diverse business. I have colleagues in other departments who try to run the business via Teams from their spare bedroom, rarely get out and meet people or see what is happening on the ground. They are so remote from reality that it's becoming an issue.

Short notice isn't really the issue. I explained earlier that I needed to travel from Glasgow to Stevenage to conduct a site visit. I could do this journey relatively easily by train ( and have done so both for business and leisure) but to get a day in Glasgow means travelling the day before, losing a day's productivity. It also means a very late arrival home or another overnight stay and another day travelling home. Please don't say you can work on the train - yes, you can do some work on a train but it's not exactly the same as an office environment and cwertainly isn't a confidential environment for making phone calls.

I got an Easyjet flight from Luton departing at 07:30 and a flight back from Glasgow at 18:30. This was the most pragmatic solution, as it was it also cost less than the train would've done but cruicially I didn't need the cost and inconvenience of an overnight stay, lose any productivity travelling and also managemed to get decent sleep both nights.

It's rare that I fly but sometimes it is the most appropriate option, sometimes train is most appropriate and sometimes it's best to drive. Horses for courses!

It sounds to me like your business is poorly structured then. You have probably vastly underestimated the value of these visits, since you admit they are being done rarely but in your eyes still come at the cost of a full day's productivity even if you take the cheapest and most convenient option (so they must achieve something of equivalent value to the business, but somehow not so much value that a 50%-100% increase in the cost of a visit would be pallatable?). It doesn't really add up.

I dare say personal preferences as much as business need have also greatly shaped your decision making here.

Has it occurred to you for example that in this day and age, as you describe it, your role would not just be unattractive to a mother or a disabled person, but downright impossible? Even though it doesn't sound like a job that a mother or disabled person physically cannot do (correct If wrong). If that is the case, you are probably sitting on liabilities that vastly exceed whatever benefits you think your method of working is achieving.

 

[Bald Rick]

That equates to one return flight a year for every middle manager in an organization of 40,000 people, assuming that manager has 81 direct reports, which seems reasonable.

81 direct reports seems reasonable?

You are having a laugh right?

The domestic flights will almost be all people flying to or from Scotland. I can confirm from personal experience this has reduced considerably since the advent of MS Teams, and most people doing the trip use the train.

But to give one example, about 3 or 4 times a year there will be a senior Leadership conference (as most large organisations do), and this is always, always better in person. During Covid it was hosted on teams and it didn’t work. If it is in London or Birmingham, it is likely that the Scottish contingent will fly down. That will be about 150 of the flights per year just for that.

 

[The Planner]

Whats a middle manager? As if its NR you can add a zero to that 81 and multiply it by a bit more.

 

[Sniffingmoose]

Its good to see my original post has sparked such an intersting discussion. Anyway with climate change in the news so much nowdays I guess in an ideal world the carbon emissions of business trips will have to be factored in.

Thinking about business trips, its not just senior managers I noticed that the painters who repainted Burton on Trent station in East Midlands Railway colours commuted everyday in their van from Leeds. Could not local painters be employed?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Most private sector businesses also don't allow business class for short flights except for the most senior people

Agreed. International flights of > 3 hours yes.

 

[Hadders]

It sounds to me like your business is poorly structured then. You have probably vastly underestimated the value of these visits, since you admit they are being done rarely but in your eyes still come at the cost of a full day's productivity even if you take the cheapest and most convenient option (so they must achieve something of equivalent value to the business, but somehow not so much value that a 50%-100% increase in the cost of a visit would be pallatable?). It doesn't really add up.

I dare say personal preferences as much as business need have also greatly shaped your decision making here.

Has it occurred to you for example that in this day and age, as you describe it, your role would not just be unattractive to a mother or a disabled person, but downright impossible? Even though it doesn't sound like a job that a mother or disabled person physically cannot do (correct If wrong). If that is the case, you are probably sitting on liabilities that vastly exceed whatever benefits you think your method of working is achieving.

In my case it was imperative to make the site visit, it wasn't about personal preference. Without going into too many specific details, decisions about security and safety of vehicle movements at a large distrucution centre split needed to be made. We're talking about hundreds of vehicles entering and exiting the site every day 24/7. The solution couldn't have a significant adverse impact on the efficiency of the operation.

