HR People Pod
Listen to episodes of HR People Pod, the CIPD’s new fortnightly podcast providing expert insights from HR leaders discussing the topical issues impacting the world of work.
Listen to episodes of HR People Pod, the CIPD’s new fortnightly podcast providing expert insights from HR leaders discussing the topical issues impacting the world of work.
HR People Pod, the CIPD's new fortnightly podcast, brings together top HRDs, CPOs and business leaders to look behind the news headlines and current topics and their impact in HR and business practice.
Subscribe to HR People Pod on your favourite podcast platform, including Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify and SoundCloud.
To view all other CIPD podcasts please visit the CIPD Podcasts page.
As workers turn to TikTok to discuss work issues, should business leaders be paying attention? In this episode CIPD Director of Profession David D’Souza is joined by Vilma Nikolaidou, Director of People and Culture at the British Film Institute; Gareth Neale, Head of HR at Crimson Hotels Limited; and Dr Markos Koumaditis, Director of HR at University of Oxford, as we explore the top stories of the past fortnight, including the fallout from the CrowdStrike-Microsoft global IT outage, whether anonymous reporting of microaggressions a good idea, and if you should just walk out of unproductive meetings.
Recorded: 19 July 2024
Duration: 00:36:00
David Blackburn: Hello, my name is David Blackburn and it's my pleasure to introduce you to this edition of the CIPD HR People Pod Election Special.
David D'Souza: Hello and welcome to this special episode of the HR People Pod, the CIPD's fortnightly podcast bringing the topical stories and experts on the issues impacting HR, people practise and the world of work. This is a special today. We are recording the morning after the election result has come in, so they're still dribbling in the final results in the background, but it's covering the fact that we will have a new government in the UK. It will be a Labour government and we'll be diving into some of the detail around their New Deal for Working People and its implications for the profession. If you'd like to see more, then you can go to www.cipd.org.
My name is David D’Souza, and I'm joined by two senior HR professionals. One a Chartered Fellow at the CIPD and one a Companion of the CIPD, so I'm in lauded company today, to unpack what it means for employers. We'll be covering three specific areas that we know legislation is likely to change in, and we will also be speaking to a former MP about what it takes to get laws done and what we can expect to see and actually what it feels like to wake up on Election Day on a landslide. Before we kick off, I just want to explain a couple of things. So, the CIPD is politically independent. What that means is what matters is the impact of policies to us, not who is putting them forward. So, it's the impact on the world of work and the profession that we focus on. As the government settles in, we'll continue to engage with it as we have done in the past and we will continue to engage with the opposition parties to influence their positions as we have done in the past as well, on behalf of the profession and our membership. So, just before we get started and before I take you over to that exclusive with a former MP. I'd like to introduce our guests today.
DB: Hi, I'm David Blackburn. I'm currently the Interim Executive Director of People at Mencap. I've been a member of the CIP for 21 years and have been doing HR for longer than I can care to remember.
DDS: Which could be just two or three years, depending on how dramatic they've been.
DB: Yeah. Yeah. Well, at my age, yes, exactly.
DDS: And
Jo Carlin: Jo Carlin. I'm the Senior Vice President for HR Europe for an organisation called Firstsource Solutions. I've been working in HR profession for three decades now. Forever. Basically forever. I have been working in HR, HR lifer, I think I term. It's a term I've created myself.
DDS: Excellent. So, I'm tired because I stayed up all night. You two just appear tired by life, actually.
JC: Yeah. It's 30 years in HR.
DDS: Just before we go into and we speak to our guest, former MP, how did you spend last night, David and obviously, safe for work comments though?
DB: OK. So, watched, so my husband and I sort of split election night duties. So, I watched up until exit polls and a little bit beyond and then went to bed. He stayed on and then, I think, and he came to bed and then I got up early. So, I got up about 5:00 AM this morning to watch the, by which point most of the, I think we were waiting for about 40 results by that point. So, they declared it.
DDS: I like that, I like that HR, so concrete shift patterns, you know in advance. You know exactly what you were doing then.
DB: Yeah, absolutely, yeah.
DDS: Jo?
JC: Oh yeah. I was not as interesting as that, David, frankly, I went to bed with a peppermint tea, which is pretty much what I do most evenings. And then I got up at 4:15 and checked my phone and I was like, "oh, yeah", I mean, it was a little unsurprising, but yeah, that's what I did.
DDS: Excellent. Thank you.
JC: Peppermint tea and a book.
DDS: Every night?
JC: Every night.
DDS: Routines and disciplines matter.
JC: Yeah, apart from the nights when it's wine.
DDS: I'm delighted to welcome to the show, a former MP to shed some light on what we can all expect in the coming months as the new government take forward their legislative agenda. Chair of the CIPD Policy Forum and former Labour MP, Iain Wright, welcome Iain.
Iain Wright: Thanks for having me.
DDS: Really glad that you can make time today. So, we're the morning after the election, the results are just kind of finally trickling in, which is very exciting to get you on kind of live now. So, what about you? How did you spend your evening last night? Did you stay up glued to the screen or did you go to bed early and peacefully.
IW: No, I was up till 5:30 and then just got about an hour's sleep before getting up to do this. So yeah. And you remember what it's like, you know, you are, you know, being driven on adrenaline and often really bad food as well when you're going through an election campaign, especially on election night. But yeah, I wanted to stay up to see this.
DDS: And just going back to that time when it happened for you, do you sort of want to collapse the next day or does the adrenaline keep going?
IW: It's a funny mix of emotions, actually, because the adrenaline has kept you going through an election campaign. It drives you forward for a bit, but then you crash. You need to have a bit of a sleep. I never did this as such. I know that I spoke to a number of colleagues on both sides of the House who said, "I slept for the entire weekend". You know, "I was so exhausted that I just had to catch up". I never did that, there's always stuff to do, there's supporters to thank, there's media to do, there's correspondence to start. You know, it's a busy time and it's especially a busy time for an incoming government and incoming ministers. But the adrenaline has pushed you through and probably will need to push you through for a little bit further as well.
DDS: Fantastic. So, many of the people listening for obvious reasons, won't have been MPs in a landslide victory. So, what can we expect next? So, in organisations we often talk about that first 100 days, but it's been very clear that actually the government or the new government, incoming government would like to hit the ground running. So, what's the likely time frame for implementing elements of the New Deal, particularly those around employment for the profession to look out for?
IW: Well, I think there are a number of stages. First is of course, the new Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, needs to form a government. He'll be doing that over the next couple of days, so the expectations will be, the cabinet will be appointed today. the junior ranks of ministers will be appointed on Saturday and they've really got to hit the ground running because I think there are two things to bear in mind. July, Parliament is often winding down into recess in July. It's going to be absolutely the opposite because, first the new Prime Minister will be going to a NATO summit on Tuesday, so he'll want to bring in the parliamentary Labour Party on Monday to give them, you know, a great speech to set them on their way. And then he's off on the international front. But then the other key point is the King's Speech on July the 17th. So, it's not long, about a fortnight or so where the new government will set out its legislative agenda and there'll be things in there, like the introduction of Green Energy UK, things like putting in place independence, full independence and publication for the Office for Budget Responsibility, an industrial strategy we'll put in place, and the establishment of a formal Industrial Strategy Council. But as you say, I think one of the big centrepieces of any legislative programme of the new government will be this “making work pay”, having a New Deal for workers and I think that will be a key part of the King's Speech.
DDS: And how will that, in practical terms, come into force? So, are we likely to see an Employment Bill with a kind of cluster of activity and changes sitting within it, and how likely will that, you know, be to be in the kind of foreseeable future or is it more likely to be policies being dripped in after consultation with industry?
IW: It's going to be both actually, because I think what you will have is, you will have it as a big point in the King's Speech. You will have first and second readings, probably before recess at the end of July, beginning of August, if the parliamentary people can draft it appropriately. And of course, the civil service have, will have been working on Labour's manifesto on that. So, there will be a big piece of legislation, but also what Labour has committed to do is having, in conjunction with that legislative programme, a full and comprehensive consultation. So, there's going to be perhaps a summer and autumn of businesses, trade unions, civil society and I think CIPD needs to play a big role in this. In saying, "well, these are our proposed plans, how do we put them into action?" And so that there will be that twin track of consultation, a bit of a drip feed but backed up by a major legislative bill going through the House in the autumn and winter.
DDS: Thank you, Iain. That sets the context brilliantly for the conversation we're about to have with some practitioners about actually the implications of some of that legislation. But I'm delighted that we've got you as the Chair of the CIPD Policy Forum to help us with that interaction and influence over government as we go forward. Have a great rest of the day and I hope you get some rest.
IW: Thanks very much and thanks for having me, appreciate it.
DDS: So, we've said that we'll continue to consult and try and influence government and one of the areas that, actually at the CIPD, we're delighted to see within Labour's manifesto and the New Deal was significant changes to the Apprentice Levy, which we've been calling for, for a long time, on behalf of our members, knowing that large amounts of funds don't get spent. So, we're going to unpack, as I say, several areas in detail. All of the other areas will be covered on our website, and we'll give you an overview there. But there are three areas that we're going through particularly and the first of those is the skills agenda. So, in particular, planned reforms to the Apprenticeship Levy funding and a commitment to a new Youth Guarantee. So, there are two things here, but in a nutshell, Labour have pledged to reform the existing levy into a more flexible skills levy available to employers. Businesses will be able to use up to 50% of the levy contributions to fund training opportunities that aren't apprenticeships, but additionally, a new Youth Guarantee Commitment will ensure training, apprenticeships or job support for all 18- to 21-year-olds. We've advocated, as I say, for changes in this space for a long time, and it aligns with quite a bit of the research and the calls that we made in our recent work with the Youth Futures Foundation. Jo, I wanted to come to you first because I know that you've had personal experience that you're very passionate about, of apprenticeship schemes. So, how do you feel about these changes?
JC: First, brilliant, because these changes mean that we can do so much more with that, with that 50%, I mean, if we use 5% of the levy, I'd be shocked. I mean that 50% just means that we can go into different skills areas. There's so many emerging fields that are coming through that we're just not even considering. And then to get a formal apprenticeship, you know, organisation or companies set up in those type of fields, it's just insane. So, this is brilliant. I think for the young people, look, I am a, for those of you who are listening and are old enough, I'm an ex-YTS. Youth Training Scheme. For those of you not old enough, that's what it was called. And I think if it wasn't for that, that was my lifeline. You know, that was an opportunity to earn some money, learn some stuff and actually figure out what I wanted to do because I had no idea. And then I landed up in HR and the rest is history. But YTS, was not in HR. My YTS was in IT at a time when IT wasn't even a thing. So, I look at that and think, "well, what could we do now with that levy, what could we do with that money to help the young people come in?" And I think more responsibility on employers, for sure, to say, "here, you've, we have this emerging issue in the UK with skills and with reskilling, reskilling and upskilling our existing employees".
So, I don't think it's just about, you know, the kind of this youth reform, although that's critical. I also think it's about people already in work actually though that type of work changing and we're sitting here going actually we've got all this money banked and I'll use that word, it's banked that we can't really get to because we can't afford for people to take 20% of the time off the job. So, this is music to my ears and long may it continue. I'll be interested to see actually what happens with it and how far it goes. And I would push to say, can it be more than 50%? That would be my view, can it, you know be somewhere near 70 or actually why not just let us decide what we do with all of it? There's a radical thought. But I, you know, I guess that's that'll come.
DDS: So directionally, a really good thing from your point of view?
JC: Yes.
DDS: Question marks, I guess over whether there can be more flexibility with it. David, what are your thoughts?
DB: Yeah. I mean, I agree with Jo wholeheartedly. I mean, it's not just, I think about the skills of young people. I think reskilling, upskilling, you know, we know that by, I think it's 2030, you know there'll be eight, the World Economic Forum says 85,000,000 roles will be unfilled because we don't have the right skills. And we also know, you know, the frustration that HR practitioners have felt about the levy. Let's just be honest, I mean, the levy hasn't worked. It has not delivered what it set out to do and in some areas, actually, we know it's accentuated some of the problems. So, I think that I really like, and I agree with Jo about, there's something isn't there about how radical we want to be in this space, you know, and the problem, we know that we've got a problem, we've got a retention problem, we've got a tight labour market. You know, I'm currently working for a charitable organisation that provides social care. You know, the social care pathway skills for social care: massive thing. We could be really using that money, but we can't right now. We have a pot that we can't access, as Jo says. I really love Jo's suggestion, and I think we maybe should be advocating for that. That says, "why aren't we being allowed to decide, actually, what we do with the whole amount?" So, I think it's a great starting point. The other thing I'd say is that I think as Iain referenced, I think you know it does need to be linked to an industrial strategy. You know skills can't just be this sort of thing on its own. And I think maybe that's part of a learning from the Apprenticeship Levy. You know that we sort of said, "we'll create a pot of money, we'll do these things". Actually, it's got to be part of a bigger jigsaw, which is about, you know, UK PLC. That's what I think. But I do think Jo's right. I think it's a really good starting point.
DDS: There's a really interesting point in there, isn't there, which is the eye-catching bit, is potentially the guarantee for young people, but actually the need for lifelong learning and reskilling is as, if not more important than ever. And we've got to join those things together and look, we, you know, as an organisation on behalf of our members and having heard feedback from our members, we've been calling for this, for long time, broken. You know, we haven't sat on the fence on this one. It's been a very clear thing that hasn't been working in the way it was intended. It's really good to hear that actually, I think, directionally it's going to move into a different place.
