An alternative form of industrial action?
October 13, 2008
I’ve just read an interesting article about staff at the Criminal Records Bureau, who have decided on a different approach to industrial action than non-attendance at work. The workers at the CRB in Liverpool have started a ‘work to rule’ protest, which means they won’t do anything outside of their job description. About 450 employees are involved in this action.
This is a response to a rather pitiful pay rise of 0.5 per cent, and the action has been organised by the trade union that represents the workers: The Public and Commercial Services Union. According to the union, the amount of time it takes for a CRB check to be processed could double with employees refusing to work overtime or work above and beyond the targets set.
This kind of action is something I’m not too familiar with, but it is probably as damaging to a business or public service as strike action would be. The morale at the CRB at the moment must be rock bottom, as the majority of workers do not wish to work the absolute minimum required, and to feel that this is the only option must indicate a very low level of satisfaction with the employer.
This, unfortunately is the crisis many employers are now facing: dealing with major financial limitations versus dealing with employee dissatisfaction and unrest.
How is your company dealing with these problems?
Studies show Pensions are the most popular way to save for retirement
October 8, 2008
Despite the worsening economic climate its appears that Employee confidence in pensions is still the best way of saving for retirement.
According to the latest survey from the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) Worker confidence in pensions schemes has risen from 3 to 22 per cent in 2008.
41 per cent of the 1,198 UK employees believe that pensions are the most popular way to save for retirement.
The rise in Pension confidence was down to the increased uncertainty in property as an alternative way to fund a retirement.
Joanne Segars, the Chief Executive of NAPF has said:
“The welcome boost in pensions confidence shows the traditional view of ‘at least I’ve got my pension’ has started to make a comeback. Psychologically, employees are ring-fencing their pension from the other financial pressures they are facing. The decline in adverse publicity about the security of pensions has also had a part to play. The message that the system in the UK is one of the best protected in Europe must be getting through.”
Does pressure overcome good practice?
October 6, 2008
I read an article in People Magazine recently that looked at the culture and people practices of Google, (Finders Keepers, 18th September), this year’s best place to work. Google is one of those holy grail places for job seekers in the industry, with its famous funky offices, free dinners, flexible working and a multitude of other employee perks. It’s also well known for its top class management practices, so for HR professionals looking to implement new ways of working in their own organisations, it’s a good place to start for ideas. But how much of what Google does is realistic in other companies?
The most startling aspect of the article, which was an interview with Lianne Hornsey, Director of people operations, was the number of interviews a candidate will go through before being engaged. Whilst the process has been reduced slightly in the last few years, it’s still common for most staff to have at least five interviews, and for more senior positions, many more than this. During this process the candidate will be interviewed by the line manager, potential colleagues and people they would be managing if relevant (360 degree interviewing), and if any person in the process has concerns about the candidate, they are not taken on. These processes sound really good and I’m sure Google have fewer problems down the line with retention, performance and capability as a result, but since the company receives 3,000 applications per day, Google has much more scope to carry out these systems than the average company. Google is such a huge brand and so well known as a great employer, I imagine there are no worries about competition in terms of other companies the candidate may be interviewing with, whereas when I am recruiting, I’m always made aware that ‘if I want this candidate I have to move quickly because they’re also seeing X competitor and won’t be on the market long’. I can imagine that many companies avoid long winded recruitment processes just because of the fear of losing good potential candidates. Add that to the internal pressure from managers to get people into post quickly because of work pressures, and it’s quite hard to put your foot down and say no, we’re doing it this way because we need to get the right people. Even when the company has been burned by poor performing employees that were recruited in haste, it’s hard to get the message home about taking your time over choosing future employees, because all the day to day pressures get in the way and cloud everyone’s vision. Sometimes you’re stuck between a rock and a hard place: get the wrong employee and you’re dealing with difficult issues and potential retention issues further down the line; fail to employ someone when there’s a heavy workload and you could deal with retention issues with the existing staff due to stress and pressure. Being prepared and good planning is obviously important but of course this doesn’t always happen.