Despite our best efforts to try and come to a decision using Google Earth and Street View we quickly realised we needed to get all stakeholders together on site. Sometimes you just need to put your safety boots and hi-viz on, visit the site to look and talk to people.

Many disabled people and mothers work for my employer, some very senior positions. Where necessary reasonable adjustments are made which is appropriate to the exact situation of each person.

 

[yorkie]

It sounds to me like your business is poorly structured then.

I would strongly disagree with that (I have the benefit of knowing the exact business concerned).

You have probably vastly underestimated the value of these visits, since you admit they are being done rarely but in your eyes still come at the cost of a full day's productivity even if you take the cheapest and most convenient option (so they must achieve something of equivalent value to the business, but somehow not so much value that a 50%-100% increase in the cost of a visit would be pallatable?). It doesn't really add up.

I dare say personal preferences as much as business need have also greatly shaped your decision making here.

Has it occurred to you for example that in this day and age, as you describe it, your role would not just be unattractive to a mother or a disabled person, but downright impossible? Even though it doesn't sound like a job that a mother or disabled person physically cannot do (correct If wrong). If that is the case, you are probably sitting on liabilities that vastly exceed whatever benefits you think your method of working is achieving.

There are some jobs that really need to be done in person. I do some work remotely, and am well aware of the pros and cons but there are limits.

I've rejected offers of more remote based work for higher rates of pay; admittedly that is my personal preference. But even in jobs I've done which can mostly be done remotely, the value of meeting in person fairly regularly is vastly higher than some people realise. Meeting clients in person is hugely important. While you may be able to calculate the cost of in-person meetings fairly easily, calculating the value is far more difficult.

 

[greyman42]

But even in jobs I've done which can mostly be done remotely, the value of meeting in person fairly regularly is vastly higher than some people realise. Meeting clients in person is hugely important.

You are absolutely correct. Either people have not got the experience to realise this or they just prefer to take the easy, but not the best option.

 

[Fleetmaster]

In my case it was imperative to make the site visit, it wasn't about personal preference. Without going into too many specific details, decisions about security and safety of vehicle movements at a large distrucution centre split needed to be made. We're talking about hundreds of vehicles entering and exiting the site every day 24/7. The solution couldn't have a significant adverse impact on the efficiency of the operation.

Despite our best efforts to try and come to a decision using Google Earth and Street View we quickly realised we needed to get all stakeholders together on site. Sometimes you just need to put your safety boots and hi-viz on, visit the site to look and talk to people.

Many disabled people and mothers work for my employer, some very senior positions. Where necessary reasonable adjustments are made which is appropriate to the exact situation of each person.

My point stands I think. As you describe it, on the one hand you are concerning yourself with the lost personal productivity of an extra day's travel in how you conduct this visit, while on the other you suggest that this visit was imperative because it could cost your business a darn sight more than one of two day's worth of your personal productivity if it didn't happen.

Do you really not see how, from a basic business perspective, that doesn't really add up? Either you are incorrectly valuing your time as a trouble shooter, or the business is ill prepared to deal with potentially major situations because it doesn't have the right staff with the right authority in the right locations (or has some other problem with planning).

You also didn't really explain how a mother or disabled person can realistically do this job under these conditions you suggest are vital for the business, when it doesn't seem to be the case that, while important, this visit could not have been delayed a day or two to allow for responsible travel. Which is why I suggested that same day travel by air seems to be a matter of personal preference not business need.

I would also like to know what you planned to do in the (very likely event these days) that your own personal flight was canclled, meaning you could not attend a site visit where you had arranged to have multiple stakeholders present to view the situation and talk to people. If in that scenario you would have either cancelled the visit, delegated your authority to someone else on site or just somehow muddled through with a phone, I would suggest that too shows you (hopefully) that air travel is perhaps not as vital to you as you think it is.

You are absolutely correct. Either people have not got the experience to realise this or they just prefer to take the easy, but not the best option.

