ben

The ability to work flexibly is one of the top five priorities when choosing a job for 24 per cent of people rising to 32 per cent for millennials, according to research from Great Place to Work®. Yet despite its popularity, not all employers offer flexible working and if they do there is often a mismatch between what employees want and what they offer. For example, flexitime is important for 45 per cent of employees but only 37 per cent of employers offer it meaning employers risk losing out on talent. 

Flexible working can be as much about the needs of the business as it is about employees. Providing a range of flexible working options means organisations can improve attraction, retention and performance levels; offer customers a more competitive global, 24 hour service and reduce costs through downsizing office space.

What makes flexible working successful for some organisations but not for others? Great Place to Work® analysed the data from a sample of organisations and compared the findings to top performing organisations such as the UK’s Best Workplaces. They found that, whilst technology is indeed a great enabler, if other factors are either missing or poor, flexible working is less likely to be successful. The research identified six critical factors: 

 

• Trust
• Organisational culture
• Management
• Performance management
• Technology
• Resources

 

The most important of these is trust. 

Trust 

The level of trust in organisations varies from a low 55 per cent in the average organisation to a high 85 per cent in top performing organisations like the UK’s Best Workplaces. In high trust organisations employers put the needs of their employees first rather than the business and consequently tend to offer a more comprehensive range of flexible working options; in low trust organisations employees often feel they are expected to put the business’s needs ahead of their own . It is therefore no surprise that just 22 per cent of average organisations offer working from home compared to 75 per cent of Best Workplaces. Whilst it is fairly self-evident that employers need to trust that employees are indeed working when they say they are working from home, a trusting culture goes beyond this.  For example, high trust organisations tend to be more supportive of employees’ work/life balance. In the average organisation only 48 per cent of employees felt they were encouraged to balance their work and personal lives compared to 76 per cent at Best Workplaces. Managers in high trust organisations tend to trust employees more to get on with their jobs; the manager who constantly looks over his employees’ shoulders when they’re working in the office is less likely to trust them when they are working from home. 

 

	Average organisation (Trust levels 55 per cent)	Best-in-class organisations (Trust levels 85 per cent)
Offer working from home	22%	75%
Encourage work/life balance	48%	76%
Managers trust employees to do their job without looking over their shoulders	63%	88%
Managers avoid favouritism	38%	72%
Employees are able to take time off from work when necessary	62%	88%

Hand-in-hand with trust is fairness. In some organisations employees see other teams having more favourable flexible working terms than they do. This could either be a legacy from a previous manager, individual managers’ interpretation of their flexible working policies, or managers’ differing attitudes towards flexible working. For example, the research found that flexible working and work-life balance were less important to directors and managers compared to non-managers and supervisors. Here role modelling with senior leaders working flexibly can send an important message to an organisation’s workforce. For example, Capital One’s CIO, Rob Harding, started to lead the way by creating space to pursue coaching accreditation and music and language qualifications. This dramatically shifted the mind-set of his leadership team, particularly as he does not have children, reinforcing the message that flexible working is for all.

 

Performance management

Line-managers ultimately bear a large responsibility for the successful management of flexible working for which many are often ill-equipped. Indeed, such are the recognised difficulties of managing a remote workforce that there is a growing range of supporting resources. But fundamental to all types of working, flexible or otherwise, is the setting between manager and employee of clear objectives, deliverables and timeframes. Here the focus is on performance and outcomes with work being done anywhere it suits best the person delivering them, rather than on inputs such as face-time in the office. 

With the growing change in demographics and life styles, flexible working is likely to become more widespread. This could go hand-in-hand with other expected trends as more Millennials enter the workplace such as flatter and less hierarchical organisational structures and a focus on delivery and individual performance. Whatever the trends, trust will always be important.  Organisations with high-trust cultures will be best placed to maximise the benefits flexible working offers. 

Helen Wright is the Marketing and Communications Manager at Great Place to Work. 

Contact us for more information.

 

Where does Brexit leave HR?

The UK has voted to leave the EU following last week’s referendum. David Cameron has announced that he will be stepping down as Prime Minister by October 2016, which means a new Prime Minister will be responsible for invoking Article 50 and negotiating with the EU the terms of its withdrawal.

Since the outcome, businesses have been faced with uncertainty and volatility in the markets while HR leaders are trying to understand what ‘Brexit’ means for their employees. The decision to leave the EU means that many employers with EU workers or those who have offices in EU countries ‘could potentially face the introduction of expensive new policies, as well as major changes to the UK employment law and how UK reacts to European court decisions in employment cases.’

There are also concerns that many businesses in the UK have not made adequate preparations for this result – but Peter Cheese of the CIPD suggests that the immediate aftermath of ‘Brexit’ might be minimal as it will take a few years for any major changes to set in. “For most businesses, the immediate impact of this historic decision will be limited as major changes won’t be able to occur for a while. However, employment law, immigration and the ability of employers to bring the right skills they need into their business were key themes focused on in the campaign that will potentially be subject to change going forwards, and these things will no doubt be on employers’ minds”, he said.

 

A European approach for a ‘collaborative economy’

Pre-Brexit, the European Commission launched its guidelines for the ‘collaborative economy’ (also known as the ‘gig economy’) – warning individual member states that ‘placing bans and restrictions on businesses such as Uber and Airbnb should be used only as a measure of last resort.’ The report found that the ‘collaborative economy’ has now reached €28bn (£21.6bn) in 2015 across the EU, double the collective gross for a year earlier. In the UK alone, the sharing economy was estimated to be worth £0.5bn in 2014, and by 2025 PwC forecasts the sector’s worth to hit £9bn.

The report also suggests that new models of the ‘collaborative economy’ can deliver significant benefits if managed responsibly and that Europe should be open to embracing these new opportunities. However, Jyrki Katainen, vice president of the Commission warned that while these new business models can make an important contribution to jobs and growth in the EU, “it is clear that the collaborative economy cannot be a way to abuse labour neither is it a way to avoid paying tax.” Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the TUC, said a lack of firm regulation from the top would pave the way for rogue employment practices in this growing market. “The sharing economy creates exciting new opportunities, but it has to be fair for all and not a free-for-all. Companies like Uber should not be allowed to dodge the responsibilities other employers have,” she said. 

