Probation – a Feminised Culture?

I have finally caught up with the reading the thought provoking articles on women in leadership in the most recent People Management.

I particularly enjoyed reading the article called ‘Why being more female isn't about hiring more women’. I am struck by the concept of feminisation in the work place. I agree with Nadia Younes, Head of Diversity at Mining Company, Rio Tinto, although her industry could probably not be more different to mine.  She talks about it being a ‘shift away from a more masculine culture to one that is more tolerant of style differences and ways of making decisions - and that benefits men as well as women’.

The article also quotes a McKinsey survey done in 2009 called Women Matters 3. This looked at leadership styles and behaviours and whether they were perceived as gender neutral or favoured more by one sex compared to the other. There were three top leadership styles that were seen as most important for managing in crisis and in ‘normal’ times (are any times ‘normal’?) Of these, two, using expectations and rewards and offering inspiration were favoured by women. Also, Dinah Wallman, CIPD Divertity Lead quotes research that showed that feminised work places where feminine values were prevalent had a positive impact on innovation and governance.

This article and others have caused me to reflect on my own experiences throughout my career and during my studies and also on where I am now and my current organisation. I could write for a long time… Afterall, who does not like to talk about / muse about their own experiences? However, I think applying these thoughts of a feminised workplace to my present leadership role in a Probation Trust is hopefully more interesting for anyone reading this.

If you look up ‘feminisation’ on any web based dictionaries, the definition is very two dimensional and disappointing as it’s just about developing female characteristics. ‘Feminisation of the workplace’ definitions bring up equality of opportunity, fairness, redistribution or work between the genders and practical issues such as flexible working and shared childcare. I don’t think any of this is what Younes was talking about, if I understood her observations correctly, and it’s not what I think either. She acknowledges that the language is problematic, and I agree, so I have been racking my brains for alternatives. The obvious contender is the increased use of the term ‘soft skills.’ This is not great either because despite all the research now showing a clear link between the use of soft skills (meaning for example communication, empathy, emotional intelligence) and the bottom line, there is an obvious problem with the word ‘soft’ as it sounds, well…soft.

So, maybe the approach is to look at the behaviours most favoured by female leaders, using the two noted earlier and to look at the impact, as noted earlier.

I am currently the HR Director in a probation trust. About three quarters of our work force is female and this is reflected in our Trust Leadership team, where 6 out of 8 of us are women. Our Board is 50/50. So, on a basic level, equality of representation has been achieved. But what about our qualities and behaviours, that in turn drive our successes? I contend that our overall culture does have this hard to define and somewhat intangible ‘feminine’ culture, but it is by no means soft, and the behaviors that influence it are not more prevalent in my female colleagues compared to my male colleagues.

Expectations and rewards:

·      One of the first things our Chair and Chief Executive did was to make sure our business and management information reporting was top notch. Team leaders receive useful and timely information and in return they drive their team’s delivery of a quality service, data quality and performance. There is no naming and shaming, and no blaming, but there is plenty of friendly rivalry. Team of the Year is always our most hotly contended staff excellence award category and it’s a pleasure to judge internally. Even better is the fact that for the 2^nd time in 4 years, one of our teams won this award nationally (against 34 other Trusts.)

·      We go for awards and nationally or internationally recognised accreditations, and when we gain them we showcase them appropriately. We have worked hard to achieve European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Recognised for Excellence and gained 4 stars on our first attempt. We also have the Matrix standard for our Education, Training and Employment Team recognising the quality of their service. To this list, we can add ISO level accreditation for the Environment and for Occupational Health and Safety. Did we set out expecting to achieve these? Yes. Did teams work hard and collaboratively to achieve these? Yes. What are the rewards? Well, we are part of the public sector, so no financial rewards, but plenty of recognition and thanks.

Offering Inspiration:

·      Our Chief Executive is highly visible and most of our staff have been able to speak with her personally as she has visited our geographically disperse offices regularly. She also writes an internal blog and has championed the use of Twitter, so she communicates in a diversity of ways to inspire more staff and stakeholders.