It can also be said that if you are overly reliant on in person communication to achieve peak performance from your team, there is a deeper issue in play. Either you as a manager aren't being an effective communicator, or the people under you lack the skills or even simply the confidence to do their jobs properly. Which ultimately is your fault because you're the person hiring them, training them and evaluating them. It could be a sign you don't trust your employees or worse, they don't have confidence in you. You could be micromanaging or under-managing.

I remain baffled by what it could possibly be that requires senior leadership of NR to meet in person in mass conference, four times a year. Especially since they lack so many of the pressures and functions come with an ordinary business, such as competing for customers and developing a marketing strategy. They don't buy, sell or make anything in the conventional sense. They're a services and engineering monopoly where much of what they do is literally set in stone and much more still is largely out of their control entirely.

Do the really need to meet in person four times a year to discuss performance metrics, or pass on best practices, or make sure everyone saw the latest regulatory bulletins?

 

[Meerkat]

Remote meetings just cannot replace all face to face.
perfectly fine for day to day catch ups and routine stuff, but when things are going wrong or you are starting a project you really need the right people in a room together.
And even the routine needs doing face to face occasionally. There are some important things that simply won’t get said over company systems that leave a record.

 

[island]

81 direct reports seems reasonable?

You are having a laugh right?

The domestic flights will almost be all people flying to or from Scotland. I can confirm from personal experience this has reduced considerably since the advent of MS Teams, and most people doing the trip use the train.

But to give one example, about 3 or 4 times a year there will be a senior Leadership conference (as most large organisations do), and this is always, always better in person. During Covid it was hosted on teams and it didn’t work. If it is in London or Birmingham, it is likely that the Scottish contingent will fly down. That will be about 150 of the flights per year just for that.

I'm assuming (hoping) that the 81 people is the total reports not just direct.

 

[Bald Rick]

Especially since they lack so many of the pressures and functions come with an ordinary business, such as competing for customers and developing a marketing strategy.

Funniest thing I’ve read all year.

Every middle & Senior manager I know who has come to Network Rail from ‘ordinary business’ has found it an order of magnitude more challenging in terms of the ‘pressures‘ they have to deal with Than in ‘ordinary business’. It is still the case that of the dozens of senior Route / Regional / Zone directors hired directly into those roles from outside the industry in the past 30 years, only 3 have lasted more than 3 years before leaving, generally on ’bad terms’; 2 of the other 3 went within 5 years.

Frankly, developing a marketing strategy is a piece of cake. (I’ve helped do it very early in my career).
Try developing a plan for next year with a regulator that insists on improving performance at a rate never seen (outside a pandemic), whilst further improving safety, yet requiring cost savings, when the funder can’t decide what train service is to run. NR also has the world and his wife publicly espousing how they are rubbish and it so easy to run a railway. Including some on these pages. My standard answer is - apply for a job at NR and show them how it’s done.

 

[TUC]

It is not a 'sad indictment' . We don't know where Michelle Handforth lives, or where she was going. But if you live in London or even Birmingham, and have to go to Scotland for the day, travelling by train is an exhausting, long trip with little time for meetings. Flying is the obvious choice for such journeys, unless you are an enthusiast and are happy to use up your home time in railway carriages.

It's striking that the comment is that way round . Londoners seem to oddly find it much more time consuming and exhausting to travel to other parts of the country than people in those places do to travel to London.

 

[Hadders]

My point stands I think. As you describe it, on the one hand you are concerning yourself with the lost personal productivity of an extra day's travel in how you conduct this visit, while on the other you suggest that this visit was imperative because it could cost your business a darn sight more than one of two day's worth of your personal productivity if it didn't happen.

Do you really not see how, from a basic business perspective, that doesn't really add up? Either you are incorrectly valuing your time as a trouble shooter, or the business is ill prepared to deal with potentially major situations because it doesn't have the right staff with the right authority in the right locations (or has some other problem with planning).

You also didn't really explain how a mother or disabled person can realistically do this job under these conditions you suggest are vital for the business, when it doesn't seem to be the case that, while important, this visit could not have been delayed a day or two to allow for responsible travel. Which is why I suggested that same day travel by air seems to be a matter of personal preference not business need.