JC: If I think about emerging skills and how can we use this pot of money? Because I totally agree that businesses should have a percentage of their salary bill taken in order to upskill and reskill. I think it's the responsible thing to do, absolutely. How we use it, as you said David, it's got to be up to us with some parameters. But if I think about the new emerging, you know, I mean, we can't get away from AI, you can't get away from digital , but there's also all segments of sector building up. And if I think about our sector, which is outsourcing, the traditional model is, we're moving away from the traditional model into something which is augmented with more digital, digitally enabled experiences and we, at the minute, you've got to find some way. You've got to find some money to pay for that upskilling en masse. So, we can't, you know, we can't play around at this stuff because we're getting left behind by other countries, so it has to happen. For me this has to happen fast. So, we can't be in endless navel-gazing debate about this. We've just got to move.
DDS: Yeah. And I think that digital literacy thing is massive, isn't it, you know. So, you know, the Microsoft suite, you know, if you say to people right now, you know, you have access to AI tools on your desktop because Microsoft launched Copilot, didn't really tell anybody about it. You know, it's just there. You can, you know, can go in and get its right role profiles and do whatever you want, sort of thing. No-one's had any training on it or development, and if you do a thing, so actually in my time in the financial services sector, the Financial Services Skills Commission identified digital literacy as absolutely essential. Where's the money? To your point, Jo? I mean, where's the money to invest in that? And that's in all sectors, isn't it? I mean, that's not sector specific. We all need to be more digitally literate. We all, so we do talk about AI as this big thing, but actually the practical reality is, what skills are we developing in the workforce of today for tomorrow? Because we're already, they're already here.
JC: I would add to it, David, just for a final point. I think digital skills are brilliant, but I also think we need to focus on our more behavioural skills as well because it's this, it's this latent ability. So, we have to think about the barriers, what stops people from playing around with Microsoft Copilot, for example? I was on it yesterday. I was doing some translation on it yesterday. It was amazing. But what stops people? And it's fear. So, I think, you know, we go to the skill first and then we try and say OK "oh, it's not working”. Now how do? The adoption's not there? So, what do we do? So, I think having access to a pot of money that allows us to do both of that - perfect. Just give me more than 50%.
DDS: Yeah. OK. So, I'm going to. I'm going to move this on, but it's nice to hear some accord and disagreement in the room. This is how this should work. There are a raft of changes that are coming through, we're not going to touch them all today. So again, if you go to www.cipd.org, you will find information on, you know, the range of things that we need to address actually, and which are likely to come in. So, that's union recognition, fire and rehire implications, changes to National Living Wage. Changes to, potentially, sick pay, zero hours contracts, a raft of things and right to switch off, which we actually covered in an earlier episode of this.
I think it's episode two, if you want to go back and have a listen to that. However, one of the things that we know is most contentious for practitioners is the removal of the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims. Obviously, not automatically unfair, currently, just to clarify where the law is on that at the moment. I'm going to come to you first on this, David. What I think is portrayed in the media sometimes is that organisations treat that two years as like a kind of free hit and you know, just you have no rights in that period. When I speak to employers, when we speak to our members, that's not the way it's viewed, but there's a balance of risk here, which is really interesting. And I think, we were chatting earlier, everyone can understand the intent behind this, but what I really want to get into is the practicalities for employers and for practitioners. So, do you want to kick us off?
DB: Yeah. I mean, we were laughing earlier, weren't we? Because, I mean, as Jo and I shared, as HR lifers, you know, I think we're agreed that the intent is right, but I guess my question is, "what is the problem that they think? What is the problem this is seeking to solve?"
JC: Yeah. What's the question we're trying to answer?
DB: Yeah, you know, I, because I think that is massively important for practitioners. And I'm also mindful, which is what we were reminiscing about. You know, cast your minds back to, you know, the previous Labour administration, 2004. You know, the Statutory Dispute Regulations, which on paper seemed like a really, seemed like a really good idea. You know, it's a great intention. You know, we're going to set down in law what the statutory process is for the resolution of disciplinary grievances and if you don't follow the, if you go wrong at any point and you don't follow the three stage process, the dismissal, the process will automatically be unfair and will bring the right to Employment Tribunal Claims. The industry absolutely said, at the time, HR practitioners, employment lawyers said this will be a disaster and the Labour government pressed on and ignored it. And what we saw was a massive increase in Employment Tribunal Claims. The system became overworked and basically it didn't work and so then it got revoked and I can't remember what year it got revoked about four years, I think probably. This has the potential to do the same exactly to do the same again. And I think that sometimes, again, I'm going to borrow with pride a phrase of Jo's. I might get it a bit wrong, but Jo was saying "we need more than just, you know, these banner headlines, manifesto promise, state".
JC: I said, I said it's a poster. It's a “poster quote”.
DB: It's a “poster quote”.
DDS: You said it. I think more charismatically and eloquently as well, Jo. So, you know.
JC: Yes, I did. I mean, frankly that's the case. Yeah. Absolutely. But, David, you can steal with pride. It's fine. I won't charge you later.
DB: And I just, and I just think that's the. The reality is that we know that already. You know, we'd be much better off I think. There’s this thing isn't it about prevention and cure? You know, are we focusing on what Jo was saying earlier about soft skills, you know, actually are we focusing on managers being better managers, having better quality conversations, all of those things so that they don't, because, to your point, David, I don't think that we use it as a free pass and you know, and if we are then I think that's probably not that, that's not the, that's not what the intention was.
JC: I think, let's be honest, some employers will use it as a free pass, yeah? I mean, I think there's a reality, isn't there, that some people may, we don't know because we're not in all of those employers.
DB: You flag it in your HR system, don't you? A little alarm bell that tells you.
JC: Yeah. Well, you. Yeah, I mean, you're not, but again I echo your point, David, it's got to be, what's the question we're trying to answer with it? I'm not against. I'm not against, I suppose, most of what's in there, but if I take my organisation, for example, we took away probationary periods for a reason because we said, "look, it's about the quality of the conversation, it's about the quality of the discussion and how well we are interacting with our employees and they are interacting with us". So, we're not going to have them under duress during that probationary period because it creates a certain behaviour. So, we're like, "look, we don't want to do that anymore", but sometimes things go wrong, yeah? On both sides, and that's just the way it is. But now I'm looking at it thinking. “Oh. OK, I'm going to have to put those probationary periods, right back in there.”
DDS: It is difficult, isn't it, to guarantee a match between an employer and an employee's expectations and organisations already put a lot of effort into trying to be transparent about what it's like to work here, because we know that someone joining and then leaving is both expensive and it can be disruptive. So, it's not like, to your point you've been working to try and resolve these issues anyway. There are potentially implications and changes that you would have to make if the legislation were to change in this way.
JC: Yeah. I mean and look, let's be honest. I think we were listening to, taking Iain's point from earlier, it's likely it's going to come in in, you know, August, September, or something's going to happen in the autumn, which is going to be a very, it's going to be a very busy time for everybody, including HR professionals. And so, I like the intent, I think that's great. But some kind of, you know, not "edge of cliff" decisions would be great. And I'm looking at the CIPD to, you know, help do that actually with our new government. So, not "edge of cliff" would be fantastic, think a bit deeper. Nobody wants to get into the situation that we did. I am old enough, unfortunately, although I don't look it, but I am old enough to remember the reforms as they were. And you're right, it created chaos then with ACAS. So, ACAS are already stretched from the changes that have happened over the last maybe two or three, four years. What's going to happen now? You know I don't want us to get bottlenecked into conciliation and have all of our time spent focusing on that and none of the time spent doing the stuff that we really want to do, which is managing our people well.
DB: And it's worth saying that it's not just ACAS, the tribunal system itself is completely overloaded. You know, on average in London, you know, you're talking 18 months to two years for an unfair dismissal claim to reach its tribunal date. You know, so adding more into that system, I'm not sure it's going to be the right.
DDS: Yeah, it's a really interesting one. So, because we're talking about it, obviously from the practitioner point of view, but like you'll be in the same position as me that when someone finds out you work in HR everyone points anyone having an employment issue in your direction and then they assume that you understand the capability of the person involved and they go, "they're my cousin, so they must be really good at it". But it's that thing at parties. It's like that thing, when you get. You've been there, right?
DB: You always slightly say "Oh, I work in HR", you say it quietly.
DDS: But it's that thing, when they go, "oh, these things are happening" and you ask the follow up question, "how long have you been there?" and they can't see the relevance of that. And it's because people need to kind of understand those rights. To your point, Jo, it's, we really, we are entreating the new government to consult on this. We know that the perspective of our members is there, actually there will be consequences, and the preference is to either not change it, or certainly not change it to the level that is currently being proposed, and we'll make sure that we're articulating that in a consistent way. We've got some quite compelling statistics that would suggest it wouldn't be welcomed by the profession, but you've both made a point around ACAS and the tribunal system and actually, if you are in a position where your employer has done the wrong thing, potentially, how quickly you can access justice and the final thing I wanted to cover is: the new government. Do you see how I bridged that, that was quite?
JC: That was amazing.
DB: It's skilled, skilled, yeah.
JC: Honestly, like professional, professional level.
DB: Like he's done it before, Jo, I mean, it's.
DDS: It's like we're on Good Morning Britain or something.
JC: I know. It's no wonder it's in the top 10.
DDS: And now over to the weather.
DB: And that's before we've even been on it.
DDS: I'm just proud of myself for that one and everyone can know it. So, the final piece I'd like to cover is how the new government plan to enforce and ensure compliance on these changes and the broader legal landscape. So, Labour has committed to establishing a single enforcement body which they say will strengthen the collective voice of workers and enforce and uphold workers rights. The new body would have the power to inspect workplaces and prosecute for health and safety, minimum wage, exploitation, discrimination issues with tougher penalties and personal liability for directors who break the law or fail to comply. I realise that's a lot of words, but the general gist is trying to get a more powerful body with broader oversight that can really make sure that, where things are going wrong, they're dealt with in an appropriate and swift fashion. So, Jo, I'm going to come to you first. Do you think those changes will improve employment standards in themselves? Do you think it's going to make a change and drive one?
JC: The big question is, how are they going to enforce it? So, fundamentally, I don't think there's anything that you've said that I would be against. Absolutely, at the core of us, we should aim to be good employers. Where there are not and where there are things that are going wrong, my question is how are they going to do this? How are they going to enforce this in a swift? I think the point you made is, in a swift manner. So, it's not going to change anything if it's just a paper threat. If it's, you know, "you do this, and we'll do X". And I suppose that's my worry, with an already creaking system that surrounds some of these things, I'd be really interested in, that, that's fantastic. But what? How are you going to help organisations get better, because it's not always that organisations do these things because they are wanting to be bad employers. It might just be a, you know, they didn't realise. So what? What's that mechanism in order to get from where they are to where they need to be? I have to say at the minute, you know, I'm not seeing that, at the moment, helping organisations at all. You know, there's a lot more onus on the company, on top of all of the other things that are already based on, I suppose, you know, you can have a piece of legislation, but you can interpret it as you wish.
DDS: Yeah, I know.
JC: Loosely.
DDS: It's a really key point. So, increasing enforcement and the pace of enforcement is one angle. Improving education is a key part of that, and that will be actually you look at SMEs and you look at their access to support and their access to understanding and some of our members do a great job, obviously, providing direct support to them, but that is a real challenge and you have to do those two things in parallel. And because the amount of organisations that, as you say, are almost accidentally not complying or there are some particularly technical elements that it's quite easy to fall afoul of. It's making sure that, not just pacing resolution, but actually that prevention piece in the first place. David, just picking up, you mentioned ACAS and their role in this. Again, I think there's a couple of funding questions primarily aren't there? There's funding for the enforcement piece and then there's funding for some of the preventative or interventative. Interventative, I've just invented that word and I'm patenting that.
DB: Interventative?
DDS: We are not taking that (inaudible)
DB: That's our word of today, interventative.
JC: Interventative.
DDS: Interventative is now part of the lexicon. What do you think needs to happen on? I guess there's three sides to it. So, we talked about the education piece, the role that someone like ACAS might play and the enforcement pieces, what needs to change across that landscape?
DB: So, I think Jo's right about, it has to be a joined-up approach. You know changing, you know, for me this feels, you know, it's a bit like, let's just get a bigger, better stick to beat employers with. I'm not sure that that's going to drive building better workplaces. And I, which is what the intent is. So, I think we're all agreed that that's what we should be trying to do. I'm not sure that, and I'd quite like the idea of, you know, maybe streamlining processes and having it all under one body. All of that makes good staff sense but we know it's not properly resourced and I do think, to your point, David, it's about. The education piece for me is the most important piece. You know the CMI did a study last year, the Good Management Report, and with YouGov, you know, and I can't remember the exact number. So, if I quote it wrong, apologies but it's something like you know 82% of managers in the UK have absolutely received no formal training and they talk about "accidental managers”, and we also know that SMEs make up a massive part of the employment landscape in the UK.