·      We hold an annual staff conference every year, held twice so all staff can attend. This year, we used two well known academics in the field of Desistance as keynote speakers and provided workshops run by experts in Restorative Justice, through their own personal experiences. I found attending these to be a privilege personally, and from the feedback received, many of our professional staff were highly inspired to apply their insights to their practice.

A positive impact on innovation and governance.

·      Our Trust was one of the first to run Integrated Offender Management (IOM), which is a partnership with the Police and Local Authorities to support joint teams to reduce reoffending by prolific offenders. It is successful and a classic case where the total is so much greater than the sum of its parts. We also use this approach for high risk of harm offenders in the Bristol area.

·      Our Education, Training and Employment Team, have commercial contracts, and their Director has been commended nationally for her leadership of this innovative team.

·      Onto the more mundane matters of governance:

o   We are always in budget and continue to find further efficiencies

o   We deliver outcomes according to our contracts and more

o   We have turned around the relationship with our Trade Unions locally, and now enjoy a very constructive dialogue

o   We prefer informal HR solutions but do follow up formally when required.

So, by picking out a few key examples, I hope that I have given some substance to my theory (well, musings really) on how ‘female’ qualities can make for a positive and successful culture. I am still struggling to think of better terminology compared to ‘feminisation’ or ‘soft skills’ though. Any ideas?

Zero Hours Contracts - One Way Streets?

A few days ago, a colleague tweeted that I had 'introduced' zero hours contracts into our organisation. This is not quite the full picture, so I responded rapidly to clarify insofar as 140 characters allows. I have also tweeted that very minimal hours contracts can be even worse as they combine total uncertainty (about the next shift of work) with mutuality of obligation. I suspect that, like zero hours contracts, these are also widely under reported. 


This topic is now receiving lots of press coverage, and comment, so I have decided to throw my two penneth worth into the pot. So, can you have ethical zero hours contracts or does the road only go the way of the employer? 

Having planned your workforce requirements, including need for occasional additional cover or the need for additional capacity at seasonal or busy times etc., I would advise that the bulk of the workforce should be employees on contracts with a set number of hours, whether permanent or for a fixed period. If there is a clear business need for casual or temporary staff,  I think that the best starting point is to establish whether someone should be an employee or a worker. I have had reason during my career to lead a review of the contracts of 'sessional staff' and this was what we did.

ExpertHR explains the difference well:
"An employee is a person employed under a contract of employment. A worker who is not an employee is said to be engaged under a contract sui generis (of its own kind). There are two elements to a contract of employment: mutuality of obligation and control. Mutuality of obligation exists when an employer undertakes to provide a person with work and that person agrees to do that work in return for an agreed salary or wage, and on terms and conditions laid down by the employer. Control exists if the employer determines when, where and how the work is to be done (or the manner in which it is to be done). It follows that temporary workers are not employees if they are free, without penalty, to accept or reject any offer of employment made to them. Although the control element undoubtedly exists when a worker accepts an offer of casual work, the ability to reject such an offer at will, and without penalty, is what distinguishes such a worker from an employee."

Our conclusion was that we had a need for a small number of zero hours contracts in certain parts of the service for genuine sessional workers or relief coverage, but not for routine work or regularly rostered work. These workers might also be known traditionally as sessionals, casual staff, bank staff, or relief workers. In other words, it should be clear to local managers who request their work and to them, that they are truly casual. This also means no mutuality of obligation on either side, so they are free to work elsewhere and to turn down work offered (the road goes both ways). We also pay these workers benefits such as holiday and sickness pay accrued pro rata according to the hours they have worked. This exercise did lead to some contract revisions for staff who were classed as sessional, but had started to be offered routinely the same pattern of work over a period of time. (My advice, if that happens, is to offer the worker involved an employment contract with set hours for the period of time over which that regular work is expected to take place. The contract can always be reviewed regularly and flexed accordingly.)