I would also like to know what you planned to do in the (very likely event these days) that your own personal flight was canclled, meaning you could not attend a site visit where you had arranged to have multiple stakeholders present to view the situation and talk to people. If in that scenario you would have either cancelled the visit, delegated your authority to someone else on site or just somehow muddled through with a phone, I would suggest that too shows you (hopefully) that air travel is perhaps not as vital to you as you think it is.


It can also be said that if you are overly reliant on in person communication to achieve peak performance from your team, there is a deeper issue in play. Either you as a manager aren't being an effective communicator, or the people under you lack the skills or even simply the confidence to do their jobs properly. Which ultimately is your fault because you're the person hiring them, training them and evaluating them. It could be a sign you don't trust your employees or worse, they don't have confidence in you. You could be micromanaging or under-managing.

I remain baffled by what it could possibly be that requires senior leadership of NR to meet in person in mass conference, four times a year. Especially since they lack so many of the pressures and functions come with an ordinary business, such as competing for customers and developing a marketing strategy. They don't buy, sell or make anything in the conventional sense. They're a services and engineering monopoly where much of what they do is literally set in stone and much more still is largely out of their control entirely.

Do the really need to meet in person four times a year to discuss performance metrics, or pass on best practices, or make sure everyone saw the latest regulatory bulletins?

Frankly this is a load of rubbish.

Are you seriously suggesting people shouldn’t travel on business at all. I can assure you that my trip to Scotland (which was very much a one-off) was not a jolly. The risk of getting that sort of decision wrong could have been catastrophic for the Scottish part of our business, as well as the impact on suppliers, staff and efficiency at the distribution centre.

Perhaps all university learning should go online? What about schools? Ban travelling to the theatre or to a football match - we can watch on TV.

Sometimes it is necessary to be there in person. You can’t replicating catching up with someone at a conference you’ve not spoken to for a year - those conversations and bits of info you find out are invaluable. There’s no way you get that sort of thing on Zoom.

As for disabled people and mothers the business I work for (FTSE 100 company) has very robust procedures in this area.

 

[WAB]

It would of course hardly be a surprise to learn that a government owned company under huge budgetary pressure was never allowed to invest in the technology that makes such travel redundant.

And what such technology is that? Genuinely curious as pretty much everyone in the industry has access to Teams, Whiteboard, Sharepoint, various collaborative softwares, meeting rooms with screens, cameras, microphones etc.

There is a real story here, and the story is, why exactly are these people being paid to sit on metal tubes at 50,000 when alternatives exist? For both budgetary and climate reasons. It's a genuine question, since while I have worked for engineering firms, many with time critical repair functions, NR is not one of them, so I am baffled as to what they are doing that requires them to be there in person and at short notice. At all, never mind nearly 1,000 times a year.

Personal contact is very important, and I'd be interested to know what your alternatives are.

Has it occurred to you for example that in this day and age, as you describe it, your role would not just be unattractive to a mother or a disabled person, but downright impossible? Even though it doesn't sound like a job that a mother or disabled person physically cannot do (correct If wrong). If that is the case, you are probably sitting on liabilities that vastly exceed whatever benefits you think your method of working is achieving.

In most roles, accommodations can be made. But if you are working from home, you won't be getting personal connections with the people who might hire you, or offer you good projects that'll raise your profile etc.

Remote meetings just cannot replace all face to face.
perfectly fine for day to day catch ups and routine stuff, but when things are going wrong or you are starting a project you really need the right people in a room together.
And even the routine needs doing face to face occasionally. There are some important things that simply won’t get said over company systems that leave a record.

Exactly. And I've found that getting the right people in the room is more difficult now that it's simply a case of not clicking on the link. It really slows things down, and along with the lack of casual conversation, more stilted conversation, and lack of personal connection, can cause problems further down the line. There have been several instances where pretty major oversights have not been identified until we've had an in-person meeting.

 

[Fleetmaster]

Frankly this is a load of rubbish.