Google sets a really good example of how to recruit and manage people, and should be used as such, but you have to see these practices in the realistic context of the organisation you’re in. I guess the best lesson that can be learned is that brand is everything, and if you can get to the point where your candidates are coming to you because they are dying to work for the organisation rather than the other way round, you can implement a very different way of recruiting new employees.
Integrating merged organisations
October 3, 2008
In today’s business environment, mergers and acquisitions take place frequently, and many UK workers will have experienced working for a company that merged with another at some point in their career. At the moment this is in the news a lot because of the massive financial problems a lot of banks are experiencing, leading to major buy-outs like the recent Lloyds TSB/HBOS agreement.
Mergers and acquisitions involve a lot of hard work in order to succeed, and one of the biggest things to consider is how the different organisational cultures will integrate, and how this will affect the people working for the new company. Working out how to make cultural integration as straightforward and successful as possible is an important factor in the planning process.
A recent survey by the global consultancy Mercer has found that not enough is done by organisations to identify and manage cultural integration issues during mergers, and that this leads to major financial losses as a result. This means that the economic viability of a merger or acquisition can be seriously reduced due the poor integration of employees, teams and management styles. Some organisations are now actually looking at this area as part of due diligence before the merger even takes place, to enable them to better assess the likely challenges and prepare for them, however this is quite rare. A small number of respondents to the survey had started to think about formalising the cultural integration process and carrying it out in a systematic way.
The survey was carried out on 119 organisations across the Americas and Europe, but these were very large organisations. I think it is likely that an even lower proportion of organisations going through mergers and acquisitions in the small-medium sector would consider cultural integration as something to focus on before, during and after the merge takes place. It’s something I have never seen happening in my experience.
Have you been involved in a merger and if so how did the cultures of the different organisations integrate? Did you experience any problems and how were these addressed?
Getting the right plants for the office
October 1, 2008
A while back I wrote about the importance of office design on the working environment, and recently the subject of internal foliage has come up in conversation in relation to this. This might sound like a silly subject to think about in the grand scheme of things, but there are actually a couple of considerations when introducing plants into the office space.
Many studies have looked at the health and psychological benefits of having plants in the home or workplace. Air pollution is a big issue and having plenty of greenery around can improve the air quality within the office. There’s also the calming effect from bringing a bit of the outside in; especially as many people arrive in the building in the morning and don’t go outside again all day.
Plants or flowers can also contribute to the look and design of the office, and as I’ve said before, the look of the office says a lot to employees and customers about what the company is like to work for or work with. However it’s not as easy as simply buying a few pots to scatter around. Plants are obviously living things and have specific care needs depending on their type: some will need lots of natural light, some will dry up with too much light. Other factors such as the room temperature will also affect the life and look of the plant, and many plants are extremely messy when they shed leaves or flowers, which isn’t ideal for the office. Unless you have some very green fingered employees who have the time and commitment to look after them, or you are willing to pay for someone to come in and look after the plants on a regular basis, then having plants in the office could be more trouble than its worth! There’s also the issue that some plants might actually be harmful (e.g. cacti) and the fact that plants grow – so you might find yourself moving them on a regular basis so that you don’t end up sitting in a jungle!
One way to deal with the above issues is to get artificial office plants. Of course, this won’t give you the air pollution benefits that you’d receive with a real plant, but the cost and time saving element could well make up for this. You can get loads of artificial plants now that look very realistic, and this way you could have pretty much any variety without having to worry that it would die in the conditions or if you forget to water it. If you wanted a really smartly designed office, artificial office plants could easily be sourced to complement the rest of the design.
I personally prefer to have real plants, but I know I’m quite lazy and forgetful when it comes to looking after them, so the artificial variety could be a good option. I really think that having plants or flowers in the office helps to brighten up the place and can have a positive effect on the way employees feel about being at work, and gives the company a cheerful and pleasant image for external visitors too.