So, if you're an SME with an accidental manager who just gets things wrong, not because of their intent, but because of lack of resources, lack of training thing, they can't get through to somebody at ACAS. You then saying, “well, we're just going to beat you, beat you up more”. I mean I'm not sure that's going to, that's so I do think how you put the pieces of the jigsaw together is the most important bit and I guess that’s, sort of, my sense about all of it. You know, Jo and I were saying at the start, you know, I applaud the Labour government, you know, Labour for having such a massive set of statements about employment. It's really refreshing, you know? That's great. That's news for us as HR practitioners. God, we're going to be busy. But I mean, I just, but I think that, you know, you can't rush. You know, I think there's this desire, isn't there? I can't remember who it was, it's either Barack Obama or Tony Blair, you know, in that "I wish I'd done more in the first 100 days", that's where the 100 days thing comes from.
JC: Obama.
DB: Obama. And they're now all obsessed by it, aren't they? Oh, my God. In the first 100 days, we must do, you know, crack on. Well, we're not going to fix all of the employment issues in the first 100 days and actually so I think that's, you know, it's got to be part of a joined-up and it's reassuring that Iain says actually in the King's Speech, they really want to talk about the industrial strategy, because for me, that's the missing bit that we've not had or not had a sense of. How do skills and enforcement and law all fit together? Because our aim surely should be, if we build better workplaces, we drive productivity.
JC: I was having a conversation earlier actually around.
DDS: You were up at 4:15. You've had quite a lot of time since you.
JC: Oh yeah, I've had loads of conversations earlier. Yeah, it just.
DB: She was doing star jumps on the train wasn't you.
JC: I was doing walking lunges at Preston train station. That's how I spend my Friday mornings, David. But I'd say we were having a conversation. I was having a conversation with someone earlier around the kind of green reform and what that means as well, and how that might generate jobs, generate income. But equally, as we get more complex, so all of the things that we're talking about, all of the legislation, all of the pieces of the puzzle, they're getting more and more complex. And going back to this SME point, I'm a Non-Exec Director for a County Football Association, Lancs FA. I've just given them a bit of a shout out.
DDS: Many of our listeners are big fans.
JC: Big fans of Lancs FA. Yeah, I mean, don't tell them, but what I know about football you can write on a Post-it note. The CEO, if you're listening, just close your ears at that point. But I'd say that, you know, my experience with them has been quite eye-opening because it's so complex and you don't realise it because you've lived it. But it's so complex to navigate your way around some of this stuff and then to layer more things on top without the education piece, without the, you know, kind of dispute resolution being a full circle of learning. It's just not going to get any better for people.
DDS: So, I think I'm going to bring things to a halt here because I think, I know we could keep talking forever.
DB: Oh, I wanted to say something really important.
DDS: But like, do you know what? We'll bring you back and we will showcase that in a later episode.
JC: Just you, David.
DDS: So, there's a couple of things I need to give a plug, David mentioned. David mentioned skills and HR advice in small enterprises. We've been running a scheme for a number of years and we're just kicking off the next phase of it, called People Skills, which looks at the value of HR advice in those. So, if you're an independent consultant, we are genuinely working on the evidence to make the case for the advice that you provide to organisations in a really structured way. But the really interesting take from this conversation for me, is that there's alignment around the intent behind a lot of what's here. There is an alignment around, actually, directionally these are some of the things that would have to, but it's the unanticipated consequences. And it's making sure that you're not capturing or altering practising good employers instead of bad. And the final example I'd make, you know, our position on zero hours contracts as an organisation, which is evidence-based and you can, you know, look at the reports we've done over the years, has been clear that they provide flexibility, but where they're exploitative they're absolutely disadvantageous for the people involved and shouldn't happen. And it's getting that nuance into all of the policymaking to make sure that actually getting that balance between not creating less positive conditions whilst you're attempting to stop some of the behaviour that I think we'd all agree shouldn't happen. So, final thing I'd like to do is thank both of our guests today, long night for some early morning for others. So, thank you very much, David.
DB: Thank you.
DDS: And thank you very much, Jo.
JC: Thank you.
DDS: And please do continue tuning in. It's delightful, as Jo mentioned earlier that we are high up in the charts at the moment. It makes us feel very funky and valued. So, please do tell your friends and tell other professionals about this because we want to keep bringing you the news as it happens or just about. So, you'll be listening to this just after the election. This is pretty much live from the morning of the election. Thank you very much.
What can employers expect from the new Labour government’s proposed ‘New Deal for Working People’? CIPD Director of Profession David D’Souza hosts former Labour MP Iain Wright, Firstsource Senior VP HR Europe and Global Head of Inclusion and Diversity Jo Carlin, and Mencap Executive Director of People David Blackburn, to explore the implications and impact of potential day-one employment rights, apprenticeship levy reform, and how quickly the plans may come into effect.
Recorded: 05 July 2024
Duration: 00:32:46
David D'Souza: Hello and welcome once again to the HR People Pod, the CIPD's fortnightly podcast, bringing you the topical stories, expert insights about the world of work and HR and people development. My name is David D'Souza, I'm Director of Profession at the CIPD and I've got two wonderful guests who are both Chartered Fellows with me here today, absolutely wonderful people. I have Gemma Dale.
Gemma Dale: Hello, I'm Gemma Dale. I'm a Senior Lecturer at Liverpool Business School. Before that I was in HR for about 20 years.
DDS: And David Balls.
David Balls: Hi there. David Balls, Chief People Officer at Newcross Healthcare.
DDS: Before we get started, just wanted to ask, David, what have you been watching, reading recently? Tell us a little bit about yourself, give us a bit of insight.
DB: It's all about the “House of the Dragon”, back on TV as of this week. It's the second episode on Monday. I've been waiting all, I think it's about a year or two years, actually I think since the last one. Love “Game of Thrones”, loving this. So, yeah, that's what I'm into at the moment.
DDS: Excellent. I'm looking forward to seeing it. I've got it recorded, but I haven't quite got there yet and Gem.
GD: I have mostly been reading a book on crypto, called "Number go up", just finished that and now diving into new Stephen King.
DDS: Excellent. And they book on crypto, is it how to invest, how it works?
GD: More a little bit like how to avoid the scams.
DDS: How to avoid the scams, I am more than happy to share with people. I made a medium amount of money on crypto and then lost a medium amount of money on crypto very rapidly. It was a, it was a roller coaster journey having had a tip off from a cousin, who I don't speak to anymore. We're going to come back to, later on this podcast, as I say, obscure Japanese TV programmes, but also sport. But one of the things that's caught people's eye over the last few weeks has been BP staff concerned about a crackdown by the organisation over workplace affairs or what might be called intimate relationships, depending on how it's framed. As always, we'll be talking about the generality of the policy rather than the specific story, but this has got our thinking juices flowing. So, what's happened is that in 2021 the BP CEO left BP following serious misconduct over his failure to disclose past relationships to the board. BP are now asking for relationships between employees going back as far as 2021 to be disclosed. In a recent poll by the CIPD, more than 30% of respondents said that a policy is needed around romantic relationships for leaders and managers. But a further 50% said it's needed generally to avoid conflicts of interest or bias. David, just coming to you first, and it's really important when we do podcasts like this, not talking specifically about BP, but generally, your thoughts around things happening in this space. Should organisations have policy on this? How? Is it intrusive? Is it practical?
DB: Yeah. Look, I think having a policy around relationships feels a little bit dated, with the amount of time that we're now spending in employment and at work. You know, relationships are going to happen. I think the issue here is about what are you trying to protect individuals from, and I think the two that immediately come to mind are sort of conflicts of interest, as you say, or corporate governance issues. And then the second one is any sort of harassment at work. And as long as you've got policies around that and you're managing within that context, I think we're fine. So, you know, I wouldn't have a manager and a subordinate in a relationship where they're signing off expenses or complex packages of activity where there's financial implications because, clearly you could find yourself in a position whereby it's being signed off for the benefit of both of them. But look, you know if a manager's going out with someone in a different department and they're a consenting relationship, then I don't see the issue.
DDS: Yeah. And I think it's a really important point actually when we talk about conflicts of interest, perceived conflict of interest is something that we need to be concerned about as well.
DB: Yeah, I agree.
DDS: So, even if people are in a relationship and do play things perfectly straight, how that looks matters as well.
DB: Agree. Agree. Absolutely agree.
DDS: Gem, what are your thoughts?
GD: Well, we love a policy in HR, don't we?
DDS: Addicted to them.
GD: But it's the easy answer, it's the easy answer, isn't it? You know, let's write a policy for everything and you just end up with documents that nobody reads. So, I think, you know, note the point we need to be mindful around things like harassment. We need to think about power imbalances. But you know, you can't have a policy, you've can't document absolutely everything. So, if you try, you just drive the thing underground and you end up with unintended consequences. So, I'm a bit more, I think in general in favour of treating people like adults, and if there are issues that arise like that, you know, the example of signing off expenses inappropriately or something like that, we've got disciplinary policies already that that would fall into. So, I think unless you've got a very good reason why a policy like this is important because of your particular organisational context, it wouldn't be my first choice.
DDS: So, real life example, years ago I was working at the same organisation as my wife. And we were going through redundancy programme, and I was managing that redundancy programme, but I would have happily made my wife redundant, and I don't mean that in a callous way.
DB: Does she know that?
DDS: Yeah, look, we take this job seriously, right? So, that's what you sign up to. But quite wisely, my HRD at the time went, "look, actually you probably need to be removed from this for a number of different ways". And I guess to your point, Gem, it's people being open enough to have those conversations and it's probably harder, to your point, when people might not be aware that people are a couple or to that point. you know that I guess expenses is a very clear line, but actually how you assess someone's performance when you're in a relationship with them is more problematic. Would you still say, Gem, "no policy for that?"
GD: Again, I think it does a little bit depend on your context and, you know, I'll throw this into a slightly different space. I work in higher education. We have policies that says, you know, if you are a lecturer, for example, you can't have a relationship with somebody that you're supervising as a student. So, you know, there are times in certain contexts where policies are important because there's a power imbalance. But as a general rule, unless you need one, let's just not write more and more policy documents. It's not really where HR add value.
DB: I think, you've pointed there though, Dave, you made it earlier, around perception is key in this as well, isn't it, which is I think I think if you found yourself a manager and a subordinate having a relationship, they'd probably want out in the open anyway for both their benefits, you know? They don’t want people looking from the other side of the fence saying what's good and what's bad and, in that situation, if it was happening, maybe something would happen with the relationship. But, going back to your performance review, for example, I'm not sure either party would want the other party doing their performance review. So, I think the more open you are about it and the more people know about it, the more organisational activities that could impact on both of them can be amended or changed to suit the circumstances.
DDS: Yeah. And we all have friendships at work as well, don't we? And we expect people to still be able to make rational logical decisions and set them to one side.
GD: It is a slightly different point, but I don't think there's any issue, generally, in sort of reviewing the performance of one's spouse. You know, in terms of, you know, DIY, contribution around the household, that sort of thing, I think you know that kind of performance management is perfectly acceptable.
DDS: Quarterly basis? Or are you suggesting that's sort of more of an ongoing conversation?
GD: Definitely the feedback should be in the moment, David.
DB: I agree. In the moment, definitely.
DDS: OK. And look, I'm going to come back. We're going to move on now, but I'm going to come back to that notion of kind of slippery slope definitions. So, when is a friendship or a casual relationship an intimate relationship? We're going to come back something similar later in the programme about, actually like, where do you draw the lines on some things? Because I think it's the, it's part of the art of the job. But I think it's also some of the areas where we'll naturally disagree because it's more subjective. Next headline that probably would raise eyebrows in a slightly different way is. "U.S. bank fires, mouse jigglers pretending to work." So, it's a story that the U.S. banking giant, Wells Fargo has sacked several employers who were faking keyboard activity to fool the company into thinking they were working when they weren't. So, companies have been using more and more sophisticated technology, particularly where people are working from home to ascertain whether they are still contributing, when they're still active, but what's also happening is that people are starting to use technologies to essentially fake the work on the far end. Before we get into the nuances of the technology. Is it right or wrong, I'll start with you, Gem, to monitor employees in the first instance?
GD: I guess that we're into what do we mean by "right and wrong" there. Are we thinking about this in a purely legal sense or are we thinking about this from a sort of morale, engagement, you know, being a great place to work sense. So, you know, from a legal point of view, as long as you are following GDPR and, you know, information governance rules and things, you know, you can monitor people. Of course you can. But just because you can doesn't necessarily mean that you should and.
DDS: Gem's just basically stolen my line which I stole from somewhere else there and I'm feeling slightly bitter about this, but we'll continue the podcast. That's fine.
GD: I think, you know, my broad question with that is, if people feel the need to use one of these to sort of, you know, have productivity theatre, what is going on in your organisational culture?
DDS: But is it? So, the challenge back to that right would be, it is clear in this case that people are faking work, they're getting paid for stuff that they aren't doing. It's harder for an employer to spot that because they're remote, it feels a reasonable check and balance. It feels an unpleasant one to have to put in. But equally, how else would they have told that? I'd have liked to have thought there are other indicators around productivity other than whether someone's mouse is moving. You'd have thought that there are other output measures there, but David, I don't know your thoughts.
DB: Yeah, that's exactly where I am, because when I read this, I thought, "what's the world coming to?". You know, look, organisations have every right to put in monitoring software, right? But that says something about their culture and how they view the individuals that are working for them, and you choose whether you want to work in an organisation, right? You know, last time I checked there weren't, you know, bars on the door that stopped people getting out of, in out of the companies they work for. And if you work in those organisations, you should accept that's part of what you're doing. And then to, to then have some, you know, some way of, nefarious way of trying to show your boss that you are working. Just what a waste of time for everyone. So, I think my points there; the first one is: choose the organisation that you work for and if an organisation, I think to, to Gemma's point. If the organisation is saying we want to monitor our colleagues, what does that say about what you think they are doing and the engagement levels within that organisation? But look if you choose to do it for a lot of the right reasons then as individuals, you should accept you're in that environment and do the work accordingly. I wouldn't be trying to circumvent it.