Are you seriously suggesting people shouldn’t travel on business at all. I can assure you that my trip to Scotland (which was very much a one-off) was not a jolly. The risk of getting that sort of decision wrong could have been catastrophic for the Scottish part of our business, as well as the impact on suppliers, staff and efficiency at the distribution centre.

Perhaps all university learning should go online? What about schools? Ban travelling to the theatre or to a football match - we can watch on TV.

Sometimes it is necessary to be there in person. You can’t replicating catching up with someone at a conference you’ve not spoken to for a year - those conversations and bits of info you find out are invaluable. There’s no way you get that sort of thing on Zoom.

As for disabled people and mothers the business I work for (FTSE 100 company) has very robust procedures in this area.

I understand if what I wrote upset you and you don't really want to acknowledge the possibilities of there being some truth to it, but I find it highly pertinent that if this were an in person meeting, you probably wouldn't have responded in the manner you just did, which was largely irrelevant and thus entirely pointless as an exercise in communication.

 

[yorkie]

I understand if what I wrote upset you and you don't really want to acknowledge the possibilities of there being some truth to it...

As someone who has done a range of jobs, from entirely in person to mostly remotely, in public & private sectors, I think what you posted has no truth to it, and really doesn't make any sense.

Your post has been debunked and discredited by experienced forum members, who I know hold responsible jobs in large organisations.

 

[Bald Rick]

It would of course hardly be a surprise to learn that a government owned company under huge budgetary pressure was never allowed to invest in the technology that makes such travel redundant.

I use teams every single day in my job in said ‘government owned company’. However, sometimes, you need to see people in real life.

 

[jagardner1984]

Totally agree the original article is sensationalist nonsense, and some business travel will always be essential.

Just chiming in with my own experience of a directly government funded organisation, (rather smaller than NR, which is of course relevant) which has essentially banned domestic air travel, to the extent of paying staff for two full days either side of a day of work somewhere in the south east (not London) to allow them to travel by rail from parts of Scotland.

So whilst I accept all that has been said - as the climate policies of organisations tighten, and 90% of domestic flights being taken by 2% of people, I think the days of senior execs hopping with great regularity the length of the country by air are perhaps numbered, for climate if not economic reasons. The cost of the mode of travel is rather irrelevant given the comparative salaries of the people being transported (that isn’t an argument for or against air or rail - it’s just that when people are expected to get somewhere, cost is not the deciding factor.)

 

[Hadders]

I understand if what I wrote upset you and you don't really want to acknowledge the possibilities of there being some truth to it, but I find it highly pertinent that if this were an in person meeting, you probably wouldn't have responded in the manner you just did, which was largely irrelevant and thus entirely pointless as an exercise in communication.

You’ve not upset me at all. On the contrary you seem to be having difficulty understanding that sometimes a face to face meeting is the right thing to do.

I use teams every single day in my job in said ‘government owned company’. However, sometimes, you need to see people in real life.

Indeed. I also use Teams every day (and sometimes pick up the phone for an old fashioned phone call).

I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks that large organisations can operate successfully without seeing people in person.

My employer has closed half of its office provision since March 2020. People did sometimes work from home pre-pandemic, and this has accelerated but it will never be 100% working from home, nor should it be.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, Teams is a great system, but sometimes its better to meet in person.

 

[Fleetmaster]

You’ve not upset me at all. On the contrary you seem to be having difficulty understanding that sometimes a face to face meeting is the right thing to do.

Whihc is of course an absurdly gross simplification of what has been said. But like I said, I understand your reluctance to address it.

And what such technology is that? Genuinely curious as pretty much everyone in the industry has access to Teams, Whiteboard, Sharepoint, various collaborative softwares, meeting rooms with screens, cameras, microphones etc.

The cutting edge stuff is more like Augmented Reality. As absurd as it sounds to be calling it cutting edge when it is literally advertised on television it is so mainstream, or so I thought. Although since nobody seems to want to give a concrete example of what is so critical about these quadrennial mass NR meetings, it is hard to say if it would be of benefit or not. You can stand inside a virtual station layout, for example. Or a hundred truck distribution facility. *shrug emoticon*

In most roles, accommodations can be made. But if you are working from home, you won't be getting personal connections with the people who might hire you, or offer you good projects that'll raise your profile etc.