A practice I alluded to above, (which we don't do) is very minimal hours contracts that require mutuality of obligation, but where this requirement is only advantageous to the employer. In other words, a one way street to total flexibility for employers but total uncertainty for staff. In my view these are legal, but only just. A young person I know has one of these (even my teenage children's friends sometimes ask @familyhrguru for advice or views on employment matters.) He is required to work any 16 hours a month. He has, like dockers in the bad old times, turned up for shifts to be told he is not required. He has ventured to try to turn down shifts well over an hours drive away (he has an old car) and been told he will be disciplined if he does not turn up. He has also had weeks with hardly any work, then others with several 12 hour shifts. A psychological contract and employee wellbeing are just a distant dream in such circumstances... I wonder how many other entry level jobs are similar? I wonder how many other outsourcing companies use such contracts? I don't like what I hear and I worry that it is becoming more prevalent in this economy and hitting young people and those without many academic qualifications the hardest. 

This blog has probably only touched the surface I think, of a topic on which there will be lots of strong views. To conclude, in my view, no employee should be stuck on a one way street on a zero hour or minimum hour contract, contractually unable to turn down shifts, yet able to be turned away from shifts. A small number of zero hours contracts, organised ethically, can be acceptable and useful to the business for a small number of workers who genuinely do casual shifts or occasional work and who can decline work offered. 

Why @familyhrguru?

 

We were talking about Twitter names yesterday, as we were ‘educating’ a couple of colleagues about joining in with the fun. Some Probation Trusts have taken quite a uniform approach to names, whereas others have supported more organic growth – like ours – within reason. This led to one of the usual debates about the capacity in which one tweets, personal or professional, or a bit of both?

I was pondering on this with my boss, Sally Lewis (@CEOLewis), as my Twitter name is hardly linked to Probation, nor to my organisation. This means it doesn’t quite fit the convention suggested in Russell Webster’s excellent series of blogs on Twitter Etiquette either http://www.russellwebster.com/how-to-be-twitterfective-in-10-easy-steps/ I may have started #fitprobationstaff, but I’m not into yoga either. However, colleagues seem to think it uniquely identifies me – a bit like a CB radio handle? (Wow, that ages me!)

So why ‘familyhrguru’? Well if I was being thorough, and bearing in mind I use the term ‘guru’ ironically, it would be ‘family, friends, friends of friends and acquaintances HR guru’! Also, and importantly, I would only have been using it for about the last 2 years, yet I have been HR qualified for over 10 years and working as a manager of people for several years before that.

So what is so different about the last 2 years? Well, not my competence as I hope I am always learning and developing. There wasn’t an overnight change from family member, friend, friend of friend, or acquaintance into highly knowledgeable HR guru! Nor did this group of people I know turn into difficult, lazy or challenging employees …….. What changed was the economic climate.

What came with this economic situation was quite a number of people I know, or people who know someone I know, with job insecurity, problematic situations regarding their terms and conditions of employment, and in a couple of cases, people losing their jobs (for very little or spurious reasons) or redundancy not quite handed correctly. They know what job I do, and so more than ever before, I get approached out of work for my opinion or advice on things. In fact it has become quite an occupational hazard, not that I mind helping others!

There have always been fantastic managers, middling managers and downright awful managers. Equally there has always been a range of great and not so great employers. What worries me greatly is that the current economic situation - austerity, public sector job cuts, and slow growth in private sector jobs – will mean that this situation becomes more common. Not so great practice may become more prevalent as short cuts are sought by poor managers and less scrupulous employers in order to remove  ‘problems’. I hope I don’t, but expect that I will continue to be needed to advise and support my friends, family, friends of friends, and acquaintances.

So to conclude, where did this Twitter name come from?

When supporting one of my cousins with some of her concerns (she is still in work by the way) she said “You’re like our family HR guru.” So there it is. I was quite flattered and the term has stuck.

Blackberries – the humble fruit, not the phone.

I love metaphors. They can provide such vivid and easily understood descriptions. When it comes to creating a market for services traditionally provided by the public sector, metaphors abound. We often hear about ‘low hanging fruit’, ‘cherry picking’, ‘easy pickings’ etc. and usually in connection with a concern that those are the only services the market will be interested in.

