Category Archives: HR Thoughts

Comments or posts about contemporary HR discussion topics – probably of more interest to HR professionals

I know what I want & I know how to get it?

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

A common cry among HR people is that they are ignored or dismissed within their business. It’s something that in my 30 years in HR has never gone away, and forms a staple of many an HR conference. The “how do we get a seat at the table” discussion has outlasted almost every topic or fad that the profession has debated.

For me, one of the problems is that, while HR people moan to each other about not being taken ‘seriously’, we rarely ask our colleagues, who are after all our customers, what it is they want. But, after 18 years, working with a wide variety of organisations in widely diverging industries and sectors, I’ve come to the conclusion that what most want from HR is

·         To keep them legal – that means having a good knowledge of Employment Law and related regulation.

·         An understanding the business and its objectives, and the ability to devise solutions to problems that achieve this.

·         Good professional skills that no-one else in the business can provide – whether this is recruitment, employee development, handling a complex union negotiation, or an individual issue.

·         Someone who will remind them that they are dealing with other people. It’s very easy for managers to become focused on the task and forget that other human beings are involved. Pointing out the human consequences of a business decision isn’t being a “bleeding heart” – it allows better long-term decision making and planning.

·         Looking at ways things can be done, not reasons why they can’t

·         Someone who brings in expertise and knowledge from outside that can ‘add value’ to the business they are working for.

Now, I’ve never conducted a formal survey among the 125+ organisations I’ve worked with, and this view is purely based on my perceptions. So I’d welcome comments from businesses – and other HR people. Perhaps if we better understood what business wants, we might finally know how to earn the mythical seat at the table.

Managing a poor performer

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, HR Tips for Business and Charities • Tagged , , , • 2 Comments

The current UK General Election has flagged up an issue that concerns many small businesses – how do you manage a poorly performing employee without crossing the line into bullying or pushing the individual into going off sick, often with ill-defined ‘stress’.

It’s come into focus with the case of Diane Abbott, the Shadow Home Secretary. It’s been pretty clear to most people, including supporters of her own party, that she has had a disastrous election campaign, appearing not to know her own policies and struggling to answer basic questions. Given the importance of the role of Home Secretary – especially in the light of recent terrorist attacks – questioning her competence to do the job is legitimate.

But much of the criticism in recent days has been of a personal nature, and given that she is the highest profile black woman in UK politics there has been an undercurrent of racism and sexism to some of the criticism. She is, after all, not the only politician who has been exposed as not having a grasp of key policy details during the election campaign. The situation appears to have culminated in her going off sick for the remainder of the campaign.

Politics is not the same as business of course, and the dividing line between personal criticism and political division is blurred. But in the world of work, there’s also a danger that trying to manage poor performance can – deliberately or accidentally – move into the personal – which may lead to organisations facing discrimination or unfair dismissal claims.

So how should a small business manager deal with a similar situation?

Firstly – don’t avoid the situation. I often quote an Employment Judge who in a tribunal hearing, pointed out to the ex-employee that “it is the Employer’s responsibility and duty to make an employee aware if their performance is below the standards required”. Brushing things under the carpet makes it much harder to deal with things later.

Second – focus on the issues, not the individual. What exactly is it that is not being done correctly? Move from the personal “you’re hopeless at customer service” to the task “the wording of your email to this customer is unclear/antagonistic”

Thirdly – make it clear what improvements are expected, and by when, and outline what support you can give the person to achieve the required level of performance.

Fourth – don’t micromanage. Picking up an individual for every tiny error is not going to lead to an improvement, you’ll just end up shattering their confidence completely and ensure that they fail.

Of course, there are times when an individual employee is not up to the job and you may need to dismiss them as a result. But unlike politics, you should do this objectively and not on the basis of personal criticism and destroying their health.

Need to know more about this? You can find out more details here.

The Mystery Number

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts • Tagged , , , , , • Leave a comment

It’s a staple of TV mysteries – the cryptic number that may (or may not) be significant to the plot. For example, ‘119’ in the new series of Twin Peaks; ‘Counting down from 730’ in Buffy or the mysterious number sequence (4,8,15,16, 23, 42) in Lost.

In employment law, we have our own mystery number: 87(4)

To be more precise, it refers to section 87(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and deals with notice periods.

As most employers are aware, if you dismiss an employee, then in the majority of cases they are entitled to a period of notice. That period of notice is the longer of the minimum period laid down in the Employment Rights Act – sometimes known as Statutory Notice – or what is written in the individual’s employment contract.  During the notice period, the individual is entitled to their normal pay.