DDS: It's a really interesting development in terms of technology, isn't it? Because the parallel I've drawn, and it's not a perfect one, but it's, I'm talking to recruiters who are seeing cover letters or CVs coming in that they believe are produced by ChatGPT. But we've also got that in kind of academic environments with students doing that. So, then you've got people trying to produce software to track that and then you've got people trying to produce software that evades the software that's there to track that and it feels like, to your point, we're getting away from the simple, “look, how do you tell someone's doing a job?” Well, there should be an output.
DB: Absolutely. And I think this is where the world is moving on, right? So, take an example, you said there about covering letters. If you think they've been done by ChatGPT, why have a covering letter then? Why not actually ask the person to come online and talk to you directly so you can see that that's the person you're talking to and ask them, yeah, you know, to tell you a little bit more about it and I know, it's clearly. It's an application process, it's about a funnel, the numbers, etcetera, etcetera. But yeah, if you're not getting what you want from a covering letter, don't just keep pursuing it because it's the way we've always done it because the world is moving so quickly now. Look at different ways you can get to the same output.
GD: I think the mouse-jiggling thing specifically. Employees will respond to the organisation signals and the situation in which they find themselves. So, if the organisation is assessing productivity by how many e-mails you send, how much time your Teams colour is green or how responsive you are to a message coming in. Then that's the signal they will take. That's what, how they will see I'm going to be judged as being successful, so they will respond accordingly. So, they will, if necessary, demonstrate that and I saw another example recently. This idea of we just don't know really how to manage and assess productivity. So, it was an organisation that had pushed for a return to office because they'd identified that when people were working from home on a Friday, for example, they were sending fewer e-mails. Well, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're doing less work. They might be doing different work, they might be doing deep work, they might have saved their, sort of, focused work. Equally, they could be watching “Homes Under The Hammer”. But employees will respond to the signals that the organisations give them.
DB: There's an intersection here which, we've touched on it a little bit, and I think this is one for another podcast maybe, but the, you know, with the advent of AI and what people will be able to do with AI and organisations. If you're worried about them not logging on or doing the work at home. If you're going to give them access to AI, you should be really worried. If they're, if they're finding ways to get round, you know, logging on and logging off, they'll find some interesting things to do with AI when they get access to it.
DDS: Yeah. And we will, we will keep diving into that. We'll keep coming back to it in the podcast. So, at the moment, CIPD, we've got kind of four clear areas of focus. One is: champion the profession, we've got productivity and skills in there, workplace conflict. And we're just going to come on to that next, actually, but also AI because we know it's changing the way that people work. So, I am going to bring us onto workplace conflict next, or a version of that which is, we had the CIPD's Festival of Work recently. Really large show, brilliant attendance this year, but we had a journalist who attended who wrote a follow-up piece, essentially asking, "does the world need therapy dogs or does it just need good old-fashioned management skills?" I had a really good conversation with them. It was about "quiet quitting" and that notion, and I said like the noise around quiet quitting, it's possibly overwhelming some really important conversations that we need to have about quality of management, quality of support in organisations, what we need to drive productivity. So, there's some stuff that catches the eye on social media, catches a lot of attention, but actually it's getting in the way of some of the bigger things that we need to talk about. But there was a really interesting piece where he was essentially observing the shift that we've seen in organisations to providing more well-being services, to providing things to support colleagues, either through difficult times, financial or it might be mental well-being and stress and performance. Do you think that is a healthy evolution for the HR profession? I'm going to ask two questions. Do you think that's just where we are societally at the moment in terms of that need being greater than it has been before? Gem, if I come to you first.
GD: As a general rule, I have no issue with, sort of, secondary well-being interventions. So, whether we talk about therapy dogs, whether we talk about other support that organisations can put in, like financial support, that help people to stay well. So, they're a good thing. It's easy to criticise them and say, you know, massage at your desk or whatever is not going to, kind of, deal with work-related stress and that's true. I think where things fall down is when we don't do the other stuff, which is we don't look at the potential causes of ill health within our organisations, when we don't look at things like leadership and management and try and prevent that stress from arising because the secondary interventions on their own will not help your employees to be well. They can help people, you know, with, you know, small issues or, you know, help them to stay well broadly. But I think we just need to lift that conversation and look at those more strategic things. And yes, that does include how we lead and how we manage.
DDS: Yeah, it's a really interesting one, isn't it? I always think that you need things within organisations that compensate for problems and mitigate problems, but they can't. They're not the solutions, they are compensatory and mitigatory. So, the work that you have to do has to be on reducing, getting to the root cause and reducing the need for those things. So, I think the interesting thing about the chat I had with the journalist was just reflecting on how much, how many of these things are things that happen outside of work perhaps or impacting people outside of work, that we then can't separate them and ask them to be entirely different in work. You know, you can't leave all your problems at the door. You can ask people to do that, but we know that if someone's in financial hardship or someone's suffered a bereavement, that's going to spill over and has an impact. David?
DB: I've got to declare a conflict of interest here, as the father of a dog that's in training to be a therapy dog. My wife runs a unit for children who have behavioural difficulties and maybe school-refusers etc. and our dog, Loki, goes into that school on a daily basis. And she will talk about stories where children will come to the school purely to see Loki, yeah? And that breaks a barrier, right? That breaks a barrier, so where am I going with that is, I think as we're talking about here, and I agree with what Gemma said earlier, which is: there is the first thing which is getting people over a threshold into the organisation or, you know, into the environment and if bringing your dog to work helps you achieve that because it gives you a sense of comfort or trust or what? Yeah, whatever the adjective is you want to use, then that's great, right? We should, we should encourage that and look at many different ways to get people to feel comfortable in the workplace. But that's not going to address underlying issues if management or leadership aren't leading that organisation in the right way, or if people aren't engaged, or if there's poor management practices. And you've got to address those at source.
You might want to put in things like employee assistance programmes, but I think the issue with those is, and I've always said this since they've been around is, you're saying to a person, “you've got a problem, call this number and we'll do something about it”. Yeah. And that just feels wrong, doesn't it? Which is, if we're seeing people struggling in the workplace, for whatever reason, and it could be because of something that's happened outside of the organisation, because you can't just switch off as you come to the boundaries of it. We should be trying to help them, right? What does that look like? That looks like just great management. You know, people sitting down, talking to them, trying to understand, looking at solutions. Sometimes you won't have the solution, but just trying to work it through with people's got to be the way forward.
DDS: Yeah, it is. It's a stretch, though, isn't it, for the profession? Because we're not trained counsellors, we're not trained social workers. So, knowing when to refer, I think, is an important thing for, it's an important thing, actually for the people that we're supporting within organisations, it's important for profession as well to draw that line as to where it can.
DB: I agree, two points in there, David. I think it's really important. First of all, we don't have all the answers and I'd say to any practitioner in the people function, you don't have to have the answers, right? We had lots of challenges through the COVID period where we were being asked on a daily basis to make decisions which we had no idea about. That's fine, right? We can try and give the best ideas and the best solutions we can, based on our experience. But sometimes we just don't know the answer. That's fine. And the second thing you said there that's really important is something like the difference between coaching and counselling, yeah? At some point in a coaching conversation, you can go to a very, very dark place and you are not qualified to have that conversation. And in actual fact, you do a disservice to yourself, but more importantly, a disservice to the individual, and it could be very clinically, quite challenging. So, at that point you should drop out and pass it on to someone who's more professionally qualified.
DDS: Completely. Gem, any final thoughts on that?
GD: I think you know, we know that the role of managers has such a huge influence on people's health at work and I think if there's one thing organisations absolutely should do, it's make sure that they are providing training, guidance for managers so that they understand things like signs and symptoms to look out for of things like poor mental health. Know how to have those conversations and also know how to lead and manage in a way that isn't actually going to have a detrimental impact. So, I think if there are things to do, that's one of them. You know, easy to criticise, but if the therapy dog's going to help or indeed a massage at the desk or a lunchtime Zumba class, do that too.
DDS: Absolutely. One thing the CIPD has, which we really hope people make use of and we know they do, is we've got a really substantial range of fact sheets and guides on the issues of the day as well as reports that come out on a regular basis. What we don't have is a fact sheet on the obscure Japanese TV programme “Massage Detective Joe”, which I really want to try and find a way to link from that because I only found out about it this morning and just the idea that someone's written that, produced that and got it funded, I find absolutely amazing. But I want to get from that to a conversation around treatment of sport and entertainment in organisations. So, I'm going to see if I can do it. So, “Massage Detective Joe”, and the clue's in the title. It's a whodunnit, kind of, Colombo-type show based around someone who uses their massage detective skills in a massage parlour to solve crime. And in episode 7 of “Massage Detective Joe”, they use their massage skills, advanced massage skills to work out that the perpetrator of the crime is a professional Kabaddi player.
Now, many of you may not know what Kabaddi is. It's actually one of the biggest sports in India and Bangladesh. Easiest way to explain it is, it's like dodgeball but without the ball. You have to try and tag people on the other side and get back to your side and that knocks them out. Historically you had to repeat the word "kabaddi" many times to prove that you weren't taking a breath, that was part of it as well. But the world Kabaddi Championships take place next year and I imagine there aren't too many conversations around whether we should be giving employees time off to watch the world Kabaddi Championships, whether in fact, you know, organisations need to be more sympathetic with people coming in the next day and they're quite tired. But we know, with the Euro's kicking off and the Copa America and other large-scale sporting events, it's the Olympics and Paralympics this year, that those conversations are coming up in the workplace. So, I wanted to ask both of you, look, where do you draw the line? Where do you start considering it? Do you think it's a requirement for organisations to support? Gem, I'm going to come to you first because I know you wanted to wedge in Roller Derby as well, but from your point of view, you know, this comes, we always have sport in the summer. It comes up, it will be a question for workplaces. Where do you stand on it?
GD: Well, as somebody that does play a niche sport, I have some sympathy with the view that it's about more than just those really, really big events. But you know, we've all seen this conversation, I think probably every time there is a major sporting event, it's a common HR conversation. I think I'm going to, if I can, link this back to my area of interest, which is flexible working, which is, you know, we still have this view that a lot of knowledge work has to be done Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 5:00. We're still kind of hardwired to a system that evolved from the factory system. Frankly if people want to watch a particular sporting function, or indeed anything else, go to, you know, their child's sporting event at school, go and do something else that's more life-related, it doesn't have to be sport. If we think more broadly, if we give people flexibility, if we're open to things like non-linear working days, it becomes less of an issue. And frankly, if you can't do anything else and you worry that people are going to call in sick, which is the thing that I see mentioned all the time, put a big screen in the office.
DDS: Yeah, it's really interesting. At the CIPD, I can guarantee each year we'll get enquiries from the press around, "how do you manage Christmas parties", will be a big one. What happens with sport in the summer will be, kind of, the other one that you can kind of appreciate that rhythm. David, what are your thoughts? And I know we spoke a little bit. prior to this podcast, around different environments we've worked in so contact centres, retail, if you need people physically on-site, it's a slightly different challenge, isn't it? I know Gem kind of mentioned knowledge work, specifically but we've got a challenge with everyone in the workplace.
DB: First of all, I'd like to congratulate you on the segue. I think you pulled it off.
DDS: Thank you. I'm. I'm not sure. I'm never going to listen back to this, so I'll never know. But if anyone doesn't, then please do phone our Contact Centre and complain. Just not, just not during the match.
DB: But no to the more serious point, I look, I think, there are things to take into consideration here clearly, which is you know different types of workers can have, work in different ways and it's easier for some to accommodate a event of whatever kind. So, if you're on the phone every day or in a call centre, it's very difficult to take people off the phone for 90 minutes and allow them to watch a football match. Whereas you know, if you're working in more of a support-type function, you know, people function, for example, it might be easier for you just to slip off and watch 90 minutes and make that time up at another point. So, I think, not only is it role-specific, but then the impact between roles. You know, because clearly if you're a frontline worker who's facing off to the customer and seen to be generating the revenue, if you can't come off to watch the game yet, someone in a support function can, that can create some tensions. So, you've got to be aware of that.
I think the other thing with any big event and let's take sports as the conduit for this point. Which is, you're bringing different types of people together in an environment where emotions will run high. We know certain countries have histories, we know certain individuals from those countries have history with each other and throwing them together in a field way with watching, watching football, for example, can cause that stress or tension to overflow. And you've got to be cognisant of that. And then the final point I'd make is: you know, when you're bringing groups together, invariably sporting events again, you know, you might encourage people to have some social time together, which might include alcohol. Again, if people are driving to the office, how do you manage that? But my overarching point would be the same as what's been made by yourself and Gemma, which is, you know, we should encourage people to work flexibly, and we should encourage people to enjoy these events. We shouldn't just have a classic 9:00 to 5:00. And if something sits in that period of time, you either call in sick so you can watch it, or you don't watch it. I think we should find ways to try and work around it. And I think organisations should try and address that by having, you know, groups of colleague representatives who can act as a conduit or as a way to manage this. So, you know, open the debate up with your colleagues. What are the important ones? If it's, you know, if it is Kabaddi's the most important event and it's not the Euros. Kabaddi should be the one that we give people time off for, but have that conversation with colleagues, get it out in the open. Let's find a way of managing it with the people that we work with in an adult way.