 

National living wage blamed for low-hiring intentions amongst retailers

The National Living Wage (NLW), which came into effect on 1 April 2016 seems to be having an impact on retailers’ hiring intentions for the next five years. Research from the recruitment firm Manpower has revealed that one-third of UK retailers intend to limit the number of new staff they recruit as they ‘mitigate an increased wage bill.’ According to the group’s latest net employment outlook – which calculates the difference between the proportion of employers intending to increase or decrease staff levels  – employment prospects in the retail, wholesale and hospitality sectors dropped four points to +3 per cent, the weakest level since the first quarter of 2014. 

The report based on survey results from 2,110 employers also suggested that a British exit from the EU could leave organisations ‘critically short’ of skilled workers, as EU workers would no longer be able to move freely to the UK. However, Chris Rowley, professor of HR at Cass Business School, said it would be difficult to foresee how jobs in the UK would be affected post-Brexit. “Like all the other areas in the Brexit debate, it is impossible to predict with any degree of certainty how UK employment may change. The most likely scenario is business-as-usual in the short term, as rules are unlikely to change dramatically in a sudden, radical departure from the status quo,” he said.

 

The IPA has an important role to play in shaping the world of work.

I want to say a bit about why I believe Involvement and Participation are so important at work, and a bit about Labour’s agenda for the workplace. I’ve always believed there is both a pragmatic and a moral case for involvement at work. It is head and heart if you will.

First, let us deal with the pragmatic case.

There is a wealth of evidence of the importance of employee involvement. It is linked to positive outcomes for both employers and employees. There is evidence across all sectors that employee engagement is positively linked to both employee satisfaction and organisational success. It is truly a win-win.

Take productivity; something that is particularly important at the moment. It is clear that the UK is in the grip of a growing productivity crisis. Productivity really matters. If we are to compete in an increasingly globalised marketplace; and if we are to boost living standards sustainably, we need to boost productivity.

But productivity has flat-lined since the last recession. A blip following an economic shock is not unusual. But the duration of this stall is unprecedented. Productivity has barely budged in eight years. It’s the longest stall in decades. This is the root cause of the squeeze in wages that working people have experienced over the last few years; the longest squeeze since Gladstone was in power. And the stall has led to a yawning gap between ourselves and the G7. The average worker in Germany and in France produces more in four days than the UK average worker does in five. If we are in a ‘global race’, then we are falling behind.

Now there are many causes of the productivity crisis. It’s a complex problem and it defies simple solutions. But it is clear that employee involvement can be part of the solution. As the IPA report showed earlier this year; there is extensive evidence of a link between involvement and productivity.

-From national surveys

-From behavioural experiments

-From the experiences of large employers like BAE 

The evidence IPA highlighted in their productivity report is fascinating. But if you think about it, it’s quite obvious really. Employees are the ones at the coal-face. They understand the organisation, its products and services; its customers and suppliers, its strengths and weaknesses; its processes and how they can be improved. And employees are human beings; they wanted to be treated fairly, to be given a say and involved in decision-making. If you treat employees well and engage with them effectively, you’ll get more out of them.

I visited Xtrac in Berkshire last week.  It’s a world leading company that specialises in producing transmissions for formula one, motor racing generally and high end sports cars.  It’s got the contract to supply the Indy 500, and Nascar in the states and it’s a big exporter to Europe. The interesting thing is that it was started as a management buyout with the workforce owning a significant chunk of the shares.  I have no doubt that the continuing success of the company and its high levels of productivity owes a lot to the philosophy of involving the workforce in the running of the business.

The Government’s solution to the productivity crisis leaves a great deal to be desired. This is a serious challenge to our economy, and it requires some serious thought. But as the Chair of the cross-party Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee my friend and colleague Iain Wright MP said, it is a ‘vague collection of existing policies’ which risks ‘collecting dust on a Whitehall bookshelf’. In the absence of any effective measures to address this challenge, Angela, myself and colleagues in the Labour Party will be looking to develop practical proposals that can address the productivity crisis and deliver the shared, sustainable growth that we need.

We look forward to further IPA work in contributing to this important debate.

We know that trade unions can play a vital role in our modern economy. They are a force for fairness. And one of the great ironies is that trade unions can help deliver what the Tory Government claim they want to see. They want to move towards a high pay, high skill, and high productivity economy. Trade unions, through boosting the bargaining power of working people, help boost pay. Through the work of union learning reps up and down the country, trade unions can help address skills gaps. And trade unions can help boost productivity too. Just look at our world-beating car industry or our pioneering aerospace sector, where high levels of productivity go along side high levels of employee involvement and union membership.

Instead of attacking the union movement, we believe the Government should be working with it on shared challenges. That is, after all, the approach that is often taken in unionised workplaces.

Partnership working, where employers and unions work together to improve both the experience of work and the performance of the organisation has immense potential benefits for both sides. Just look at the responsible way in which the Trade unions have made the case for steel – working with employers to press the Government and to ensure a future for the industry. But employee involvement is of course about much more than just trade unions. 

There are many ways in which employers can involve and engage their staff at work; from staff forums to social media. I found IPA’s report on social media and employee voice particularly fascinating. The technology has huge potential for engaging with staff and giving them a voice. It is by nature collaborative and bottom-up. It allows for innovation, interaction and creativity. But this potential is all too often under-used. While organisations often tend to use social media extensively to engage with customers and stakeholders, its use internally has been much more limited. I hope that the rest can learn from the best here. But as I mentioned earlier, while there is a strong practical argument for the importance of employee voice and involvement, I believe there is a compelling moral case too.

Many of us spend the majority of our waking hours at work. The quality of that work, and indeed the extent of involvement and job control, can have a significant impact over an individual’s health and mental health. 

Work shapes entire communities and is one of the bedrocks of our very society. Why is it that we should be given a say in all aspects of our lives, other than at work? Why is it that democracy should stop at the factory gates? I want to say a bit about Labour’s agenda for the workplace.

Last year the Labour Party suffered a devastating defeat. We’re now in a process of rebuilding. A crucial part of this process is learning the lessons from our defeat last year, so that we don’t make the same mistakes again. We need to broaden our focus. Our offer on the world of work contained many good things – understandably focussing on those at the bottom of the labour market. But we need to say more to the majority of the workforce.