It depresses me to think you might not realise that is actually illegal. Rather than denying a mother or disabled person a job that apparently requires one day travel for site visits even though there has been no reason given why a more relaxed train based itinery wasn't an option in the given scenario, you are actually legally required to show such visits are an absolute necessity for the role. Woolly talk of relationships doesn't fly. Nor does being unable to explain why a (properly implemented) virtual solution wasn't an adequate replacement for visualisation and strategizing purposes. You need literal concrete facts to justify why your boots need to be on the concrete in question.

There have been several instances where pretty major oversights have not been identified until we've had an in-person meeting.

There is literally no circumstance where such a thing is not wholly down to how the technology is being used and (indeed far more likely) the personal shortcomings of those using it.

If Network Rail isn't giving its managers proper training in the basics of communication, that is on them. These basics include knowing how and when to prompt subordinate to offer important information they might have erroneously failed to mention. This can be verbal and non-verbal, It can be as simple as leaving a pause. It is, ironically, about relationships, bearing in mind an in person meeting that goes badly can just as easily set you on a path where a subordinate never does their job properly because you revealed shortcomings in your own role.

To some it is nautral, It can also be taught. But pretending it is something that quite literally requires you to be in the same room to happen, is, if people really through about it, quite absurd.

This is why engineers make the best managers, a proven fact. You tell me I need to be in the room, I am going to assume there is an issue where I literally need my hands or other senses to be of practical use. Otherwise, why am I there?

 

[Bald Rick]

Although since nobody seems to want to give a concrete example of what is so critical about these quadrennial mass NR meetings

Firstly, they are not ‘mass meetings’. They have maybe 200 people.

Secondly, they offer the chance for the senior leadership to meet each other, in person, and mix. And ‘bump into’ people they have not seen for a while to catch up, share experience, learn lessons, etc., which is not very easy to do virtually.

Thirdly, they are organised in a way that forces discussion and engagement. This is not so easy virtually. I will freely admit to being in Teams meetings when I have been doing emails / writing reports / feeding the cat / having a tooth extracted, and my attention was perhaps not 100% focused on the meeting.

Fourthly, they are actually quite enjoyable, in a way that sitting at the kitchen table looking at your laptop can never be. And it is quite motivating for most people (if not all) to sometimes enjoy their work.

Fifthly, it requires most of the attendees to travel by train to get there. A small percentage fly, as mentioned above, but that is because it is the best use of their time. But I’m sure you’ll agree that it is good practice for people in the rail industry to use the train sometimes? For the avoidance of doubt the Scotland contingent also use the train regularly. It’s just that sometimes using the plane makes more sense.

You can stand inside a virtual station layout, for example.

Yep, done that multiple times, first time nearly a decade ago.

Rather than denying a mother or disabled person a job that apparently requires one day travel for site visits even though there has been no reason given why a more relaxed train based itinery wasn't an option in the given scenario

It’s individual choice. One of my best friends at work is a single mother who travels the network widely. When she goes to Scotland she sometimes takes the train, and sometimes flies. It depends on her childcare arrangements. If you suggested that she was being in anyway disadvantaged in this way she would almost certainly tell you to foxtrot oscar, if not kick you somewhere particularly sensitive.

This is why engineers make the best managers, a proven fact.

“Citation required”

I’ve had some absolutely rotten managers who were engineers.

In my experience, the best managers and leaders are those who understand people.

 

[stuu]

Whihc is of course an absurdly gross simplification of what has been said. But like I said, I understand your reluctance to address it.