DDS: Yeah. And if you've never seen Kabaddi. It's worth searching for.
DB: I used to love it.
DDS: On YouTube, I'm not pushing it too hard on this.
DB: It was fantastic. It used to be on Transworld Sport on a Saturday morning, so if you're from my era, you used to get up early and not have anything else to do except watch Kabaddi on Transworld Sports. That's where I got it from.
DDS: We're actually now plugging TV shows that don't even exist anymore.
DB: Oh sorry. Yes, other TV shows are available.
DDS: So, yeah. So, just kind of, digging into that a little bit more because I'll come back to that kind of slippery slope piece. Where do you draw the line? Are you both saying that actually a line doesn't need to be drawn, it could be done individually more than anything? Because I think one of the things that I think is really interesting at the moment is we're resetting the expectations, I think. The kind of social, psychological contracts between employers and employees, a lot's changing. It's not really a reasonable contractual expectation that I get to watch sporting events that I like, when I like is it? You wouldn't, you wouldn't go actually, "that's a duty of an employer". You would go, actually that's an additional benefit or level of flexibility an employer could provide. So, is there a line to be drawn or is it just look, "this is just good judgement and it's about the individual organisational culture?" Gem?
GD: I would say the latter and I think you know the pandemic has had an influence on some of the things you've just said, David, this kind of reshifting this reemergence, I think of some aspects of the psychological contract. And that we are starting to see research emerge now that says you know, that was a fundamentally, a time of reflection for a lot of people, they have rethought about what they want from work. They've rethought about the place of work in their lives and that's part of the sort of, the push to work from home more frequently. So, I think, within the constraints of each organisation and noting, you know, that there are some roles, some organisations, some job types where you've got to be in-person, you've got to work at a specific time. But the more we can allow individuals to craft their work around their lives, the more we allow them to have that flexibility, whether it's a sport, whether it's family issues, caring, whatever that looks like. The better that's going to be for the individual from a well-being perspective, from an autonomy, engagement, all of those things. And in turn that has greater organisational outcomes. So, my argument is always; within the constraints of your own environment, maximum autonomy for that individual to shape how they work, when they work, where they work, and noting that's an ideal scenario and it's not achievable for every job. But I do believe that, within most jobs, there's some way of allowing individuals to craft, you know, some elements of that.
DDS: If we are essentially leaving it down to the individual, how are we going to make sure that actually the parameters that we set for the organisation and the individual don't end up in competition with each other or don't end up causing issues?
GD: I'm not sure you can leave it solely down to the individual. I think it's a conversation. The more you can devolve down flexibility from the high-level policies to the line, the better the outcomes generally seem to be, from the emerging research around things like engagement particularly. But you know what's right for an individual will sometimes disconnect with what's right for the team, what's right for the organisation, what's right for you know, cultures and relationships. So, I don't think you can just purely go, "you know, it's over to the individual". I think it has to be like a team conversation, a manager conversation and all of those people that. There's, you know, there's not always a Venn diagram where everybody's kind of completely happy and there's a circle in the middle that's perfect. You know, we have to kind of balance those stakeholder needs within that conversation.
DDS: Yeah. So, I wanted to close with the final thought on turkeys, which just I, thank you. I like to think we've really covered a breadth today. But I think, from memory, it was kind of the authors of “Freakonomics” described it in terms of the pact and the contract that people make with organisations. I thought it was quite an interesting one to think about, which is, it was a turkey farmer who gave his workers a turkey as a Christmas present one year as a thank you for the year and it utterly made their day, and they were really thankful for it. The next year, slightly tougher, he gave them a slightly smaller turkey. And all he got was people absolutely aghast that somehow what they've come to expect had been removed. And I think we've got some really interesting changes happening in the workplace at the moment where we're trying to find that balance and a lot of the change and a lot of, I guess the, the bartering in the nicest possible way, the resetting of those parameters is seen as a loss, rather than actually still, quite often still beneficial to the employee over time, really fascinating relationship. Nothing else to do except to plug the CIPD's resources, suggest that you keep listening to this podcast because we got some great guests coming up and thank our guests for today, for being so patient and allowing us to roam across a vast range of things from “House of the Dragon”, to jiggling, to roller derbies to, and I know you're all going to go and look it up on IMDB. It's a real thing. “Massage Detective Joe”. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Gem.
GD: Thank you.
DDS: And thank you, David.
DB: Thank you.
Do romantic relationships at work need to be disclosed? Can you trust a ‘mouse jiggler’? How do you manage time off or flexibility around major sporting events? Join the conversation with David D’Souza, CIPD Director of Profession, Gemma Dale, senior lecturer at Liverpool Business School, and David Balls, Chief People Officer at Newcross Healthcare Solutions, as we unpack the topical stories over the past fortnight and look at how HR can consider their impact for their own organisations.
Recorded: 21 June 2024
Duration: 00:27:47
David D'Souza: Hello and a big welcome to the HR People Pod, CIPD's new fortnightly podcast, bringing you the hot topics, expert insights, and stories on the issues impacting HR, people development, and the world of work right now. I'm joined by two senior HR professionals in the studio here today, and I'm thrilled to say they are:
Katie Obi: Hi everyone, I'm Katie Obi, Chief People Officer at technology company OneAdvanced.
DDS: And.
Melanie Steel: Melanie Steel, I'm a Career Interim
DDS: And just a reminder for everything that we discuss today, we'll be talking about the general principles of what's happening. You all know, as experienced professionals, that it's very difficult to know what's going on behind the scenes. So, we'll take the stories as a jumping off point for our discussions. I think broadly today we're talking about the difficulty of boundaries in work and working life. So, we've got a few stories that have caught people's attention over the last few weeks that talk about that. Where you draw that boundary, that kind of final line in some different aspects of work. And I know, Katie, if I come to you first, one of the things that caught your eye was a recent product launch which suggested some interesting balances between where we get value from something and the implications on privacy.
KO: Yeah, absolutely. There is an interesting discussion that was happening, you know, across some of the social media channels, really about Microsoft's product launch around a product called Recall, which is really connected to its Copilot product, which goes and takes screenshots of your computer screen at various intervals throughout the day. And the aim is really for this to be a productivity tool to help you be able to search through everything that might have happened during the day and really get powerful recall of information. One of the things I think is really interesting about this is, there are obviously real productivity gains that can come from that, but there are also significant privacy concerns for employers to be aware about as well, in terms of what information is being captured. The information is being stored locally on someone's device, but who can access that device? Whether that changes in the future as well. So, that was a really interesting one for me in terms of trying to think about, as an employer, what do we need to be able to balance as new technology comes into the market and really making sure that HR populations are educated around positivities around productivity and advantages, but also unintended consequences before these types of things are rolled out.
DDS: So, Mel, I'm really curious. What do you see is the opportunity in it? So, if we have both the opportunity and the risk, I think that's probably the best way of giving it some balance.
MS: I guess it can be useful, if you are thinking about something that you did, you know previously and you can't quite, we all know like search engines or kind of filing systems are always, you put in keywords, and it still doesn't really nail it. So, I guess that could help with that. When you said productivity, I was thinking about those people are there where you're thinking about something, and it takes a snapshot and then two hours later you've still got a blank page. And then whether, you know, employers go, "well, that wasn't very productive." You know, "we've got these different snapshots in time and it's still no words on the page". I mean, I've felt like that sometimes when you're doing like, you know when you're trying to brainstorm something, but also then I kind of think about the security implications of that, right? You know, in government, I'm sure they would be able to switch it off or something, but you know, you're cleared to a certain level to have access to certain information, quite rightly so and therefore you've got the whole issue then about how you protect that if it's taking a snapshot of sensitive materials and what have you.
I mean, I guess what Katie said is like something that starts off seeming like a great idea, which reduces time in being able to circle back around to stuff, what's the unintended consequences of having that that ability too?
DDS: Yeah, and it's key that the profession I think is really cognisant of both those opportunities and risks. You know, I often say we can't let the risk blind us to the opportunities, but we can't let the opportunities blind us to the risks either. And I think it's going to be one where, as the technology is moving at such a rapid pace, to your point, Katie, we need to do two things. We need to go, "this is exciting because we've never been able to do this before, so what might it allow us to do in a different way?" and to your point, Mel, yeah, I'm sure I spent a large chunk of my professional life staring at a kind of blinking cursor going, "I hope something's coming next". But equally, the ability to track down documents you haven't seen before, pull together information in a really rapid way would be really useful, but you've got those implications you need to think about in terms of how it's going to be used within the organisation, what the implications are for security as well, and I think there'll be a range of products, I'm sure, continuing to come out in that space that it'll be worth practitioners thinking and reflecting.
MS: Just like one last thing, before we move on, on that is we talk about practitioners, but there is a bit about everyone's responsibility in it. Because I think the days of like, you know, HR, we've tried to move away from being like the policing and policies and such like. What we need is to educate everybody, right, within that, you know, managers, individuals have to take their own responsibility about these things that will come through and it can't all rest, I don't think, on the HR profession to be the ones who are thinking about the unintended consequences as well. You know, it has to be. We've all got to be because it's moving too quick, right? Otherwise, we force, I think the function back in that thing, it's not that we don't see things as a positive, but we can't be the only people that are thinking about the flip side to it.
DDS: I absolutely don't think it's about identifying the downsides. It's about understanding how we harness it really thoughtfully. And that has to be cross organisations. But we've got, you know, we've got a core responsibility around change management, our expertise in that space and we'll come on to talking about a few stories where actually we've got choices and influence around culture as well, and some of those boundaries. But you're absolutely right, it's not a, it can't and doesn't all fall to us, but I think we've got a really critical role to play.
MS: Yeah, for sure.
DDS: And a really exciting one as well because lots of things we talked about five years being theoretical and now actually arriving month by month, as opportunities for us to deliver and make a difference with. Moving on a little bit, but actually there is a slight link here because I've spoken to quite a few people over the last few years who believe that some of their employees are working, effectively, a second job, but using AI to do that, or some who are suspecting that, in fact, people are delivering a large chunk of their core job using generative AI, in particular. Notable cases in the U.S., I think where most of the anecdotes are streaming out of, but certainly it's come up with me with a few HRD's and again that feels like a, feels like a message from the future, doesn't it? Actually, this person's juggling different jobs, but they're using technology to do it. So, one piece of news in the last fortnight. A recent study revealed or suggested that, in particular, Britons have become a nation of side-hustlers, which I love as a headline. So, partly in response to the impacts of the cost-of-living crisis, people of all ages. So, it's not just kind of limited to kind of one demographic, have increasingly sought additional income streams. So, sounds like a good thing? Sounds like a bad thing? Sounds like a necessary consequence of where we are?
MS: I mean, listen, as someone who started, I worked like two jobs, you know, when I started my career, there was no way I could have afforded my rent and stuff on a Civil Service salary at the time. And I did many years actually with a second job, doing waitressing. That's what I needed to do for me. And I think like there's multiple issues within that kind of statement, as you were saying. So, I believe in the right that people should be able to do what they feel is right for them and their family and such like. Obviously, there are certain jobs where you need to ensure that people aren't, you know, doing stuff which might impact on intellectual property and such like that, and therefore they'll have stuff in their contracts. But also, I am sensitive and I have been sensitive, you know, over the last few years with the cost of living rises, people who are in, particular maybe minimum wage type jobs. When you know senior folk are publicly talking about the bonuses and such like they're making, about them thinking about, you know, is that, are you taking account that some of your workforce are having to use food banks or do multiple jobs not by choice, but just to put food onto the table. I think there's a sense of responsibility in that one that, you know, they need to be cognisant of what's going on in their workforce.
And actually, it's quite interesting sometimes they're not always so in touch with that. I saw Emirates this week had had record profits, and they'd decided to dish out additional bonuses to the rest of the workforce to share in some of that success. So, I think there's that piece about making sure, if you are making money in business, are you making sure that that's going to those who may be struggling, you know, and having to use food banks and stuff? And when you're talking in the press about mega bonuses and mega profits, so that feels a little bit out of touch. And then lastly, I love a good side-hustle. So, you know generations who have decided that actually they want to do that. I've had lots of conversations with clients who are saying, “look, I just don't think this is right because they don't have this, you know, they need to reserve their energy for the "day job"” as they call it. I always challenge them to look at it about how can they bring that side hustle expertise and what they're doing, running their own mini little (inaudible), how they're doing their marketing. I mean, there's some really good, brilliant skills. Some of them have been doing it since the age of 14 and stuff as well. I'd be like, "hell, that's great. Let's bring that into the workplace. And how can you help us with some of those things?" So, for me that kind of is a far-reaching kind of bit and I know we don't have a lot of time with it, but that's just my thoughts on it.
DDS: Katie when we, Mel mentioned there, you know, the expectation of a leadership team, to come back to that notion of boundaries. Is it reasonable or is it old-fashioned for an organisation to think like, "I'm buying your focus rather than just buying your time" because and we'll come on to it when we talk a little bit about right to disconnect later, but there's a really interesting notion there, isn't it, which is; if I employ you, does that mean that essentially your contract is solely with me and that's where your attention should be all the time? Or actually is it, look, there's contractual hours and that's pretty much the deal. What are your thoughts?