While addressing the issue of zero-hours contracts and the Living Wage is important, we need to have a wider offer. As well as understanding where we need to change, we need to understand how the world of work has changed, is changing and indeed will go on to change.

We are on the brink of what some have called the fourth industrial revolution. Significant advances in robotics, in digital and in big data will transform the world of work beyond all recognition. These changes have huge disruptive power; they will create millions of jobs. But they will destroy millions of jobs too.

We now have the world’s largest taxi firm – Uber – which doesn’t own a single taxi. And the world’s largest accommodation firm – Air BnB – doesn’t own a single hotel.

We’re seeing the emergence of a new form of work in what’s known as the gig economy. With workers nominally self-employed, but effectively dependent on a platform to provide them with work. This all raises fundamental questions for the world of work; -How do we achieve the right balance between flexibility and security at work.

-How can unions adapt in order to stay relevant in a changing world of work?

-How can we help young people prepare for a world of work which is so difficult to predict today?

-How do we help those whose jobs and livelihoods are threatened retrain for the new jobs that will be available?

-How can the welfare state adapt in order to meet people’s need and provide flexible support?

We look forward to working with businesses and other employers, with working people and with unions, with academics and experts to examine these questions and develop a way forward. I want to finish by turning to the EU referendum.

Kevin Brennan (@KevinBrennanMP) is the Member of Parliament (MP) for Cardiff West and Shadow Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills. 

You can download IPA’s reports – Involvement and Productivity – The missing piece of the puzzle?  and ‘Going Digital? Harnessing social media for employee voice – on our website – www.ipa-involve.com.

 

Following last week’s vote for Brexit this will be a difficult time for many UK businesses. It is vital that employees are receiving clear and reassuring leadership and feel properly involved in any important decisions being taken. The UK government should also take steps to reassure employees that the rights at work which they currently enjoy will not be undermined in leaving the EU. The IPA stands ready to assist employers in improving employee involvement and engagement during the turbulent times ahead.

Following last week’s vote for Brexit and the accompanying uncertainty for the UK economy it brings, this will be a difficult time for many UK businesses. This sense of uncertainty and anxiety will be shared not only by business leaders, but also by employees in a great many workforces across the country. Now, more than ever, it is important to make sure that employees are receiving clear and reassuring leadership and communication and feel properly involved in any important decisions that are taken about the future of their organisation. A failure to properly engage with employees during this critical period could have serious repercussions, with them feeling cut adrift in a sea of uncertainty, leading to lower productivity, higher turnover and absenteeism and further compounding the risks and problems faced by the organisation.

The next government will need to take immediate steps to provide reassurance and support to UK businesses and the UK workforce alike. In particular it is vital that the government either commits to retaining the current protections for employees provided by Social Europe, or outlines a clear framework for how it plans to replace them in UK law. The areas where the EU has strengthened individual workplace rights over the previous four decades include; stronger rights for women and working parents, guarantees over working time and holidays, protection against discrimination, equal treatment for ‘atypical’ workers and regulations such as TUPE which offer protection for employees being transferred to a different employer or those facing redundancy. In addition, the EU has been fundamental in extending and enshrining health and safety regulations in the UK. Finally, the EU has strengthened rights surrounding collective voice at work via the Information and Consultation Directive and the right to request European Works Councils in large multinationals operating across EU member states.

We can expect in the coming days and months to hear calls from some quarters to repatriate and, ultimately, consider the repeal of some of these regulations on the grounds of reducing ‘red tape’ that supposedly burdens small businesses in the UK. The Working Time Directive, TUPE and anti-discrimination legislation are areas considered to be at particular risk of repeal or watering down. However, as the IPA has argued previously on the question of EU employment regulation, “repatriation is fraught with difficulties and there is no reason to believe that the UK would be able to retain full access to the single market without applying the same rules. There is little compelling evidence to suggest that repatriating control over employment protection would lead to a significant boost in productivity. And although the impact of repatriating social and employment law is inherently unknowable, there is a clear risk that it could lead to a diminution of employment rights which would harm working people.” 

Rather than acting so as to threaten the rights of working people, both the current caretaker government and the new government, when it takes office, should act to provide reassurance to employees that, regardless of whether they continue to come from EU law or are replaced with new variants in UK law, the individual and collective rights which they currently enjoy will not ultimately be undermined. Indeed, measures should be taken to boost employee voice; both within their individual workplaces so as to give employees confidence in and influence over the direction their organizations are going to take through these challenging times, and also on the national level so that employees collectively, through organisations such as the TUC, are given a proper role in influencing the national debate over the months ahead about the future direction of our country as a whole. 

The IPA, as the UK’s leading organisation delivering partnership, consultation and employee engagement in the workplace, is dedicated to providing support, guidance and training to employers and employee representatives alike, to ensure the foundations are in place to support employee engagement whatever the future may bring. The IPA will also be conducting a key research project into ‘Leadership during Turbulent Times’, to explore how capable leaders can successfully guide their organisations through stressful periods. We will also be looking at the future of the workplace through two major research projects; one looking at the relationship between technology, automation and employee influence and engagement over their introduction into the workplace, the other looking at the rise of non-traditional working such as self-employment, agency staffing and remote working, and what can be done to improve the engagement and involvement of and protect the rights of these groups.

If you are interested in more information about how the IPA could support your organisation in the weeks and months ahead, either through training and consultancy services or through your participation in our research study into successful leadership, please get in touch via [email protected] or call us on 0207 759 1000.