I love the fruit metaphor, and over recent weeks have been thinking about a  comparison of a market for public services with the humble blackberry. I say the ‘humble’ blackberry deliberately because it is something we take for granted every autumn. They are simply there and free for us to pick. This means we take their availability for granted and don’t expect to have to pay or to fight too hard to find them. Imagine if they were all fenced in and we were charged by the kilo or very unusual weather prevented an annual crop… Imagine if some of the services we have grown up with and take for granted (such as the NHS, public safety and criminal justice, social care, free education etc.) were suddenly depleted or more difficult to access…

It’s not that simple of course and blackberries vary in their quality and ease of access, as I will describe below and leave you to draw your own conclusions:

• The beautiful (and pricey) punnet in Waitrose. I don’t know about you, but I am always shocked that these are for sale in the autumn when you could go and pick some for free. However, they are always luscious looking and this is an easy and effortless option, if you can afford it.

• The juicy, ripe berries at shoulder height. Easy to reach and often available in abundance. Gathering these gives you a feel good feeling – the fresh air, the quality time with the family to pick them, the free food, and the gorgeous fruit crumble for pudding etc. Could this be the way things should be (or used to be)?

• The juicy, ripe berries just out of reach behind a tangle of thorns. Who is going to pick these? They are great once you reach them, but there is extra cost such as very scratched arms, snagged clothing or possibly even taking a ladder with you. (I won’t get into the attendant risk assessment required to avoid Health and Safety issues!)

• The very hard to reach, high up berries, the small unwanted berries, the green un-ripened berries, the over-ripened squishy berries; in other words the sub standard berries or the non conforming berries. Imagine that your remit is to pick and find a way to use every single berry – what are you going to do to reach these and to make something with them once you do? What happens if nobody does? Some are dealt with in the way nature intended (bird food) but others wither on the vine (or briar.)

• The juicy, ripe berries near the ground. We always instructed our children not to pick these ‘in case a dog has weed on them’. So you could call these the spoiled goods, or even the risky goods. The chances of them being tainted with canine urine is probably quite remote, but would you want to take the risk? If you did, and things went wrong – what then? Who would be responsible for putting things right?

I could continue to develop this metaphor, but I’ll leave it here and hope that it has generated some interesting thoughts. This autumn, the home-made blackberry and apple crumble with West Country clotted cream is on me!

Post Script, 21 September, 2014

I've been out picking blackberries today and reflecting on this, my most read blog. The metaphor continues:

• Many of the juiciest looking ones were very high up and I could not reach them on my own, but wondered if this would be possible with integrated partnership working? 
• Some had not been picked and were starting to ferment and go mouldy. These won't be any good to any part of the food (provision) chain.
• A lot of the blackberry bushes were well protected by nettles and other prickly, stinging and thorny briars. Presumably nature has put these together for a reason.
• This brings me to the whole system. In addition to the blackberry bushes, the briars, nettles etc, there was an amazing array of insect life including dragon flies, bees, spiders etc. and the rather less attractive horseflies (I have probably been bitten - will find out tomorrow). 

These blackberries are clearly part of a very well balanced eco system, that has developed over hundreds of years. I like to think that humans taking just what they need and no more, are part of this whole system. The fruit is definitely set to outlive its technological namesake.

Easier hiring and firing?

It’s a while since I last blogged. Inspiration has been slow to come, but this week, I have been following closely the comments and thoughts around on Beecroft’s ideas for making in easier to hire and fire staff and Employment Tribunal (ET) reform. You would think that as a practicing HR Director whose role is quite ‘hands on’ a lot of the time, I would be over the moon that it is now going to be more difficult for an employee to bring an ET claim (and if Beecroft’s recommendations were implemented, even more so). My job and that of my team could become easier! Even better, we are in the public sector, where it is rarely possible to ‘pay someone off’ or compromise someone out without jumping through a lot of Treasury hoops to show value for the taxpayer! This means we have to follow process very carefully and closely whenever we are dealing with ‘employee relations’ cases. Things can get protracted…

But no, I am not filled with joy. Far from it. I tweeted early last week that there is a difference between making it easier to ‘hire and fire’ someone and making it easier to ‘fire’ someone.  A number of people far more eminent than me have already blogged or tweeted about this. My view comes from my day-to-day work and that of the teams I have led over the last few years and also from my observations of the culture and morale in various organisations.