KO: If we think about second jobs, people who take them, I think, fall into three main categories. Obviously, there are outliers. The first one, as Mel talked about in terms of a necessity to work a second job in order to be able to make ends meet, and that's obviously exacerbated with the cost of living. I also think there are, there has been a breakdown in terms of the employee/employer relationship in terms of job security over recent years. So, lots of people are taking on a side hustle because they want to build the security in case something happens to their main job and then they've got something that they've started to build that can see them through a period of unemployment. Or they're starting to build something out on their own in terms of building their own thing. We've got lots of people who opt out of the workforce over time because they want to have more flexibility and be more in control of their own destiny. But I think there's a third one, which is, there's a difference between having a side hustle and moonlighting in terms of taking on a second job during core work hours, maybe working for a competitive element.
MS: Agreed, yeah.
KO: Which comes in a bit more to your question, David, in terms of what happens if a side hustle moves into that realm? And I think that's where the boundaries need to be, from an employer standpoint, and it tends to be contractually what we put in people's contracts to be able to prevent. So, side hustles that actually aren't competitive, that are happening outside of core work hours, I don't think employers should intervene around this. I think people's time that we're not paying for should be their time to be able to use on something that doesn't cause damage to the business.
MS: Agreed, yeah.
KO: I think that's entirely different than people who decide to take on multiple concurrent jobs and they use their work time that an employer is paying for in order to be able to do those. I think that's unethical from an employee standpoint.
MS: Or it impacts on that day job because they're like, tired or not, you know, I think about if you're a driver or something where you have a safety element, you probably have got something in your contract about that, right? And the rest days are purely meant to be for that. So, if a pilot, you know, has rest days, you really don't want that pilot to be doing stuff which kind of zaps them so by the time they come on shift, you know, they're less capable than what they would have done. But I mean you have to be clear about that of what you're talking about.
DDS: Yeah. Look, my time as Batman obviously left me quite drained the following day quite often. But sticking with this notion because I think there's a really cool thing in it, almost everything we're talking about today, which is that employees have rights, but they also have responsibilities and the same sits for employers. And working out the balance between them, either in terms of the actual contractual terms or in terms of the social contract, implied psychological contract that we have. There are shifts in that balance recently and lots of organisations are struggling with where to draw the line. Another headline that's kind of stood out over the past few weeks is the growing number of European and South American nations, primarily, but not exclusively, that have now adopted “right to disconnect” laws. So, essentially prohibiting larger employers from contacting their staff outside of normal working hours, so if you like the flip of the problem. It's about actually the employer asking for a bit more or an expectation outside of that contractual piece. In Portugal, breaching the law can be punishable with fines up to €10,000, so a not insignificant sum. Is this a legislation piece? Is this an understanding, an employer piece? Katie, I'm going to start with you. But I think again, it's in that rights and responsibilities bit, isn't it?
KO: Yeah, very, very interesting. We're seeing more and more countries go down this way. So, clearly the legislators think that there's a legislative element to it. I have mixed views on this, so on the one hand I think where it has not been possible to self-regulate around making sure that work is sustainable and healthy for people, maybe there does need to be legislation that comes in. But I'm also worried about unintended consequences and as soon as you legislate, rather than do it on a company-by-company basis, then it becomes a mandate and there's flexibility that's lost. The number of people who come to me and say, "I have commitments outside of work and actually it's really helpful for me to maybe finish a bit early so I can do some caring responsibilities and then I come back on later at night" and I do this. If you put in legislation, that means that after a certain time of night, no e-mail can be sent to somebody, it's punishable with a fine, and it's essentially illegal. Then that takes away an element of flexibility. So, maybe there are unintended consequences associated with it. So, I think. I think, always wherever possible, companies should make sure that they're setting themselves up for providing good work environments, and they are trying to balance employee and employer needs without the need to have to legislate. But we're also so integrated now with technology and expectations that it's interesting, the lines are blurring more and more socially and for individuals and yet we're starting to see more and more boundaries being enforced as well to separate it out again. And I don't think we've necessarily understood the pros and the cons associated with both.
DDS: It's a really interesting one for me because we're going to come on to talking about working from home, but not in the way that people may expect, because we want to look at that though a slightly different cultural lens. But there have been bits, if I think even in my career, early in my career. Might have been shift work, might have been doing a role which didn't require that carry-over responsibility. So, you've done your work for the day and then you go. That's an interesting piece of even legislation to look at because when you think about the beneficiaries, it's unlikely to, for someone to be in an industrial or retail setting, you know, doing that type of work. This is more likely to be impacting office workers, I would think, and we'll talk about the flip as we come on to it around different sides. But, Mel, I know you've worked across a range of different industries and sectors. Well, what are your thoughts on it?
MS: I fundamentally disagree with it. I just don't think work should be set up like that. I'm also not naive to know that in some industries, in some areas that it's gone too far the other way. But with all of these things, what kind of goes to my heart, I think on it is, we really need to get to a place where frameworks are good in businesses, because actually having something from a starting point and a jump point, I think always helps. Legislation is absolutely right where we're looking at fundamental things which affect, regardless of what company you're in, should be there. So, I'm a big fan of legislation at the right time. But I think for me it's, I want to get back to this bit where there's a deal to be had between managers and individuals, because ultimately that's who you're working with every day and every business that I've been in operates in a slightly different way. Yes, you can roll it up at the macro level that you can say it's got so many similarities but at the micro level, individuals have different things going in their life.
I think about it. Recently I was at a gym. I'm in the changing rooms and I hear like, particularly different generations. You know people in their 20s and 30s telling each other how they're going to leave a job because they just can't do the thing, which is very important to them, like go to an 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM class, which to me is not something that's a, you know, should be a deal-breaker because they're OK to work till like later on in the day. But they've been told they need to be back in the office, they've got to do these timings, and I feel like that's a step back. And I kind of hear and I want to will them, "look, speak to your manager. There's got to be a compromise in this". And I think, when I hear a number of these things, we have to make sure we empower the manager and the individual, because between them, to me, that's where it should work. Not for everyone, I appreciate that, but I think once we start legislating, you know, using legislation to try and do stuff we get into kind of that policing regime.
KO: I agree and that's a great example because under that legislation there you can't, you can't as a manager be that flexible for that employee because you can't have them start late because they can't work later in order to be able to do everything they need to do. So, it limits the ability to match flexibility to individuals needs, and I also think, I've worked for a lot of global employers and it's very interesting thinking it from that lens.
MS: Yes, good point.
KO: Which is, you know, where, as a global employer are you going to focus investments in particular countries? And I think countries that introduce more hard and fast rules around this, especially with financial penalties, they may not be the countries that people invest in. So, there are also unintended consequences for individuals and employment in each of those countries as a result.
DDS: So, there's been one organisation in particular making a number of headlines of late: Manchester United Football club. Their new owner has offered an early payment of an annual bonus if people were to resign this week as part of their drive to get people back into the office physically. So, that's an, essentially an incentive to people to make up their minds and leave if they're not going to be comfortable with that way of working. Now, we said we wouldn't talk about hybrid working per se, but actually it's a really interesting way of seeing an organisation being so decisive around culture, but obviously quite a controversial one as well. So, Katie, if I come to you first, what are your thoughts around how you'd set expectations more broadly, about the cultural norms within an organisation?
KO: I think, on the one hand, clarity is really important and leaders need to be clear about what the organisation stands for and also what their position around various different elements are, because then people can make up their own mind about whether that works for them and whether that doesn't. And lack of clarity that can cause so much uncertainty as well. So, I always think being open, honest, upfront and direct about what the organisation will and won't tolerate is extremely important and it helps people to be able to make really informed decisions.
I think also our duty as leaders and as organisations is to make sure that we offer good work, we're a good employer, we have well-designed jobs, we have strong collaboration and relationships, we're focusing on productivity, but we're also flexing to individuals needs as much as we can as well, is really important and one of the things that concerns me is, whilst I really believe that clarity and leadership is very important, mandates also. It depends on what is the motivation behind the mandate as well. If the motivation is for those elements of cultural norms that I just described, that's great. And that's a really good way to be, to provide bold leadership and clarity around what is expected in order to be successful in the organisation. If the mandate is for a different reason, then there are unintended consequences about that. If the mandate is just to be able to see people for presenteeism, you'll get presenteeism as the outcome. So, really thinking about what is the reason behind what you're standing for as an organisation and how you embed that all the way through end-to-end and then communicate with clarity. I think that's really where the role of leadership comes in terms of establishing the cultural norms.
DDS: Yeah, because leaders and organisations need to be able to set out really clearly what they value, what behaviour they'll incentivise and what behaviour they won't tolerate. I think it's really important if you work for an organisation, you know what they want you to do.
MS: Agreed yes. Yes.
DDS: They know how they want you to show up. You know what you're going to get rewarded for. Yeah, it's the basic bargain, isn't it? And you talked about working for a manager and that importance of a relationship.
MS: Yeah.
DDS: I think everyone should know what a good job looks like.
KO: Yeah.
DDS: You know, and I think behind that, I do agree. Values themselves can be a little bit nebulous because the lack of congruence you often get between the espoused values and the real values. It's a problem for every organisation. And that means particularly if you make a difficult announcement. Sitting behind them is quite tricky.
KO: Yeah, it's a really interesting one around, well, as we're talking about cultural norms, cultural norms aren't what you put up on the wall and the nice shiny things that you put on your website
MS: Exactly
KO: Cultural, cultural norms are more about, you know, how do people show up every day and also what's the worst behaviour that you'll tolerate and when you've got two really difficult decisions to make, which decision do you come to? That's where it really talks to what your culture is, what the leadership really value and I think as organisations start to navigate through some of these more difficult challenges around boundaries, that's where we're really starting to see what does an organisation stand for and what does it not and actually proactively thinking about that and communicating about that is a really good thing, rather than having it reactively done through lots of smaller decisions.
DDS: Mel, final thoughts?
MS: I think if, in terms of people going back into the office. I think we've distilled work down to task too much and we have to help people understand again, if that's what it takes, that work is more than just task. It's about relationships, it's about collaboration and I think businesses should be honest about that. And if they believe that's what they need for their business, they probably do. I read this week that someone had said, "we need to earn the commute." So, they're investing hundreds of thousands of pounds in good office space so that people can work in a really great way. And I think we have to be bold to individuals and say, "it's on them too." It's not a one-way relationship. So, you do the commute, but you also have to come in willing to be part of that workforce and show up and by that, I mean the willingness to collaborate, to build relationships. It isn't all like, you know, businesses give us the tools, but ultimately, we as individuals can do so much together too. And I can't help but feel like we've lost some of that.
You know, I'm not a fan of 100% of anything. So, 100% in the office or 100% working from home and I do want people to have flexibility because it really does hurt me when I hear people saying that they can't do certain things which are so important to them because, you know that's only going to impact on them and what they feel of that company too. I think again, frameworks are good. I think be bold, if that's what Manchester United need to do. Try and give the basis of why it's important and don't expect individuals to immediately agree that they think that's a great idea if they've been used to having, maybe more flexibility on their terms. We're humans, we don't suddenly, we change. We don't suddenly go, "oh great, I can see the benefit that I can collaborate and that", but many people I've talked to who have been made, maybe, to go back, have been able to see that actually, when push comes to shove, it is better and they can probably get back into that if they've still got an amount of flexibility. So, that would be my view on that.
DDS: Perfect. Thank you. And a very clear one and to come back to it, I guess the point is be clear, be requiring, be considerate whilst you're doing that and if organisations can step into that space, employees can recognise their obligations as well within it, then that's probably your best way of setting your boundaries is doing that relatively collaboratively but with a lot of clarity. So, thank you to both Katie and Mel for their time today. We, as a professional body, obviously asked people to look at the evidence, make sure that they are focused on the outcomes that they're driving and to work to really clear principles. If you'd like to find out about our position on any of the topics that we covered today, please do visit the website. Otherwise, we look forward to you joining us next time for another stimulating HR People Pod. Thank you very much.
MS: Thank you.
KO: Thank you.
Decisive or divisive, Manchester United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s leadership message was definitely bold. Join the chat with David D’Souza, the CIPD’s Director of Profession, Katie Obi, Chief People Officer at One Advanced, and Mel Steel, former HR director and interim people & transformation leader, as we unpack the biggest stories of the past fortnight including: is Microsoft Recall a privacy nightmare? Should we be wary of a growing trend of side hustles or second jobs? And do we need ‘right to disconnect’ legislation? Leadership like the Manchester United back-to-work offer.
Recorded: 7 June 2024
In our second pilot episode, host David D'Souza, the CIPD's Director of Profession, recruits Mel Steel, former HR director and interim people & transformation leader, and Alistair Gill, Chief Alchemist at Alchemy Labs, to the panel as we respond to some of the key stories from the past fortnight, including the decision from John Lewis to share interview questions in advance with potential candidates and the use of AI in the recruitment process.
Recorded: 24 May 2024
Duration: 31:10
David D'Souza: Good morning, good afternoon and good evening. wherever and whenever you're listening to this. Welcome to the CIPD's new fortnightly programme, available on iTunes, Spotify, limited edition vinyl, wherever you get your podcasts, but you don't need to worry about that because seemingly, you've already found us. We'll be bringing you the top stories from the world of work that are impacting the profession and the organisations you work in or support.