Patrick Brione is the Head of Policy and Research at the IPA. If you would like to discuss IPA’s research programme, you can get in touch with Patrick via: [email protected]

Increase in home-working over the past decade – TUC analysis

According to analysis published by the TUC, the number of employees who say that they usually work from home has increased by 19 per cent over the past decade. The research shows that nearly a quarter of a million (241,000) people work from home now. Regular home working has gone up amongst women employees, with 35 per cent (157,000) more working from home in 2015 than in 2005. However, the majority of homeworkers seem to be men – around 912,000 men regularly worked from home in 2015, compared with 609,000 women. Older workers are also more likely to work from home, with 454,000 in their forties and 414,000 in their fifties home-working. The South-West has the highest proportion of home workers in the UK (1 in 12), followed by the East of England (1 in 14), and the South-East (1 in 16). By contrast, Northern Ireland has the lowest proportion of home workers in the UK – just one in 48 employees regularly work at home. In terms of industries, IT, agriculture and construction had the highest share of home workers. TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said: “Modern home-working is good for the economy, as it helps businesses hold on to talented staff and boosts productivity…it allows those with caring responsibilities or a disability greater access to the jobs market…Such fundamental change towards home-working is recognised by increasing numbers of inspired, and more trusting employers”

 

Restaurant tipping practices to face Government regulation

The Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) has launched a consultation that includes proposals to ‘replace the hospitality sector’s current voluntary code of practice of gratuities with statutory regulation’ after investigations revealed that some big restaurant chains had unfair tipping policies, with allegations that management take a percentage of tips meant for staff. Business secretary Sajid Javid said he was disappointed by the tipping practices of some high street chains and is setting out proposals “to make tipping fairer.”

The consultation paper includes proposals to ‘update the current voluntary code of practice and put it on a statutory footing to increase employer compliance, increase transparency for consumers to make it clearer that suggested payment for service are discretionary and prevent or limit any employer deduction from discretionary payments for service.’ Unite’s Dave Turnbull said: “This is fantastic news. It has taken us [Unite] eight months to get this report to a conclusion but at long last it has had come down on the side of the waiting staff.” 

 

Thousands of new mums ‘forced out of jobs’ every year – Equality and Human Rights Commission

A new research report published by the Equality and Human Rights Commissions (EHRC) for the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) revealed that around one in nine mothers (11 per cent) reported that they were either dismissed or made compulsorily redundant or treated so poorly they felt they had to leave their job – almost twice the number identified in similar research undertaken in 2005. 

The report also revealed that 10 per cent of women said they were treated worse by their employer after returning to work after having baby while one in five new mothers (almost 100,000 mothers a year) experienced harassment or negative comments from colleagues, employer or manager when pregnant or returning from maternity leave. 7 per cent said they were put under pressure to hand in their notice and one in 20 reported receiving a cut in pay or bonus after returning to their job. Despite taking up the option of flexible working after returning to work, half said it diminished their work opportunities and felt that their opinion was less valued. Caroline Waters, Deputy Chair of the EHRC, said the report highlighted “worrying levels of discrimination and disadvantage at work that women still face.”

 

In the period leading up to the UK Government’s negotiations with Brussels last year, there was much speculation that one of the priorities in the UK’s bargaining agenda would be an opt-out from some EU employment law (for example, in relation to the Working Time Directive). However, this theme slipped off the negotiating table during 2015.

The CIPD will only ever take a position on any election or referendum if there is strong evidence that a particular outcome would clearly and directly affect our purpose of championing better work and working lives.  In the current in/out debate there are simply too many uncertainties that will not be clear until after the result of the referendum, and potentially sometime after then. We can, however, talk about how the world of work might be affected, and one of the issues of most relevance to HR and people development professionals that could be affected by a ‘leave’ vote is employment law. 

 

EU-derived employment regulation

A significant body of employment law in the UK derives from the EU, and over the past decades this has affected workers’ rights across the economy. For individual rights the main areas include working time and annual holidays, rights for women [e.g. equal pay], family friendly policies [e.g. pregnant workers, parental leave etc.], anti-discrimination legislation [e.g. equal treatment] and atypical workers [e.g. agency workers]. For collective rights, the main legislative areas relate to collective redundancies and TUPE, European Works Councils, and information and consultation. 

Typically, European law is initiated in Brussels through directives and, once agreed, transposed into national legislation across all of the member states. EU-derived law has been incorporated into UK law using a range of legal approaches including secondary legislation under the European Communities Act 1972 (eg TUPE) as well as through acts of Parliament (for example, the Equality Act).

 

What would happen if there was a ‘leave’ vote?

A vote to leave the EU could, in theory, allow the review or repeal of legislation that came out of EU directives, although this would depend on the terms of any future relationship between the EU and the UK.  There may well be practical difficulties associated with any attempt to disentangle EU-derived law, especially where case law has drawn on domestic courts’ interpretation of EU Directives and on ECJ rulings.  There could also be questions about the desirability of such an exercise in areas where EU-derived legislation is regarded as beneficial.

An article on the CIPD’s HR-inform site by Anthony Fincham (partner and head of employment at CMS Cameron McKenna LLP) says that the UK ‘would be sailing into unchartered waters if it were to leave the European Union, including in the area of employment law’. The author points to the ‘whole swathe of national employment legislation that incorporate EU rights and principles that will remain unaffected by Brexit unless, and until, these laws are repealed.’ He makes the point that a UK Government would be unlikely to remove protections in the workplace against discrimination, or scrap the principle of equal pay, as its own legislation pre-dates the UK joining the EU.

Analysis by legal experts Lewis Silkin concludes that very little would change: EU-derived law is so embedded in UK law that it would be very complex to unpick, and would typically require new legislation. To some extent, what happens to UK employment law ‘will depend upon how the Government tries to extricate itself from the EU’, says the article: European law has been incorporated into UK law in a number of ways including secondary legislation, which are regulations introduced under powers granted by the European Communities Act 1972 (the statute enacted to incorporate EU law). Other UK implementing legislation, such as the Equality Act is primary legislation, so an act of Parliament itself. ‘If the Government simply repealed the European Communities Act, those regulations passed under it like TUPE would probably fall away’ says Lewis Silkin, while freestanding acts of Parliament, such as the Equality Act, would remain in force. ‘A more realistic approach following an exit from the EU would be to maintain the status quo and start addressing particular laws individually over time; this could be by repealing them or merely tinkering’ say the authors.

There is also the important question of case law, and what would happen to precedents already set by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and European Court of Justice (ECJ). In the view of Lewis Silkin: 

‘On leaving the EU, the ECJ would no longer have jurisdiction and its future decisions would not be binding on UK courts. It seems likely, however, that if we retain any laws originating from the EU (which is probable) our courts would still take account of future ECJ judgments as persuasive, albeit not binding, when ruling on those laws. In that case, the ECJ would continue to exert an appreciable influence.’

Another perspective to bear in mind regarding the effect of a ‘leave’ vote leave on UK employment law relates to the negotiation of any future trading agreement with the EU. For example, countries such as Switzerland and Norway, which are not part of the EU, have trade agreements with the EU which involve adherence to substantial amounts of EU-derived employment law.