Let’s start with hiring. Well, it’s not that difficult now (thanks to the economic climate) for many entry or mid level roles, and this has been the case for the last 3 years or so. Some delay and frustration comes from the length of time certain pre employment checks can take, such as CRB, but finding suitable staff is not otherwise hindered. How does easier firing help here?

Now onto what happens during employment.  This is the bit about organisational culture and the competence of line managers (one of my hobby horses). Notwithstanding the reams I could write about the critical nature of this, it is not rocket science to understand that creating a climate of fear and a ‘gung ho’ approach to dismissal is hardly going to motivate staff in a positive way! High performance can be achieved when staff are worried for their jobs, but not for a sustainable amount of time. Anyway, who wants their staff to perform just to spite them, or just until something better or more enjoyable comes along? Plus, if staff are easier to dispense with, what about high turnover and the inevitable impact on service quality? How does easier firing help here?

More on what happens during employment. I am concerned about the potential for situations where the employee and manager just don’t get on, or worse, where a poor/ underperforming/ stressed/ bullying/ misguided/ discriminatory/ inexperienced manager could use relaxed employment rights to dismiss staff too easily. See above about higher turnover and the effect on quality. Secondly, there is the Equality Act to consider – defending an ET case where there is a discrimination claim is not straightforward and losing could be costly! Ultimately there could be reputational damage as an employer and therefore as a provider of quality services. How does easier firing help here?

Finally, on to what happens when things aren’t going so well during the employment. Yes, I am talking about disciplinary, grievance or capability processes. This is where I really might be expected to get excited about easier firing. But no, I remain convinced that tackling any issue early and informally if possible and using simple, streamlined policies and procedures has to be the best option. It safeguards against the potential for dodgy line manager actions and gives a clear framework for all involved to follow. Substituting this with making it easier to fire staff could have the perverse result of destroying hard earned trust and co-operation with Trade Union colleagues, who could find themselves having to resort to delaying tactics, counter allegations or tenuous discrimination claims just to protect their member. How does easier firing help here?

To conclude, what I am supporting can mean that HR colleagues, management colleagues and I find ourselves gritting our teeth from time to time, but this is a small price to pay for fair and transparent processes that follow the principles of natural justice and protect the organisation.

It's only a name badge

A few days ago, my Chief Executive and I had a very good-humoured debate with our Union colleagues about some of the issues that have been raised since we issued new name badges. These badges attach to your clothing magnetically and simply state your name and that of our organisation, with the logo. They are plain, smart and intended to be worn wherever there are others who may not know who you are e.g. when working from a different office, when greeting service users, when at external meetings, when working with colleagues from partner agencies etc. We all have two, in case one ends up in the washing machine!

The issues raised?

·      Service users may use a member of staff’s name to behave inappropriately and impinge on their private life such as finding them on Facebook. (There are several issues here: the need to use Facebook mindfully and set high privacy settings; the fact that many of us can be found via search engines anyway and that, as an employer, we set up personal safety plans on the rare occasion a member of staff is at possible risk from a service user.)

·      Some of the names are incorrectly spelled or are not the names individual members of staff prefer to be known by. (A joint responsibility for the employer to send the badge makers the right name list and for individual staff to keep their personal details, including preferred name, up to date on our HR system.)

·      Some staff just don’t like wearing badges. (Well, how annoying is it for us all when we have to deal with officials, or anyone in a service capacity, and have no idea who they are?)

·      We already have photo ID badges worn on lanyards or on waistband clips. (These are not always easy to see but can be asked for to verify who someone is at any time.)

But hang on a minute; are we all (including me) missing the point here? Back to the title of this blog –  ‘It’s only a name badge’.

We are working in a public sector service at a time of unprecedented uncertainty, tightening of belts, doing more for less etc. In Probation, we have been waiting months for the government to publish a potentially far-reaching review of the service. We have a lot to think about and to prepare for, and the circumstances are highly complex. We will need to develop skills to do different types of work e.g. commissioning services, making finely balanced decisions between collaboration with partners versus guarding our intellectual property, also defining clearly what our unique strategic assets are etc. 

Just thinking about all this is headache inducing at times. It will certainly need to be done carefully at the same time as delivering a high quality service with fewer resources available to do so, year on year. We may also feel threatened at times for our future roles, and one thing is clear, our future roles will have to evolve. Is it any wonder that something easy to grasp, such as some concerns about the new name badges, generate lively debate? It is a tangible issue, it is about identity and safety and everyone can understand it.

