What do we do?

Posted on by Blog

If you listened to a lot of the stuff and nonsense that is written and spoken about HR you’d think we were all engaged in hand to hand ninja fighting with machines, whilst repeating the mantra, “the future of work is human” and promising a tomorrow characterised by self actualised, engagement and bliss.

I don’t know about you, but that is far from the existence I see in most organisations. Far from the work that I see most people do.

First and foremost, before anything else, we make sure the trains run on time. We get people paid, we make sure laws aren’t broken. We handle the enrolment in to benefits that you never know you need – until you really need them.

We make work places safe, ensuring people have a place to go if they feel that they’re being badly treated, informing and educating towards a workplace that has dignity and respect at its heart.

We handle things when the go wrong. Sometimes it’s our fault, sometimes it is a manager’s or an employee’s fault. Sometimes, it is just one of those things. We are there to resolve, rectify and recover from situations that no-one would wish for in the first place.

We find and grow the skills that are necessary to move our organisations forward. Whether that’s hiring, developing or nurturing – making sure that we are able to be successful today and tomorrow. Running programmes, schemes, campaigns to develop the skill base of the organisation.

We support people at their best and at their worst. We deal with the extremes of workplace experience, from the promotions, job offers, bonuses or pay rises to the redundancies, dismissals, deaths and emotional crises. We own messages which most would find difficult and own them well.

We guide, advise, counsel and coach. We help others to find the solutions, identify the outcomes and develop the conclusions that make their work better. We stand shoulder to shoulder with leaders as they go through organisational transitions and changes.

We take the blame. Someone has to and we are more than used to handling it. Not everything will go right at work, not everyone can always be happy. Sometimes people just need someone to point a finger at. And that’s ok.

Sure, we do a whole lot more as well. But funnily enough, not a single robot slain.

Principles or pragmatism?

Posted on by Blog

In life there is a natural continuum between principles and pragmatism. It runs throughout our work, our personal decisions, our politics and our businesses. Running the gauntlet between the two polar forces is a key tenet of successful leadership.

The allure of the principled leader is strong. We want people who stand for something, organisations with clear values and purpose. But the frustration is palpable when they stand in the way of  things just getting done.

People who make things happen, who are willing to compromise and change their position. We admire them with a distrust. What wouldn’t they forsake?

Knowing when to stand by your personal value set, your principles and knowing when to let go and move on for the sake of organisational/societal benefit is perhaps the biggest challenge for us all.

This easy answer is to say it’s neither one nor the other – it is a beautiful simple, yet totally impotent perspective. An anodyne position which adds little to any understanding of the complexity of values and decision-making.

Because the truth to leadership is not recognising when you need to compromise, or stick by your principles – but understanding why others need to do so. Giving forgiveness and tolerance to the value sets of others.

It doesn’t matter whether it is personal, business or political. Our difference is created by recognising the difference in others. That sometimes we all need to stand firm and sometimes we need to change, admit we were wrong and reconsider.

Failure is when we judge without seeking to understand.

 

Give better interview

Posted on by Blog

Let me start this piece with a giant caveat – I know I’m not the world’s best interviewer. I get bored, I have a tendency to wander in to areas that interest me and I want to explore and I have (on the very odd occasions) been known to be judgemental – don’t wear Christmas socks to an interview with me in March.

Whilst I’m willing to accept my own foibles are far from ideal, I’m also constantly surprised by the approach taken to interviewing by HR professionals and business leaders alike. Let me put it another way…

If you were making any other £50,000 investment decision, would you turn up to the investment meeting five minutes late, not having read the investment proposals and make a decision based on a variety of criteria and questions that have little if anything to do with the required product or service?

Ultimately each piece of recruitment, each interview is exactly that – a piece of procurement. And as such there are simple steps we can take to make sure we increase our chances of a better outcome.

  • Looking far and wide for the best providers (recruits)
  • Carry out good research and due diligence on the shortlist (application process)
  • Assessing against relevant and comparable criteria (interview questions)
  • Selecting based on moderated assessments (marking and rating of interviewers)

Too often we approach the interview process through the lens of employment law and regulatory requirements. And whilst this is a necessary consideration it shouldn’t be our ultimate focus.