 

Rachel Suff is a Public Policy Adviser (Employment Relations) at CIPD

The IPA published a report examining how the EU has influenced rights at work in the UK. You can download the report on our website – www.ipa-involve.com

The ‘Working Future 2014 – 2024’ report – Key Findings 

The UKCES published its ‘Working Futures 2014 – 2024’ report this month. It provides an overview of the UK labour market, its future size and share ‘by considering employment prospects by industry, occupation, qualification level, gender and employment status.’ 

The report shows that the primary sector and utilities is expected to grow only modestly between 2014 and 2024, which will lead ‘to a decline in employment over the course of the decade.’ A similar forecast is predicted for the manufacturing industry, which is expected to grow at a slower rate than the wider economy over the next decade, having an impact on productivity and employment. The public administration, health and education sector is expected to grow at a much slower pace in the medium term due to budget cuts. However, the ‘job losses in the first half of the period are expected to be more than offset as employment growth picks up between 2019 and 2024’. The construction sector is expected to grow faster than any of the other sectors, in both output and employment terms, due to increased public and private investment. The business and services sector is expected to increase its output and employment more slowly compared with what was seen between 2004 and 2014, though still above the economy average. Finally, the trade, accommodation and transport sector is expected to grow at a pace similar to the economy average, whilst employment will grow a little faster than average. 

 

First all-out strike action by junior doctors

In the first industrial action of its kind, thousands of junior doctors went on strike for two days this week as the disagreement over the Government’s new contracts continues. 

The Government wants to change the contracts of junior doctors as part of a series of proposals ‘to create a truly seven-day-NHS.’ The Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt claims that a lack of senior staff working in hospitals at weekends means that ‘patients are 15 per cent more likely to die if they are admitted on a Sunday compared with a Wednesday,’ though this figure has been strongly contested by the BMA. The Government has offered junior doctors a basic pay rise of 13.5 per cent during their regular working hours in exchange for reducing overtime payments for working evenings and weekends. The Government has also promised to restrict maximum hours to “make care safer for patients.”

However, junior doctors say that the new contract would put patient safety at risk and that they “already work weekends and evenings.” The new contracts have been described as being discriminatory to women, especially single mothers. The BMA junior doctors committee chair, Johann Malwana has urged the Government to “lift the imposition” so talks between the two parties can resume. 

 

UK Steel Crisis: Port Talbot Steelworks

Tata Steel is planning to close down its UK arm after making substantial losses over a number of years. This could result in 15, 000 job losses at Port Talbot steelworks. Tata Steel’s UK boss, Bhimlendra Jha said the company has not set a “fixed deadline” to find a buyer, amid concerns that there may not be enough time to find one. However, Jha warned that Tata “cannot continue to bleed” and that there remained “serious question marks about the viability of Port Talbot”. 

Jha said solving the pension problem was key to finding a buyer. Tata Steel has been paying more than £100m a year into the pension scheme to fund its liabilities. Mr Jha also said that the UK had “structural weaknesses around energy prices and business rates” which was impacting their steel business. The Business Secretary, Sajid Javid, has faced heavy criticism for his handling of the crisis, having admitted in hindsight that he should have gone to Mumbai for a crucial Tata Steel board meeting in March, but he responded by saying: “I will do everything in my power to help, but that is all I can do. I cannot change the price of steel globally. This is a big economic challenge for the country. I don’t want to live in a country where we have to import all our steel.”

 

Ideas of employee participation and voice have a long history as part of the search for positive employment relations.  In practice, participation can refer to a wide range of approaches ranging from employee involvement techniques such as profit sharing, quality circles and communication initiatives, to giving workers ownership and control of organisations. 

In between these two extremes is the pluralist idea of representative participation.  The central assumption is that differences of interest will inevitably arise in organisations, and effective employee representation can help regulate different interests.  Often representation has been provided by independent trade unions through collective bargaining and joint regulation of the employment relationship. Given the potential for differences of interest, relationships between employers and unions may be expected to be adversarial and antagonistic at times.  

However, there has also been increasing interest in developing more collaborative arrangements where employers and unions work together in support of the overall success of the organisation.  In some continental European nations, notably Germany, ideas of cooperation and dialogue between social partners on issues of labour and industrial management are enshrined in law, and embedded in notions of social democracy and industrial citizenship.  

In other countries, including the UK and US, such ideas are more novel.  In the UK, concerns with partnership can be traced to debates in the 1980s concerning ‘New Industrial Relations’. The 1992 IPA publication Towards Industrial Partnership captured many of the early ideas and debates, but it was not until the election of the Blair government of 1997 than partnership was firmly in the policy spotlight. In the US, partnership builds on concerns with the economic and productivity benefits of union-management cooperation, and the potential of labour management partnership to deliver mutual gains, often as part of a broader high performance work system.  Partnership has also attracted interest in other English-speaking nations, and was promoted in Australia as part of ‘best practice’ in the 1990s and also reappeared more recently during the Gillard government.  Public policy interest in partnership has also waxed and waned in the context of both Ireland and New Zealand.  

However, partnership has always divided opinion.  For some, partnership is the only feasible approach for contemporary trade unions and can deliver benefits for unions, employees and employers alike.  For others partnership is a bad idea and likely to further weaken trade unions and to deliver few benefits for their members. From this perspective, weak institutional and legal supports as well as a business focus on short-term financial results mean voluntary partnerships are always at risk of running aground.  Somewhere in between are commentators who believe that, while challenging, in the right conditions and with appropriate supports effective and enduring partnerships are possible at the enterprise level.  

The research evidence certainly lends support to this more nuanced view.  While labour management partnership may not be the dominant form of employment relations in countries such as the UK, US and Australia, ‘islands of success’ can be identified at the organisational level in each nation.  The important question, therefore, is no longer simply whether labour management partnership works or not, but why successful partnerships can – and do – develop in some organisational contexts but not others.  This was the motivation for our new edited book which offers comparative insights into labour management partnership in the UK, Ireland, US, Australia and New Zealand. 