Our role as leaders, will be to make sure that we engage with all staff to help to make future ‘big picture’ issues we will be grappling with, as easy to grasp and debate as the name badge concerns.

Social Media - my HR perspective

I was recently reading again about the HR Manager who is claiming constructive dismissal after being disciplined for putting his CV on LinkedIn, stating that he was interested in ‘career opportunities’ and listing some achievements that had already been published in his company’s annual reports. There appear to be two distinct camps in the HR world – those who want to fully regulate and manage the use of social media by employees, and those who think it has grown organically already and cannot be regulated, but instead its opportunities should be recognised and welcomed.

In my organisation, we are developing a ‘social media policy’ although I am not fully convinced that we need one. We are planning to encourage all staff to have their say and to shape what we do through involvement in workshops to debate ‘social media’ at our imminent staff conferences.

So why am I not sure we need a ‘social media policy’? Well, I think that the issues that could arise are already covered in other HR policies or codes of conduct. I accept that there are differences with other forms of communication – the main ones being the speed of transmission, the size of the potential audience and the fact that once something is on line, it can be hard to erase (but can remain easy to find – sometimes years later.) Having said that, here are the issues as I see them.

1.     What is social media exactly? Well, I use some of the well known applications myself – Twitter obviously, Facebook and LinkedIn. I also use e mail, mobile phone messaging services and texting. There are also a number of applications that are completely alien to me – Foursquare, Digg, StumbleUpon, any virtual gaming worlds etc. My point is that there are so many that if any policy tried to identify them and differentiate from other more traditional forms of communication it would become out of date almost immediately (and incidentally, where does e mail sit here?)

2.     Poor or unprofessional behaviour or misconduct. Many people worry about bullying, harassment and bringing your employer into disrepute via social media. Accepting the note above about speed of transmission, why is this different when done over social media compared to any other form of communication? Whatever media is used, bullying, harassment, breaching confidentiality, insulting or slandering others, putting your own safety at risk etc. are all problematic from an employment perspective and most of them are potentially issues of misconduct.

3.    Protecting yourself, your safety and privacy. Clearly, there are many jobs where the post holders face the public or service users every day, and in many of these, they would be expected to uphold certain standards in their private lives as well as when on duty. Understanding privacy settings and knowing exactly what could be seen by anybody at all are absolutely critical. In most cases this is in order to maintain professional standards, but for some roles, it is important for safety as well – so nobody who you don’t want to, could gain access to your personal contact details. This could go into a ‘social media’ policy but I think it has an essential place in induction and ongoing support for personal safety and awareness.

4.    Using social media for private use at work. There is plenty of research now about how ‘young’ people use social media and would not be happy working somewhere where it is banned. I think this may apply to a number of us more ‘mature’ employees too! Again, I think all the issues are covered in existing conduct and disciplinary policies. It is all about reasonableness and when employees use social media. It is simply not possible to ban – for example most mobile phones can be used to access the internet wherever there is a signal. So if someone texts, or checks their status occasionally during the working day – say at lunchtime – I don’t think this is a problem. Excessive use timewise, or in a way that distracts the individual or colleagues from their work, is of course another matter – probably a disciplinary one. You get the gist!

5.    Using social media for work purposes. This is the exciting bit. In Probation we are on a roll now as more Trusts join Twitter. We are developing a vibrant and stimulating community and sharing ideas and news faster than ever before. Again, this needs to be done within certain parameters, with some focus and in a professional manner (albeit with some personality). I will enjoy my involvement with its ongoing development and look forward to learning from all our staff’s ideas.

To finish, I drafted this blog a couple of weeks ago. I delayed publishing it, as I had hoped to use a fabulous Social Media flowchart that did the rounds on Facebook a few months ago, but do not yet have permission from its author. However, I will end with a variation of the same theme. When deciding whether to post something on in the public domain, ask yourself “Would I be embarrassed if my parents/employers/potential employers/boss/colleagues/children (delete as appropriate) saw this?” If yes, do not post!