The cutting edge stuff is more like Augmented Reality. As absurd as it sounds to be calling it cutting edge when it is literally advertised on television it is so mainstream, or so I thought. Although since nobody seems to want to give a concrete example of what is so critical about these quadrennial mass NR meetings, it is hard to say if it would be of benefit or not. You can stand inside a virtual station layout, for example. Or a hundred truck distribution facility. *shrug emoticon*

It depresses me to think you might not realise that is actually illegal. Rather than denying a mother or disabled person a job that apparently requires one day travel for site visits even though there has been no reason given why a more relaxed train based itinery wasn't an option in the given scenario, you are actually legally required to show such visits are an absolute necessity for the role. Woolly talk of relationships doesn't fly. Nor does being unable to explain why a (properly implemented) virtual solution wasn't an adequate replacement for visualisation and strategizing purposes. You need literal concrete facts to justify why your boots need to be on the concrete in question.


There is literally no circumstance where such a thing is not wholly down to how the technology is being used and (indeed far more likely) the personal shortcomings of those using it.

If Network Rail isn't giving its managers proper training in the basics of communication, that is on them. These basics include knowing how and when to prompt subordinate to offer important information they might have erroneously failed to mention. This can be verbal and non-verbal, It can be as simple as leaving a pause. It is, ironically, about relationships, bearing in mind an in person meeting that goes badly can just as easily set you on a path where a subordinate never does their job properly because you revealed shortcomings in your own role.

To some it is nautral, It can also be taught. But pretending it is something that quite literally requires you to be in the same room to happen, is, if people really through about it, quite absurd.

This is why engineers make the best managers, a proven fact. You tell me I need to be in the room, I am going to assume there is an issue where I literally need my hands or other senses to be of practical use. Otherwise, why am I there?

I would suggest everything you have said in this comment and previous ones completely ignores the social aspects of employment, which come from the millenia of our existence. You cannot simply ignore that. People are far more cooperative and empathic in face to face meetings, and build better relationships. No amount of technology can replace that

 

[Fleetmaster]

Firstly, they are not ‘mass meetings’. They have maybe 200 people.

Secondly, they offer the chance for the senior leadership to meet each other, in person, and mix. And ‘bump into’ people they have not seen for a while to catch up, share experience, learn lessons, etc., which is not very easy to do virtually.

Thirdly, they are organised in a way that forces discussion and engagement. This is not so easy virtually. I will freely admit to being in Teams meetings when I have been doing emails / writing reports / feeding the cat / having a tooth extracted, and my attention was perhaps not 100% focused on the meeting.

Fourthly, they are actually quite enjoyable, in a way that sitting at the kitchen table looking at your laptop can never be. And it is quite motivating for most people (if not all) to sometimes enjoy their work.

Fifthly, it requires most of the attendees to travel by train to get there. A small percentage fly, as mentioned above, but that is because it is the best use of their time. But I’m sure you’ll agree that it is good practice for people in the rail industry to use the train sometimes? For the avoidance of doubt the Scotland contingent also use the train regularly. It’s just that sometimes using the plane makes more sense.




Yep, done that multiple times, first time nearly a decade ago.



It’s individual choice. One of my best friends at work is a single mother who travels the network widely. When she goes to Scotland she sometimes takes the train, and sometimes flies. It depends on her childcare arrangements. If you suggested that she was being in anyway disadvantaged in this way she would almost certainly tell you to foxtrot oscar, if not kick you somewhere particularly sensitive.



“Citation required”

I’ve had some absolutely rotten managers who were engineers.

In my experience, the best managers and leaders are those who understand people.

Why Engineers Make Great CEOs

Around the world, a combination of sound engineering acumen with an MBA from a top business school tends to be a common path to the corner office. Microsoft CEO, Satya Nadella, is an engineer. So is General Motors’ Mary Barra and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos; and the list goes on. In fact, engineering has long been ranked as the most common undergraduate degree among Fortune 500 CEOs. Even Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, has an engineering PhD under his belt.

As the piece makes clear, in a rather unfair way imho, only an engineer comes to a management post with a pre-existing ability to properly analyse and fix problems, and is typically doing so for pure greed and self advancement (the secret sauce that brings success in business).

It is my engineering background that motivates me to ask the other guy why he was no problem in how he values his personal productivity time in the site visit scenario, which simply didn't add up from a bottom line perspective, even if It probably does make him feel like he is being of immense value to the business.