It begins by outlining some of the key conceptual debates for and against partnership approaches, drawing primarily upon the British experience as this is where many of these debates have taken place.  It then evaluates the evolving public policy context for partnership in each nation, before presenting a detailed workplace level case study of partnership in practice in each national context.  The case studies of partnership in practice are diverse and include a British energy company, a US healthcare organisation, an Irish aluminium smelter, an Australian bank and a New Zealand dairy.  

A recurring theme is that where institutional supports are relatively weak compared to those of some continental European countries, it is normally up to employers and unions to initiate and sustain a partnership model.  Yet many of our workplace case studies demonstrate how ‘islands of partnership’ can survive even though the national context may be considered broadly unfavourable to enduring labour management cooperation.  Of course there might always be the temptation to abandon commitments to work in partnership when relationships encounter a bump in the road.  On the other hand, where actors have come together and invested great energy in improving industrial relations and perceive real benefits, it is perhaps unsurprising they can be keen to make it work.  

Working in partnership is not an easy option; indeed it can be very challenging for all involved.  But our book demonstrates how, with appropriate supports and in certain contexts, partnership models can potentially lubricate employment relations and deliver gains for employers, employees and unions.

While the partnership debate may have lost momentum in recent years, eclipsed by concerns with raising levels of employee engagement, at a workplace level the search for positive employment relations is unlikely to go away. It is hoped our collection will stimulate the debate

Stewart Johnstone, is Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management (Newcastle University, UK) 

Adrian Wilkinson, is Professor of Employment Relations (Griffith University, Australia).

Developing Positive Employment Relations: International Experiences of Labour Management Partnership edited by Stewart Johnstone and Adrian Wilkinson will be published in May 2016 and is available to pre-order at https://www.amazon.co.uk/Developing-Positive-Employment-Relations-International/dp/1137427701?ie=UTF8&Book=

What does the Government’s budget mean for HR?

The Chancellor George Osborne delivered the Budget on 16th March 2016. Here are some of the announcements HR professionals need to be aware of:

In an effort to boost economic growth and support businesses, the Chancellor announced plans to cut the main rate of corporation tax from 28 to 20 per cent, reducing to 19 per cent in 2017 and 18 per cent in 2020. With a view to raise productivity, create job opportunities and increase wages for the next generation, the Chancellor also announced plans to simplify UK’s ‘complex’ tax system by setting out a ‘business tax road map’ to parliament and employers. 

To give the next generation ‘choice and flexibility in their savings’ the Chancellor increased the ISA limit to £20,000 per year and will launch a new flexible Lifetime ISA for those under 40 years old. The new ISA allows people to save up to £4,000 each year and receive an additional 25 per cent bonus from the government. Savings, including the government bonus, can be accessed both to buy a first home and in retirement. Osborne said the initiative acknowledged the “agonising choice” for many young people who are forced to choose between the two. However, Mark Beatson, chief economist for the CIPD, said: “…we need to look at how people can be given the means to invest in themselves. The government should consider a ‘Help to Learn’ fund that can give individuals at different stages of their working lives access to the careers guidance, training and development they need to move into skilled jobs and progress at work.”

 

Brexit threatens supply of skilled talent to UK – ManpowerGroup Research

Research from ManpowerGroup shows that in the first half of 2016, the hiring intentions amongst Britain’s employers are at their strongest since 2007. However, there are doubts if this demand for talent can be fulfilled if Britain votes to leave the European Union in the upcoming referendum. James Hick, ManpowerGroup Solutions Managing Director said: “…while there’s clearly the demand for workers, we also need to protect the supply of talent. Employers of all shapes and sizes rely on the free movement of people inside Europe to find the skills they need…we simply won’t be able to replace overnight the skills these people bring to the UK if we leave the EU, and it’s our economy that will suffer.” Latest employment statistics from the ONS show that of the 521,000 jobs created in the last 12 months, 215,000 were filled by people from elsewhere in the EU. 

Their research also suggests that Government’s policy on the National Living Wage (NLW), which is to be introduced in April 2016, is encouraging some employers to consider alternative recruitment options, with some organisations opting to hire young workers to avoid having to pay the NLW. 

 

Government announces a 1 per cent pay rise for public sector workers, which unions have termed as ‘miserly’

Public sector workers, including doctors, dentists, nurses and members of the armed forces will receive an average 1 per cent pay rise from this year. The only exception will be prison service staff who will get 1.36 per cent as an ‘exceptional award’ for a ‘highly ambitious’ overhaul of the prison system. Greg Hands, chief secretary to the Treasury, said the announcement follows recommendations from pay review bodies. “The independent OBR [Office for Budget Responsibility] estimates that 200,000 public sector jobs have been protected thanks to our average 1 per cent pay policy so we can continue to deliver crucial public services,” he said. 

However, unions have termed the 1 per cent pay rise as being ‘miserly’. Unison’s head of health, Christina McAnea, said: “This 1 per cent pay rise falls way below what health workers need and deserve after years of pay cuts, especially as changes to national insurance and pension contributions will absorb much of this miserly increase.” 

It has been well known for many years that some joint consultative committees (JCCs) have a short life, set up by an enthusiastic manager only to collapse a few years later when circumstances change. Others become established and embedded into the organisations they serve. 

The well-respected national survey, the Workplace Employment Relations Study (WERS), includes a subset of workplaces which were surveyed both in 2004 and 2011. This panel of 989 workplaces provides unique data on what has taken place in each workplace over the period. Did those with a JCC in 2004 still have one in 2011? And, given the introduction of the Information and Consultation of Employees (ICE) Regulations, which came into force progressively from 2005 to 2008 in undertakings with 50 or more employees, how many without a JCC in 2004 now had one in 2011? Once we have this data we can look for factors associated with death or survival which may give hints of causality. 

Not surprisingly, the workplaces which made up the panel survey were larger on average than the whole WERS database. Small firms are often newer ones. Here we focus on workplaces with 50 or more employees, reflecting the coverage of the regulations.

The most important factor associated with the survival of JCCs, as our new report shows, is workplace size.ⁱ Larger establishments are more likely to have JCCs. Just over a quarter of those with 50-99 employees had a JCC in 2011 in the panel compared with more than half  of workplaces  with between 100 and 499 employees and just over three quarters of workplaces with 500 or more. It is more probable that the JCCs in larger workplaces will still be operating after seven years, as shown in the table. Generally speaking once an establishment has a JCC it is much more likely to survive if it has 100 or more employees. We can only speculate why this is, however: 

 

• there is more likely to be a dedicated managerial resource to service the committee; 
• there is a wider cadre of mangers to serve on the committee; 
• there are many more employees to call on to stand as elected representatives; 
• union membership tends to be higher; and 
• there is a steady stream of issues and decisions to discuss.  

