Little things (and the need to avoid turning them into big things)

-        A bit of a rant about employee engagement.

I contend that every job, no matter how much you love it, and how great your team is, contains some ‘little things’ that drive you up the wall. If yours doesn’t, then you are very lucky, and maybe you can stop reading now and feel very satisfied, or to use current HR/management speak, feel very ‘engaged’ with your job and your employer.

I love my job, I love my profession, I am honoured to be part of a great leadership team and to manage a dedicated and very capable team. Even with massive structural change almost upon us, we are still maintaining a strong sense of local employee engagement and dedication to the vital service we deliver.

But…I still find there are frustrating and annoying little things I have to do, or that I am not allowed to do, that have the potential to upset the balance I strive to maintain. Most I am happy to say, not down to local strategy and direction, but as a result of being part of a commissioned public service. Those who work with me, will know which ‘little things’ I am thinking about. This blog is not about those; it is about the need to find ways to avoid or minimise these for everyone. And if that can be achieved, it may just be the key to maintaining an engaged and motivated workforce.

Muda

Muda is a Japanese word for waste that anyone who has read Womak and Jones’ book, Lean Thinking (1996) will know they apply to work of no value. Specifically ‘any human activity which absorbs resources but creates no value.’ To cut a long theory short, they link this to value streams, flow, pull and perfection. They say that lean systems ‘can only flourish if everyone along the value stream believes the new system being created (or ‘the system’ – my addition) treats everyone fairly and goes the extra mile to deal with human dilemmas…’ Without re reading a book I first read over 10 years ago (font size 8 or 9 closely spaced), I am not sure they particularly applied their theory to ‘employee engagement’ and I don’t think the term was coined back then anyway. But I do think their lean processes both lend themselves to engaged employees and are likely to lead in turn to improved employee engagement, by removing pointless ‘little things’ and through being treated fairly etc. The word ‘muda’ has stuck in my brain and is something I muse on when doing work of no value or at least where the ‘value’ is so far removed (if it exists) that I can’t see what it is.

Maslow

Other ‘little things’ can be Maslow’s basic needs, (or hygiene factors), and this is something I have blogged about previously, when aiming to demonstrate the value to operational teams of high quality and efficient corporate services. See here  http://familyhrguru.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/basic-needs-security-needs-and-back.html. I am firmly of the view that getting these factors right is the foundation block for employee engagement. Being paid correctly, having systems that are easy to use, having policies and frameworks that make it easier to do your job and don’t dis enable/restrict etc. etc. What is the point of an all singing all dancing ‘Employee Engagement Strategy’ if there are too many payroll errors, system crashes, and policies that don’t make sense? Little things…that can all too easily become big things, if organisations get them wrong. Getting them right gives a strong message that the organisation’s leaders think that work, work systems and reward processes matter so much that employees should not have to worry about them so they can get on with their jobs, in fact go the extra mile and enjoy their jobs.

Control

Then there is the amount of discretion you have over your priorities, workload and the way you do your work; control according to the HSE’s 6 stress management standards. I could list all 6, but I think this one is the most relevant to the impact ‘little things’ can have, and also the way change is managed (a subject for a later blog?) Transparency and balance are critical factors affecting discretion. Is the amount of work, the nature of the work, the deadlines, and the amount of freedom over how it is done clear? Is it easy to see and to understand the reasons why, when the work you are required to do is set by somebody else, and over which you have no discretion? If you do have to do work where you have no control, how does this balance with work that you can control? If the balance is wrong (meaning wrong for you as related to your role expectations, your skills and capability), then the ‘little things’ have probably already become ‘big things’.

All of the above, I contend can go a very long way to achieving or reducing Employee Engagement, all within a transparent and enabling leadership style and organisational form where there are strong working relationships. As I have already said, much simpler and more effective than a gold plated strategy that nobody reads, never mind takes seriously and commits to.

TLC - New meanings for a well-loved acronym

 How using Twitter has enhanced our leadership and made our communication more accessible.

Twitter. Almost all of our leadership team, our Board Chair and many of our managers use Twitter frequently. I was first persuaded by my Chief Executive 2 years ago, and could not have imagined fully the wider benefits. Advice on Twitter etiquette, its appropriate professional/private content, the accessibility of information and news articles for learning etc. is now well documented. I’ve only recently been realising and appreciating its wider value and benefit to leadership and engagement with staff.

Leadership. We tweet regularly in addition to using more traditional and internal ways of being in touch with staff (as Twitter is not for everyone and is a public platform). We are timely and responsive and this has made a huge difference during the current very sensitive change process we are experiencing. Our Chair tweets every detail that it is possible to put into a public domain, we all interact and we are highly visible as a united and transparent leadership team. We receive lots of feedback on this from our staff, our managers, TU colleagues and from similarly affected staff from other Probation Trusts. (I do not of course mean to criticise the way they are leading and communicating as every organisation is different– my focus is on how we do this.)

Communication. Our workforce is geographically dispersed, so we need to use accessible and immediate communication. They are also very busy (who isn’t?) So finding out what is going on in real time ‘bite size pieces’ is very effective. We also use Twitter to showcase widely our successful work in our community, which of course also keeps staff in other parts of the service up to date.

So what has the successful use of Twitter achieved? Another TLC acronym:

Trust and Loyalty at a time of huge Change.

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.