It is my people skill that understands why he is reluctant to address the specific point. I wouldn't hire him, and would be sceptical about contracting his company. I would hire a mother or disabled person all things being equal, and make it absolutely clear they are under no pressure to make such visits in a single day nor even travel If as it appears there was a viable alternative method of visualisation.

In business, I have absolutely no time for people who on the one hand try to argue there is some special value to meeting in person when it isn't strictly necessary, while on the other freely admit to not actually giving their full and complete attention to a work meeting simply because it was virtual. That is an issue of character. That is you putting your hand in my pocket and acting like you're doing me a favour by letting you be my employee.

If someone lacks people skills and don't find it easy to delegate, these essential management skills can and will be aquired by the most successful engineers turned managers. The reverse, a people person teaching themselves problem solving skills or a simple general appreciation for the bottom line, not so much.

Other than the dubious claim that 200 people is not a mass meeting, the biggest issue I have with your post is that it didn't offer a concrete benefit, a bottom line affector. Blink and you might miss the quite important "learn lessons" aspect of it all. Which is of course not something that should be left to being done four times a year.

Someone above already claimed NR is an absolute basket case that cannot retain good people in high level management, and yet that is apparently under this scenario where the company is already holding these meetings four times a year, for these rather woolly reasons of good feels and motivation and personal connections.

I would suggest everything you have said in this comment and previous ones completely ignores the social aspects of employment, which come from the millenia of our existence. You cannot simply ignore that. People are far more cooperative and empathic in face to face meetings, and build better relationships. No amount of technology can replace that

I haven't ignored it. I have gone out of my way to repeatedly say that part of being a good manager is being absolutely aware of what digital communication lacks and how to effectively compensate for it. This can be trained, it is effective, and yet most people here don't seem to appreciate this basic fact, despite it being one of very first things anyone learns in a business and management course. Christ, this stuff can be found in NVQ Levels One type training it is so basic. Non-verbal communication.

And like it or not, employment is not a social exercise. You are confusing the natural aspect of humanity, our need for social interaction, with the extremely recent development of organised contractual employment. Contracts exist precisely because humans doing what they would naturally do around people they do not like, is not good for business. We willingly work with people we do not like because we all understand that organised employment is superior to all that has come before it.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’m not saying that Engineers don’t make great leaders. Obviously some do (Some might say that includes me, but I demur).

however I will argue that it doesn’t mean engineers “make the best managers” as per your quote …

This is why engineers make the best managers, a proven fact.

it just means that engineers are more likely to make the best managers. And that ignores the distinction between managers and leaders.

Someone above already claimed NR is an absolute basket case that cannot retain good people in high level management

Where was this claimed?

 

[TUC]

Has it occurred to you for example that in this day and age, as you describe it, your role would not just be unattractive to a mother or a disabled person, but downright impossible? Even though it doesn't sound like a job that a mother or disabled person physically cannot do (correct If wrong). If that is the case, you are probably sitting on liabilities that vastly exceed whatever benefits you think your method of working is achieving.

i'm not sure why you think that mothers rather than fathers are less able and willing to travel. In my experience at work both halves of a couple work out child care mutually for such arrangements. As for disabled people, many would be keen to emphasise that they are as capable as anyone else, including with regard to travel.

Having said that, where I work does make extensive use of Teams and travel has significantly reduced. That has many pluses, such as opening up job opportunities previously tied to London to people in many parts of the country. Nevertheless, one does miss benefits of being together such as overhearing conversations and discovering another team is working on a project related to your own, with whom relationships need to be built. These can be addressed by looking to people to travel and be in the office several times a month, but not most of each week, and by having regular face to face team meetings.

 

[RT4038]

It's striking that the comment is that way round . Londoners seem to oddly find it much more time consuming and exhausting to travel to other parts of the country than people in those places do to travel to London.

Not sure where you get that idea from. Rarely have I found business people in Scotland travelling to London or Birmingham and back, by train, for the day.
Probably about the same percentage as those prepared to do it in the opposite direction. 9-10hr in trains (and journeying to and from those trains), plus a meeting or two, is exhausting. Try it a few times and you'll soon find out.