Best practice is about best outcome and delivering real commercial value, perhaps more than anything else.

What will the election mean for HR?

Posted on by Blog

As we move towards the General Election, The main parties are making their manifestos available and so far the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats have published theirs. There is surprising consensus about the main themes to be tackled, but of course difference in approach and tone. So what are they saying about the world of work?

Executive Pay

There’s been a lot of reference to executive pay ratios and both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats commit to pay ratios across the board. The Conservatives state that listed companies will be required to publish pay ratios between executives and broader UK workforce pay, the Liberal Democrats point to “larger” companies having to publish the ratios between “top” and median pay.

In addition, they both also refer to binding shareholder votes on remuneration policies and executive pay.

Labour also mention pay ratios, specifically a limit of 20:1 in the public sector and for those companies bidding for public sector contracts, but perhaps surprisingly don’t reference the broader business community. There is no mention of any constraints on executive pay but instead to their “excessive pay levy” which would be paid by companies for employees earning over £330,000.

Minimum Pay

At the other end of the remuneration spectrum, all three main parties make reference to minimum wage rates – however, the content is particularly confused by the loose use of language, exceptions and omissions.

Labour commitment to increasing the “Minimum Wage” to the level of the “Living Wage” for all employees aged 18 or over.

The Conservatives plan to increase the “National Living Wage” to 60% of median earnings by 2020.

And then the Liberal Democrats commit to an independent review to set a “genuine Living Wage”.

No much clarity there then!

Employee participation

This is perhaps the most interesting area of discussion, with more inches dedicated to this than I can remember in any previous election. 

Labour approaches this through involvement of the trade unions, with a promise to repeal the Trade Union Act, a commitment to sectoral collective bargaining and guaranteeing Trade Union rights to access all workplaces.

The Liberal Democrats refer to employee representation on remuneration committees, the “right for employees of a listed company to be represented on the board” and to “permit a German-style two-tier board structure to include employees” but they’re not quite clear on whether this is an obligation, or an encouragement.

Finally, the Conservatives will make companies either nominate a board director from the workplace, create an employee advisory council or assign specific employee responsibilities to a designated non-executive director.

Employment rights

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats commit to the abolishment of tribunal fees, the Liberal Democrats also committing to merge those “enforcement agencies” that oversee employment rights.

Zero hours contracts come in for a lot of attention. Labour promise an outright “ban” whereas the Lib Dems refer to preventing the abuse and a formal right to request a fixed contract. The Conservatives make broader reference to protecting the interests of those in the “gig economy”. The Lib Dems and Conservatives also point to the forthcoming Taylor Report as a means of change.

Labour make a high profile commitment to an additional four statutory bank holidays (picked up by a lot of the national press) and a less high profile, but no less interesting pledge to ban unpaid internships.

The Conservatives make reference to a new right for employees to request information on the future direction of their company albeit, “subject to sensible safeguards”.

The Liberal Democrats present a right for employees in listed companies with over 250 employees to “request” shares in the business. They also float the idea of a kite mark for “good employers” that  covers areas such as paying a living wage, using name blind recruitment and removing unpaid internships.

Summary

Overall, my sense is that we can expect to see pay ratios being widely implemented in reporting in the same way that we are seeing with the gender pay gap and increasing focus on excessive executive pay.

The output from the Taylor Report looks more and more likely to be a turning point in terms of formal consideration of changes to working practices as a result of the “gig economy”. From recent press coverage, we can hope that the recommendations will be thoughtful and considered.

And finally, the debate about employee participation and voice is going to be fascinating. How do employees get a voice at the top tables of organisations, how do we formally enshrine employees as a meaningful stakeholder and how do we ensure more transparency?

Disclaimer

I’ve tried to remain as neutral and factual as possible, you’ll have your views as I will have mine. If inadvertently I’ve mis-portrayed a perspective, then it is entirely unintended.

I appreciate that there are other parties that will play a role in the election that aren’t included. I’ve used the information available at the point of publication.

If there are inaccuracies or omissions, please let me know and I will edit and amend as appropriate.