This survival rate is greater if the workplace is owned by a bigger firm, where the JCC (referred to in the table as ‘any JCC’) may be at workplace or higher (divisional or corporate) level , or indeed JCCs operate at two or more different  levels.  JCCs in these type of businesses tended to survive more than in stand-alone businesses

 

JCC survival rates by workplace size (%)
Workplace size	Workplace JCC 2004 and 2011	Any JCC 2004 and 2011
50 – 99 employees	45	66
100 – 499 employees	66	84
500 or more	71	82

 

The overall survival rate of JCCs was only 45% ⁱⁱ . That is, a majority were closed down sometime after 2004 but before 2011. It is important to get this rate of churn into perspective. The vast majority of workplaces, 82% of them, did not have a JCC in either 2004 or 2011. While it is disturbing that only a minority of JCCs survive it is shocking that so many workplaces have no arrangements for collective consultation.  Only 7% of workplaces which did not have a JCC in 2004 had one in 2011. However this figure rises to 18% in workplaces with between 50 and 99 employees and 38% where there were between 100 and 499 employees. This may point to some modest legislative influence. 

The probability that a JCC operating in 2004 would still be working in 2011 increased markedly in those places where trade unions were recognised. This puts to bed the canard that unions and JCCs are antithetical. It was also clear that firms with sophisticated HR arrangements, as measured by IiP accreditation, were more likely to keep going with consultation. This was less true among private services firms while public sector undertakings were more likely to have and to hold on to consultative arrangements.  

Some questions asked in 2004 but not repeated in the 2011 survey provided further clues on longevity. It is heartening to find that where the organisation provided training for representatives in 2004 the JCC was much more likely to still be operating in 2011. This was true too where there was a union representative among the JCC members, where meetings were held quarterly or more frequently, and where representatives were elected as opposed to appointed by a manager. Managers who, in 2004, thought their JCC was only ‘fairly influential’ obviously had realistic expectations since these committees were more likely to survive than where expectations were higher. Similarly, limiting the scope for the JCC to considering management proposals for change, as opposed to multiple options, was associated with generally higher survival rates.

Overall the research confirms that the chances of JCC survival and JCC growth are strongly related to workforce and organisational size, among a range of other factors, and that clear and substantial effects of the ICE regulations are hard to identify.  The extent of churn in JCCs is a key issue and one with important policy implications. Not only does it constitute an important contextual factor when assessing the limited impact of the regulations on the incidence and formation of JCCs, but it also highlights the absence of provisions in the regulations designed to promote the sustainability of employee consultation arrangements. Among the factors associated with the survival of JCCs are union involvement, the election of representatives, training for them and frequent meetings. The regulations could and should be amended in these areas to enhance the embeddedness and sustainability of consultation arrangements.

John Purcell, School of Management, University of Bath 

Mark Hall, Industrial Relations Research University of Warwick

 

This article is based on research funded by Acas.

 

The IPA recently released a report on the ICE regulations; ICE and Voice – The Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations ten years on. It can be downloaded on our website – http://www.ipa-involve.com/

 

References

 

(i) Adam, D., Purcell, J. and Hall, M (2016) Churn and Stability in Consultation Arrangements: Reassessing the Impact of the ICE Regulations using WERS panel data. London: Acas

(ii) This is the same survival rate as for workforce meetings where senior managers talk to employees and for team briefings. It would seem that managers can be fickle when it comes to experimenting with communication methods.

 

The article by John Purcell and Mark Hall illustrates a number of key issues that have faced organisations when they have set up formal consultative processes since the early 2000’s. The high levels of churn identified between 2004 and 2011 strongly suggest that a number of questions raised by the IPA in 2007 have rarely been addressed:

 

• Why is our agenda full of the basic “tea & toilets” issues? 
• Why do representatives bring us a wish list of requests from employees?
• Why do so few people stand for election?
• Why are employees disengaged from the process? 
• Why are managers unwilling to participate fully?
• Why do we not see improved results from employee satisfaction surveys when they have been given a “voice”?

It is clear that Joint Consultation Committees have a better chance of enduring if representatives are elected and they receive training. All IPA training has been designed to maximise participation in order that a sound foundation, based on good practice, for the forum can be established. In many cases, organisations have accepted an agenda focused on “tea and toilets” issues. Meetings have been dominated by issues which would be better raised with line managers who are better equipped to deal with them. As a result, many senior managers have not seen the value of the process and have quickly become disenchanted with it. 

The IPA has argued that, to have a more informed and strategically-minded employee voice, it is necessary to apply a strategic agenda based on the major changes that are affecting the workplace. In conjunction with this, the process needs representatives with good business acumen who will ask those questions that the employees will not think of asking and relaying high quality information back to the workforce. 

It is no surprise that only 45 per cent of these forums have survived between 2004 and 2011. Although it does not follow that all of these 45 per cent are successful forums, the IPA has worked with many that have endured serious challenges relating to major organisational change, pensions consultations, redundancy and TUPE transfers. In every example, the two key requirements identified – elected representatives and training – have been met. 

Purcell and Hall also note that Consultation Forums are more likely to endure if Trade Unions are involved. The IPA had seen clear evidence of this and published a supporting article in March 2009 called ‘Information and Consultation and Trade Unions.’ This article noted that trade union representatives could act as role models and help the staff representatives to keep the agenda at a strategic level. Although this is not always the case and there are examples to the contrary, trade union recognition does create a culture of representation that helps a consultation forum to survive by avoiding the common pitfalls.

Perhaps the key issue identified by Purcell and Hall is that of staff expectations. One of the major problems identified by staff representatives is that they often feel like they have become “agony aunts” dealing with individual issues that people seem to want to “get off their chests”. This is, of course, not the intended role of a staff representative. Unfortunately, the Terms of Reference of many forums tend to suggest to staff that the representative is there for that very purpose. It is increasingly important that the role of a staff forum is positioned correctly to the staff in order that realistic expectations can be set. Until these lessons are learnt, it is unlikely that the 82 per cent of workplaces that do not currently have a Forum will be persuaded to change that situation in the near future.