I'm David D'Souza. I work at the CIPD and joining me today are three of the finest brains from the profession. Woosh, who is Exec. Director of People, Culture and Inclusion at NCVO, which is one of the longest job titles that I've come across. Katie, who is CPO at OneAdvanced and Bertie, who is CPO at Collinson. We'll be doing a couple of things today. We'll be running through some recent news that's caught the eye of our expert guests and then we'll be doing a deep dive on, actually some of the changing impacts on the profession and the changing demands on the profession and what that means for the future of it and a little bit, actually, about what it means for you as practitioners and how it feels to do the job. So, without further ado, I'd like to come to Woosh. What's been capturing your eye over the last couple of weeks?
Woosh Raza: Hi everyone. So, I, this headline kind of grabbed my attention. "Gen Z aren't lazy, they just know that work doesn't pay". So, there's a body, of kind, of interesting research, and that's hit the news around Gen Z being lazy or, sorry, not being lazy, just being clear on, like, work and life and just kind of, you know, seeing work in a more transactional way. And that's been, I think, kind of some evidence that CIPD have also kind of shed some light on around transactional attitudes towards work, specifically for those under 35. So, yeah, I thought this was interesting. I think inter-generational challenges for any HR professional right now who, like, who copes with having to deal with an inter-generational workforce. I'm sure we all see it in our kind of day-to-day.
You've got so many different attitudes in the workplace because you've got four or five different generations that are kind of all, you know, working at the same time. I find it it's interesting because I don't see Gen Zs in that kind of way. From my kind of view, from my point of view. Well, I don't have a point of view. I think every person is different. We see a lot of that individuality coming through Gen Zs, a lot more kind of purpose that they know what they want. They're very clear, the social purpose piece is really strong. But at the same time, I kind of can see this in, in terms of like, where does work stop and life begin and actually just being clear on the boundaries. Which is really interesting after the pandemic, you know, when everything just got mushed into like one big ball of life. So, yeah, I'm not sure what we, what we think, what others think around that around the Gen Zs not being lazy?
Bertie Tonks: I had a personal experience, probably within the last year, where I walked into my son's bedroom about 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock in the afternoon and he was in bed and I was like, "get up, come on. It's about time you get a job". He's 17 years old. I want him to start earning his way. He said, "why would I bother to get a job?" He said, "do you realise that this morning I've earned £250 just by buying and selling trainers without lifting a single finger?" And there you have it. He was like, "only a fool would go to work". And like, I literally couldn't argue with him.
WR: Did you shut the door? Did you go, “all right, have a good day?”
BT: Yeah, it's just, but you know what? He really wasn't wrong. And I think, I do think that Gen Zs, there is a sometimes a negative connotation that's talked about, like they feel like they're gifted, and they should have everything they want and it's just a different expectation and we do need to appreciate that they see things automated. They, you know, they're digital natives. So, everything is, it should be easier. There's an, should be an easier way to achieve any result and we don't really, we don't really embrace that in the world of work when actually it's a very thing that we're looking to drive.
WR: Yeah. Katie. Because I know you've got some view on purpose, right? And like purpose being clear with this generation. Like what, because. I think there's also resentment. Like, I think that's also coming because I hear. We got told the Millennials were lazy, like, you know on the news like five/ten years ago. It's like every new generation's lazy and I think it's just, there's something about resentment in the workplace. Well, I wasn't allowed to do what you do, which is work from home. I had to go into the office all the time and stuff, but I don't know. What do you think? Like, do you think there's more purpose do you think they're clear in that purpose?
Katie Obi: Yeah, I, firstly every time I read or listen to anything that it talks about generation, and it stereotypes everyone in a generation, I'm, my heart sinks as well. So, I know people are more individuals, so I don't think one rule applies to everyone. And as, as you rightly said, Woosh, you know every generation that's come through, we've had similar debates. I think one of the things that is different though is society has changed and it has changed quite significantly. So, if we look at people who are coming into the workplace now, often they would have completed schooling or university in the COVID era where actually things weren't, they didn't have the same kind of experiences as the rest of us did; finishing school or going to university if that was our choice.
The world is different in terms of whether there's in-person relationships, the flexibility that you can now have in your work. The flexibility of options that are available as well. You know, the entrepreneurial options as you talked about in, in terms of your son. There are just different ways to be able to get to the end result and people have more choice around what they choose to, want to spend their time on, which links into the purpose statement too, which is people, if people have choices of how they can achieve the same end result, they're going to choose something that is meaningful for them, whether that's the mission that they're associated with building up, whether it's flexibility, whether it's the ability to earn money while you sleep, you know those are all different things that are available to people and the transaction is different in terms of reward for, for performance and results and working in a traditional environment because student loans are, you know, people have accumulated a lot of debt. It's really difficult to be able to secure housing. It's different for this generation than it was for a couple of generations ago. So, people are having to rethink how they get to the outcomes and the lifestyles that they want and what's important. So, it all ties together from that standpoint.
BT: Yeah, yeah.
DDS: And then the answer might be trainers, apparently.
KO: Might be trainers, from bed.
DDS: So, we need to be open to that. Bertie.
BT: Yeah, and you know, I think, I think what they're really looking for, from the conversations that I'm having is the opportunity to do meaningful work. You talk about purpose, Woosh, absolutely spot on, but you know purpose isn't just about charitable organisations and doing good to the planet.
WR: Yeah, yeah.
BT: It's about feeling like you're actually making a difference, gaining the opportunity to play to my strengths, so actually I feel like I'm on fire when I'm working and work isn't just work, it can be fun, and I can enjoy what I do as well. But in order for them to do that, you need the leadership above that also exhibit similar behaviours and to acknowledge that that's actually not just OK, it's going to help our businesses thrive.
DDS: Katie, what's caught your eye?
KO: Yeah. So, there was a news article which was about, really about the rise in the UK minimum wage, but also the unintended consequences because I think a lot of us really think about that and think, "well, that's great". You know, it's important that we're keeping, we're keeping minimum wage increasing because costs have materially increased for people. But then there's always another side to anything that happens, and the unintended consequences and this news story was around employers who were cutting hours and hiring less to offset the cost increase associated with minimum wage increases. And I thought that was really interesting to think through in terms of, there are unintended, really negative consequences for individuals as a result of those increases. And it got me thinking a little bit in terms of; there are tough economic times for both people who are working and also for employers and there's a balance here that has to be struck and how a company is really thinking about navigating through this and how are we, as HR professionals really thinking about how we navigate and how we find the right balance. We do play that role that's in between the two. We want to make good workplaces, and we want to be able to ensure that people can afford to be able to meet their needs. At the same time, we also have to make sure that the organisation is able to be scalable and sustainable.
So, I started thinking also with the discussions that are happening around automation and AI and productivity. How do we create these workplaces that are beneficial for people, beneficial for society, bring in opportunities for productivity to be able to help enhance the way people do their jobs in a way that is sustainable for organisations so we can continue to strike that balance? Because it shouldn't have to be a one choice or another, which is what this article really implied, you know, was happening. We need to find ways to be able to navigate through that successfully, going forward.
DDS: Yeah. And there's a range of things going on there, from industrial skills strategy. So, how we help rebalance economies at large right through to that kind of, you know, notion of what jobs are going to be created and how do people flex into that. I think one of the weirdest things I heard from an organisation a few years ago. So, they were reducing the number of jobs, but for the people that remained, there would be better quality jobs. I'm in favour of better-quality jobs for the people that remained, but equally it's not going to help anyone pay their mortgage or rent if they're not in that group. So, it's a real challenge I think in that. Bertie?
BT: Yeah, I, I mean we do. We've got to continue helping people, helping our people grow, learn and build successful careers in whatever path that might go. There's a long way to go, I think in our organisations, even though the learning is all there, the research is all there to tell us what we need to do. But if we're going to get this right, we have to create different pathways for people and enable them to be able to tap into that.
DDS: Yeah, absolutely, Woosh?
WR: Do you know what we need to do? We need to let go of the notion; HR need to let go of the notion. We need to stop educating. We stop talking to our CEOs and stakeholders, of the notion that talent is going to be retained at the, like for a long time. So, I think we need to stop measuring, and I know this is really bold, retention because that links to your cost of living. Like, people are going to leave quicker because the world's a more difficult place. If you're going to get more money somewhere else, they're going to go and it's OK for that to happen, for people to support their families and their houses and their and have food on the table. And actually, for us, we have to get our organisation to be more agile in thinking about what talent looks like and how we can bring talent in and stop letting go of this, "the longer you stay somewhere" and all of that stuff. Yes, that comes with its benefits as well. But we're in a different market right now and I think we have.
DDS: Yeah.
WR: To kind of get on the front foot for this.
DDS: Completely. Bertie. Well, the story that caught your eye as you had probably quite a strong link to retention of talent and how it's looked after in the different ways organisations are looking at that.
BT: Yeah, absolutely. The headline for me was: "No more return to office". So, "London firms let more staff work from home full-time", by Bloomberg. Clearly a really well-worn path I think, this conversation amongst HR circles, but for me it's not going to go away anytime soon. At Collinson, my company, we're doing lots of really good stuff around this I think, but lots of lessons still to be learnt. Companies have a very clear reason why they want people in to work, but I think we also need to think about how we can give people a reason to come in as well and that this is a two-way exchange, again that more rewarding valuable work is part of it, making sure that our organisations remain much more social is also important. You know, the human-centred organisation is more prevalent today than it ever has been, and yet it almost feels like it's out of reach. Now we talk about hybrid, people communicating online through Zoom or Teams or what have you, that hasn't got rid of the social element of our organisations. But when they, when people do come in, the biggest problem for me isn't our workforce, whether or not they're coming in. It's that when they're in, our leadership and what I describe as a leadership deficit is a huge challenge because our leaders aren't equipped with the skills, techniques or even capabilities to be able to encourage people to want to come in in the first place. Personal view.
WR: Yeah, I think. I'm so glad you said "leadership deficit" here and I know we've all spoke about it. It's like about kind of what we do in an HR to equip leaders. Because it's not a good, easy message to go to your, like, senior leaders like, yeah, "you ain't got the skills to navigate this". What you're saying? Right. But you did it really well there, like you did it. Really.
DDS: I mean, there's a whole stakeholder management thing that we could do here. I wouldn't lead with it, but yeah.
BT: Yeah, but interesting. Interestingly, I do that in my own organisation, because we talk about this, we're quite forthright and what was interesting is when we do, everyone says, "yeah, I know what you mean. We, they do have a problem." And so, no-one. Everyone sides themselves away from the problem.
DDS: Yeah. And people management capability was a challenge pre-pandemic. So, you know, strong links to productivity. We knew that it was a challenge then. It's harder now than it's been. You've also got what's a really interesting shift, which is a lot of attention on hybrid working and the shifts there. But we know it doesn't impact the entire economy and that leadership capability and managerial capability being uplifted would benefit us right across the piece. But we can't have those conversations unless we're going to be, to your point, open and challenging and open with ourselves as well about what needs to change. Katie, you got any thoughts before we go on to the meaty topic of the day?
KO: Yeah, I do, actually. So, I very much feel that leadership is a duty and it's a duty that we all, that we all carry and it's. I think a lot of people think that leadership is a privilege, it's not. It's a responsibility and it's not one to wear lightly. And if you're not ready to take on that responsibility, you shouldn't be a leader and we need to make sure that there are lots of paths available to people who don't want to go down that route, where they can still progress their careers and we don't become accidental managers or leaders that aren't equipped to be able to do it. It's a really important role in an organisation, as is the role of a manager too, and I think not equipping people and putting the wrong people in those roles because it's the only opportunity for progression, that's what leads to this management deficit. But if you are a leader, it's really important to be able to step up in that you have to be out, you have to be talking to people, you have to be listening to what's going on in your organisation and you have to say "thank you". I mean the power of someone who is senior coming up to you and recognising and being specific about what you've done, what they've noticed and have a thank you for it that goes such a long way and if we're not doing that, then we're not in the right role. So, I really think that we need to make sure that everybody understands the role of a leader, how important it is and that it's just non-negotiable to be able to do those things.
DDS: Yeah, I said "thank you" to someone a few years ago, and I know that one time I did it, I know I had a massive impact. Bertie, some final thoughts on that?
BT: Yeah, it's just to sneak this one in very quickly. I think one of the big chasms that I still see is the is the gap really between the academic world and practitioners and actually consultants as well. Let's bring that, just triangulate that a little bit. There's so much research out there, whether that's coming from neuroscience or some of the business schools etc. We need to be bringing that in, particularly in relation to behavioural science and the link between behaviours and reward and because you know, it works for animals, works for dogs, works for people. Honestly, this stuff's still. You know, we're still apes without hair. It. There is so much to learn. I think if we can, if we can tap into this, it will really help our leaders understand what is it that they really need to do to make the difference.
DDS: At the CIPD, we ask for practitioners to be three things. We ask a lot of practitioners, actually, and that's what we're going to be talking about now. But we talk about being evidence-based and that talks to your point around needing to draw from those different sources of evidence and make connections there. We talk about being principles-led, so actually you can't just make any decision, there's a kind of code of conduct and ethics that sits behind this. But we also talk about being outcomes-driven. All of those three things, I think, are more demanding now than they were five to ten years ago. And that's not to say the job was easy five to ten years ago, several of the people sitting around here would have been doing it. But the world is moving on at a rapid pace. But equally, I think the diversity of things we're being asked to do is ever more challenging. That places more pressure on practitioners, both in terms of expectation and that expectation can come from others or that can come from yourself. And we know that it causes challenges around burnout and feelings around confidence for the profession at large. I want to have a really honest conversation about actually how it feels, what's shaping up, what we need to do differently? Katie, if I come to you first, is all that right?