All pretty straightforward. But, if the individual is unable to work during their notice period, do they receive full pay or the pay that they are entitled to while off sick (Statutory Sick Pay – or in some cases no pay – for example)? This is where our mysterious clause kicks in.

Under 87(4). If someone has a contractual notice period that is 1 week or longer than their period of statutory notice, then the employer can legally pay sick pay rather than normal pay during notice.

So, an employee whose contractual notice is 13 weeks, but whose statutory notice is 8 weeks, would not be entitled to receive their normal pay during notice. But an employee whose contractual notice is 2 months (which is roughly 8.5 weeks) but whose statutory notice is 8 weeks would.  Fair? Not really. Confusing? Yes. The sort of thing that is likely to inadvertently trip up employers? Definitely!

Why does this rule exist? That’s the mystery. While many employment law rules, however arcane or apparently illogical, can be explained by some historic circumstance or rationale, the reason for 87(4) appears to baffle many. Unless of course you know differently (in which case please use the comments section below!)

Dear Deliveroo…

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

An open letter to Will Chu, founder of Deliveroo

Dear Mr Chu

I read with interest your recent comments that you’re unable to offer the riders who work for Deliveroo better terms and conditions because to do so would ‘risk the flexibility’ that they enjoy.

I fully understand that entrepreneurs who have a great business idea aren’t always experts in things like marketing, finance or – in this case – managing people. But most of those who make a success of their business get expert advisers to guide them through these issues and ensure that they support their business aims in a legal and effective way.

I can only assume that you haven’t done so when it comes to employment matters, so I’m happy to correct some misapprehensions you seem to have.

Firstly, you suggest that it’s up to the Government rather than your company to define individual employer status. Actually, it’s not. There are a number of long-established legal tests that can be applied to determine whether someone is an employee, a worker, or self-employed. It may be true that 21st century economy needs 21st century legislation – and certainly the Government are looking at this at the moment – but at the moment the existing legislation does seem to be able to deal with most situations, even in the dynamic ‘gig economy’.

Secondly, employment status doesn’t prevent you offering flexible working arrangements or work patterns.  I’d have thought the data you collect on ordering times for takeaway meals would allow you to identify regular peaks and troughs in demand and schedule your labour requirements accordingly. Using a bank of casual labour, paid through the payroll, would allow you to offer sick pay, holidays and pensions to your regular core workers and supplement these at peak times.  It’s a bit of a 20th century solution, but sometimes old ideas still work effectively

Finally, I have to say that trying to disguise the nature of the working relationship – by using phrases like “invoice” not “timesheet” and “branding guidelines” instead of “uniform” – won’t cut the mustard if you’re challenged. Employment Tribunals will look at what actually happens rather than the words on a page and are pretty adept at seeing through sham arrangements.

I’m always happy to help growing businesses avoid simple employment mistakes and so if you need some further advice please give get in touch, although if you do have 15000 workers I’d probably suggest you need to have some full time in-house expertise. You might find my book helpful though, it sets out clearly and simply what entrepreneurs and small business owners need to know about people management.

Best wishes

Simon

 

Ch..Ch..Changes

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

Over the last few weeks, there seems to have been a welter of articles and events on the changing shape of work and –  as a consequence – how we need to throw our models of change and organisational design out of the window. Whether it’s the robots coming to take our jobs, the gig economy, globalisation or Brexit, everything’s changing and we’re living in scary new world where nothing is certain.

Except perhaps it’s not changing quite as much as we think. For example, recent data suggest that the rate of increase of the use of robots has actually slowed across Europe in the last five years and is at a lower rate in the US. That might speed up again but even now is only at a level of 2.5 robots per 1000 workers.

Similarly, the gig economy – as recognised by a recent CIPD report – still only forms a small percentage of the workforce, most of whom remain in traditional employment relationships. Even if we extend that to all self-employed workers, despite the growth in recent years they still only form around 15% of the working population.

I’ve been hearing about the impact of the VUCA world for at least 5 years now. Looking around, most of the organisations I work with are still structured in a very similar way to the way they were in 2012 – and I suspect they will not look that different in 2022.

The reason – humans adapt slowly to change. The technology to create driverless cars may exist, but until they are socially accepted they won’t take off. And that won’t be until numerous ethical and political issues are resolved. How many people talk to Siri/Cortana/Alexa currently? A growing number, but still only a tiny minority. Many humans find the idea of conversing with an inanimate machine a difficult concept. It will come no doubt, but over a longer timescale than the proponents suggest.

So while we should review our models and theories of change (particularly dumping the outdated Lewin model in the dustbin of history) we should remember that change will be controlled by the speed that humans want it to – not simply by the fact that we have the ability to do something.