KO: Yeah, definitely. The breadth of what we're asked to cover, as people leaders, is huge, maybe more so than almost any other function in the organisation. So, I think in some ways, just even acknowledging that we can't be experts in all of those areas is a great first step. What we have to be able to do is govern and manage and navigate through it and make sure the right things happen, and we have the right people around us. But there is often an expectation that we should be experts in every single area, and we should know all of the answers to things. And increasingly, work is getting more and more complex. And we don't need to know the answers to everything. What we need to do is be able to navigate through them and we don't navigate through things on our own. We have to navigate in partnership.
One of the things that I always find really important is that we, as professionals, should be business leaders who have an expertise in people and in talent. We are, we have a responsibility around ensuring that we're doing all the right things to support the organisation to be able to achieve a strategy. Talent is a really massive part in being able to do that, but we can only do that effectively if we understand, commercially, what the organisation is doing, what the rest of our counterparts on the C-Suite [phonetic] are trying to achieve and we can help figure out the right way to be able to do that collectively, in partnership with the CFO, in partnership with the other leaders to make sure that we are getting to that right end result. And I think the expectations about being a lot more commercial, understanding the business strategy as much as we do the people strategy, that's an emerging.
I know we've been talking about a seat at the table for years, but it's an emerging requirement in that it's not a "nice to have", we shouldn't be people leaders first who understand a bit of the commercial, we are business leaders who understand people and use that to be able to help the organisation be more effective and build a great environment for people and that is a fundamental shift, to me and it moves us away from that requirement to, the older way of doing things, where we're more of a compliance function or an administrative function. We shouldn't be that. Yes, we have to make sure we're compliant. Yes, we have to make sure people don't do things that are illegal. Yes, we have to make sure that the administrative pieces are done. And yes, we have to make sure that we're advocating for employees needs and rights. But we have to do so with a commercial lens.
WR: So, can I just, you know, that "seat at the table" thing, right? Oh my God.
KO: I know.
WR: Literally, I'm so over it.
DDS: I'm glad you 've said that.
WR: We have got a seat at the bloody. Like, I am bored of this. It's like we need to use that seat at the table to do things that only we can do.
KO: Yes.
WR: Like having a seat at the table is, and you're so right, it's a shift, right it's not just about, I don't know, "we want to make all these massive issues and redundancies whatever". All "Yes, Sir. Yes, Sir. Three bags full". The current. It's in the profession map, I think, "courage to challenge", isn't it? And "courage to challenge" is like key. But I don't think we do enough of that in our profession. I think we need to be braver and bolder when we have that seat at that table, we've got the seat at the table. Do you know what I mean? Like we've got this seat at the table, we just need to actually do something like to champion the people who work in our organisations, and I think that we are still finding our feet in the profession around this. Like I don't think it's consistent.
DDS: Katie, I'm just, there was something that you said that I thought was really interesting, was around working in partnership. And you talked about all of those partnerships kind of internally and you've talked about doing things together. And I actually think there's a real challenge for the profession to come together, if only because some of these jobs are some of the most emotionally demanding, isolated and lonely jobs that anyone can do in an organisation. Bertie, I know, you know, we were all chatting beforehand, but you know, we talked about the level of issue that people can have to deal with, how emotionally draining that can be. Don't know if we, I think it'd be a really good place to take the conversation actually, to kind of bring it into not just the changing impacts of HR and the shape of the job, but actually the changing demands on people doing the thing, yeah?
BT: On us, right. You know, us three in this room are all practitioners and we feel it. And for people coming through their career, no matter what level you are in your organisation in HR. I've got a little bit of bad news is things aren't going to get any better. I don't want to paint dark cloud actually
WR: No, but it's true.
BT: Because this is the opportunity for us. But we have to recognise that all roads in businesses come back to talent and cash. Those two things ultimately. And when it comes to talent, the Board sit. I sit on a Board and people in this room do. The Board will look around and say, "how can you solve these challenges for us?" And I think your point around, Woosh, around being bold is really important. I can't tell you the number of times where I've had to almost be prepared to put my job on the line because it's something that I believe in. Now that's scary. I've got, I've got commitments, security, family, all that kind of stuff that I have to protect. But it's one of those things that in a, unusually across all professions, that's one that we have to be able to stand behind that integrity. And I find that, there's the saying, "It's always lonely at the top." I tell you what, it actually really is. It is because you're there for your CEOs, we're there for our CFOs. If we share too much of the negative thoughts and feelings that we have, the challenges that we're experiencing with our team. It's almost like it's the end of the world, so they start to panic themselves. And yeah, "if you're feeling like that. Oh my gosh". So, we almost don't have anywhere to turn and increasingly I'm understanding the real power our profession holds, from the boardroom to the broom cupboard, of being able to be more vulnerable.
WR: I love that.
BT: In our conversations and relationships.
WR: I love it. And you're so right. I mean, I, oh, my God. So much of what you've said just resonates with my, with where I'm at. OK. I'm sure you probably feel this as well. We hold so much and that's what I think we need to be talking in the profession more, and we're not talking about it and like, that's the thing that I feel like is such a game-changer. Even this conversation is cathartic because, like, you know, a problem shared is a problem halved. We know that we're not good at doing that, though in the profession because we think we have all the answers, or we need to have all the answers, and we don't. We don't have all the answers right now. And that's OK to say that. And if we say that our leaders will start to recognise that as well, but that takes courage and that's a difficult path to navigate.
DDS: Yeah, and every everyone in this, everyone in this room, everyone part of this chat we're, you know, we're established in our careers at this point, but actually that loneliness can hit, and that challenge can hit at every part of your career. In fact, you know, in the early parts, you know, you've also got the uncertainty of, "I've never faced this before" happening on a far more frequent basis. But equally the impact of your actions, whether it's having to sit down in a room with someone who's suffered a bereavement, whether it's having to explain to someone that they're not going to get the promotion they want or even, you know, they're not going to continue to be employed. They're hugely emotionally draining topics.
BT: They are and you know what? It's not worries me, but I actually feel I've done a lot of work around my personal purpose and that is; truly leaving a lasting impact on the changing world of work, and one that I'll hopefully one day when I'm dead, I'll be remembered for.
WR: And the hats.
BT: And the hats, yeah.
DDS: For context, Bertie's wearing a hat. So, there aren't visuals on this and that would make no sense for anyone outside this room, but there are two things we're hoping, when he passes away, that he's remembered for; impacts in the world of work and the hats.
BT: My hats, yeah. But I'm determined that, you know, we're in this position now, like we are in this room, we're discussing these challenges, we have to change this for people coming up through the profession, right? Because the world of work is just not going to get any better or any easier. So, part of that, I think, is making sure we start to push our leadership teams when they turn around to us and say, "this is, what are you're doing about this in HR?". It's not because they're trying to, I believe, trying to put everything on our doorstep. It's because they don't know how to cope.
WR: And how to deal with it, yeah.
BT: These are challenges that they don't know how to cope with either. And I think part of what we can do to change this situation and start to improve it is actually, is instead of pretending that we do know the answer is to turn it around and say, "how are we going to deal with this? Because this is our challenge, collectively".
KO: I completely agree with that, and going back to the comment that you made in terms of these are lonely roles that I think this is. It's a lonely profession and we are here. We are the rock for everybody else. So, we're there to support everyone else and then there's nowhere else to go. Bertie, as you said, you can't talk to your team about some of the things that are, that you might be privy to. A lot of the things that we are working through with employees, we also can't talk about. They're deeply private things and very demanding topics that often we haven't been trained for as professionals as well. We're trying to play multiple different roles and there's a lot that we can't talk about. And then because we are so used to keeping the right things appropriately private, we then don't talk about things too, and sometimes I mean, I know something that has been really valuable for me is reaching out to peers in the profession as well. And obviously we don't share anything that's commercially sensitive or that's sensitive for an individual. But to be able to talk about similar themes of things that are coming up and realise that you're not alone, there are other people who are navigating through it and to hear different ideas of how people have managed to resolve certain items or where they're focusing can be so valuable. I've personally found it very, very valuable, when there isn't anyone else to talk to around those different elements.
BT: I had, I had the most beautiful, Kate, the most beautiful moment, literally about two weeks ago, the head of our CRG, our LGBTQ+ community. I was walking into the lift, actually having a cracking day and he walked up to me. He said, "you all right?" I said, "yeah", he said and we, small talk. He said, "you look like you've just been crying". I mean, I absolutely hadn't. And he said, "I was going to give you a hug then" and I went, "well, why don't you give me a hug anyway?" And we had a hug, a random hug in the hall, and I can't tell you. It's really strange, right? It's just a hug and I was already having a good day, but I felt even better because someone asked me twice how I felt and they were really, really concerned and interested. My gosh, that was immense for me, even to, I'm talking about it today, but it's also a lesson for me in leadership.
WR: I think. I love that we have this chat, and I love that you shared that example, Bertie, because I think, you know, men in particular need to be more vulnerable in the workplace and that was a great example of what you just shared. But I do think we are look, back to your point around what's coming on our, around our desk, we've got trauma coming into our spaces that we've never had to deal with before in the profession, right? So, I mean, yeah, that's really tough, bereavement is really, I mean that of course all of that is difficult, but I've had to deal with suicide. I've had to actually be on the phone to the police last year, to go to an employee's house to, because that employee expressed suicidal ideation, and you know. I come from a background, psychiatry, mental health so I was able to remember some bits and pieces from my back then, but counselling and mental health, I think it's so, there's so much of that coming through our kind of, you know, our desk and I think we, if we can't if we don't get it right with like connecting with each other now we have to start doing that.
DDS: And I think that's, I think that's the point, isn't it? It's the difficulty of things coming across the desk, the intensity of that as well. It's then actually as a community, how do you form the bonds that you need for support, how do you make sure that you've actually got the right information that you need to act as confident as you can do? It's also, and I think conversations like this are really important. It's also being really open that everyone feels like that. Kind of one of the most enduring memories from the pandemic was chatting to a series of HR directors. All they needed to know was actually that other people were feeling the same way too. Because to that point around, you know, loneliness and isolation. It's really easy to feel, actually, because the expectations are so high, that it's impossible to meet them. Katie, I'm going to give you the final word and then we'll wrap up for today. I know like loads of pressure on there as well.
KO: I wasn't expecting it to be the final word.
DDS: So, I'm just. I'm just making the work environment even worse for you - live on a podcast.
KO: I wasn't expecting it to be the final word. I was just going to add to that to say I think sometimes we feel a lot of guilt as well and that these issues aren't directly happening to us. They are very emotional and intense, but we feel guilty about having a reaction to that and saying that it's actually difficult for us because we're too busy wanting to make sure that person is safe or we're helping the families navigate through what they need to. So, I think that that guilt thing is a really important thing because we're quite good at compartmentalising in general, but letting people know it's OK to feel anything that they're feeling, that is OK. I think if you then add the, those different pressures that are coming through and those topics that we're dealing with, with also going back to the earlier comments around how the role is changing as well and that we have to also make sure that we understand commercially what we're doing and that we're having a role to play in that and we should have an opinion on different parts of the business and what's happening from a strategic standpoint. Those are a lot of things. We're asking people to, you know, navigate high, navigate low, be able to deal with lots of different, very intense topics all at once. And I think we as a profession need to understand how we can reach out and support each other more as we go through that.
DDS: Absolutely, and you'll see more from us through the year that's focused directly on the profession. It's utterly something that we recognise, a greater focus from us will benefit the profession as a whole. We want it to feel like home. We want it to feel like the place that you go to connect to people that are discovering new ways to do things, as well as discovering different ways to cope or places that they might need support. I'd like to thank you all for the conversation today. I think it's an absolute critical one for us to have and for bringing such interesting news stories to us as well. Bertie, I hope you're with us for some while longer, actually, that sounds morbid, but as part of this conversation.
BT: I will be. I thought you were my friends.
DDS: Couple of reminders from me. One is that we'll be putting this out to you on a regular basis and I hope that you'll continue to enjoy the conversation. Secondly, as the CIPD, Bertie mentioned it earlier, it's really important that that evidence base is brought to light. If you go to www.cipd.org, you'll be able to find a range of things that we already do for you, and information on more stuff that will be coming soon, but otherwise thank you to our guests and we look forward to you listening again soon.
BT: Thank you so much.
WR: Thanks everyone.
KO: Thank you.
In our first pilot episode, host David D'Souza, the CIPD's Director of Profession, welcomes Woosh Raza, Executive Director of People Culture and Inclusion at NCVO, Katie Obi, Chief People Officer at One Advanced and Bertie Tonks, Chief People Officer at Collinson to the panel as we discuss whether Gen Z are ‘lazy’, the unintended consequences of a rising minimum wage, whether more organisations are letting people work from home full-time and take a deeper dive into the growing demands on the profession.
Recorded: 10 May 2024
A place to learn, debate and connect with other HR and L&D professionals
We offer a range of ways to stay connected,from events to networking, workshops and webinars.
Listen to episodes from our CIPD Ireland Podcast Series on a range of topical workplace, HR and L&D issues
Listen nowWhat are the barriers that stand in the way of achieving 'good work', and which need to be addressed as a priority?
Listen nowWork for many has become simply a means of income. If this means disengagement with the employer’s purpose or values, then what?
Is the traditional HR operating model still fit-for-purpose or do we need to consider a new model?