Derek Luckhurst is the Training and Development Director at the IPA.

The IPA provides high-quality training for staff and trade union representatives as well as election services. Please contact Derek Luckhurst, Training & Development Director ([email protected]) for information on our training programmes or Sarah Dawson, Business Development Manager ([email protected]) if you’d like to know more about our election services.

 

UK Productivity gap widens further

 

Recent figures published by ONS show that productivity in the UK was 18 percentage points below the average for the rest of the major G7 advanced economies in 2014, the widest gap since estimates began in 1991. On output per hour worker basis, UK productivity was 19 percentage points below the average for the rest of the G7 in 2014. The results show that UK labour productivity trails behind US in all sub-sectors and especially in manufacturing while within the financial and non-financial services, UK’s comparative productivity has deteriorated sharply since 2009. Responding to the figures, Frances O’Grady of the TUC said: “The yawning productivity gap between us and other countries shows how much room there is for us to do better.” 

 

While the Government is keen to address the issue, its flagship ‘Productivity Plan’ aimed at ‘fixing the foundations’ of the British economy was said to be ‘lacking clear and measurable objectives’ by the Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) Select Committee. Meanwhile, a Government spokesman said it would ‘carefully consider’ the committee’s report and respond in due course.

 

Gerwyn Davies, labour market adviser for the CIPD, said that there was “an urgent need to raise productivity ambitions before pay growth could equal job increases.” Neil Carberry, CBI director for employment and skills stressed on the importance of innovation and expanding the role of research and development to boost productivity.

 

Additionally, recent work by the IPA showed that employee involvement could be the missing piece of the productivity puzzle. 

 

Gender pay gap reporting to be mandatory from 2018

 

From 2018, companies with more than 250 employees will have to disclose how much they are paying in salaries and bonuses to their male and female staff. The Government intends to draw up a league table of around 8,000 firms to ‘draw attention to the worst offenders’.

 

Under the Equal Pay Act, it is illegal to pay different amounts to men and women doing the same jobs – but estimates from the ONS suggest the pay gap currently stands at 19.2 per cent for full- and part-time workers in the UK – with ‘a woman on average earning around 80p for every £1 earned by a man.’ 

 

Minister for Women and Equalities, Nicky Morgan, said: “We have been clear that you can’t have true opportunity without equality and that’s why eliminating the gender pay gap is a key priority for this government.” While business groups like the CBI have expressed concerns about the regulation saying that the league tables should not be used by the Government to“name and shame firms”, the Labour Party and Trade Unions have criticised the Government’s timeline for the new legislation – saying ‘female employees should not have to wait for another two years to find out if they were being underpaid.’ 

 

Increase in employment and hours worked but UK wage growth slows

 

The recently published ONS figures show that there was an increase in the number of people in work to a record high of 31.42 million in the three months to December 2015 from the previous quarter, but that wage growth excluding bonuses only rose slightly to 2 per cent from 1.9 per cent. The UK employment rate stands at 74.1 per cent, and the total number of unemployment people fell to 1.69 million. Ian Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pension said: “February is another record-breaking month with the employment rate now at the highest it has ever been and wages continuing to grow.”

 

Employees across the UK also worked an extra 17.2 million hours in the three months to December, which equates to on average, 32.2 hours per person, per week. But despite the increase in the number of jobs and the increase in the number of hours spent in work, average weekly earnings for employees across Britain increased by just 1.9 per cent, including bonuses and, 2 per cent excluding bonuses, in a year. 

 

John Philpott, Director of The Jobs Economist consultancy, said: “Despite the good news on jobs, this suggests deterioration in an already dire underlying productivity performance and in part helps explain why average weekly earnings excluding bonuses are still rising at an annual rate of only 2 per cent.”

The concept of bias is undisputed and work in psychology, behavioural economics and cognitive neuroscience continue to emphasise the various biases that impact our decision making.  One such bias that has become mainstream in organisations is ‘Unconscious Bias’ (implicit bias) and, as an intervention, organisations provide their employees with unconscious bias training.

As a business psychologist and organisational change consultant I consistently question the merit of how unconscious bias is presented and implemented currently in organisations.  Simply because the concept of bias stems from scientific evidence does not mean that it is easy to erase or correct biases in we complex human beings (more about this later).

Let me begin by defining what unconscious bias is: it refers to a bias that happens automatically, is outside of our control and is triggered by our brain making quick judgments and assessments of people and situations, influenced by our background, cultural environment and personal experiences.

Unconscious bias as it relates to diversity and inclusion is reflected in our prejudices and stereotypes that are deeply seated within us as a result of our socialisation.  However, the term has become somewhat muddied and, in some instances, has become a way of excusing abominable behaviour such as outright racism as well as, authenticating the more subtle form of micro inequities (micro inequities are subtle, ambiguous, brief and everyday verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities that communicate negative insults to people of difference and is deemed more pervasive and psychologically damaging due to its subtle nature). 

In a typical unconscious bias training programme people take tests that ascertain where their biases lie and the rationale is that once we are aware of our biases we can reflect upon, and reshape our thinking to act differently.  That is, we are better placed to censor and change our actions.

I believe that simply training people to understand what their biases are is a waste of time.  My take is that exposing bias does not make it evaporate.  Exposure may help you to gain insight and reflect on these insights but exposure and reflection is not guaranteed to change your behaviour. 

Controversially, I believe that it suits many to hover under the umbrella of unconscious bias as a way of legitimising their prejudices.  If we were 100 per cent honest, we know what our prejudices are and without having to be made aware of them via a test.   Research has also provided evidence that in some cases, unconscious bias training has increased defensiveness, reinforced stereotypes, contributed to stonewalling, which ultimately are all expressed through anger, frustration, and, resentment.

I believe that there are three main actions that organisations need to take so as to reduce, actions arising from unconscious bias. These actions are in the arenas of leadership, culture and engagement.

Beginning with leadership, there continues to be disparity between the progress that people in power claim they want to enact in the area of diversity and what they actually end up doing. We need to interrogate the notion of power.  Underlying power is the emotion of fear. Fear of losing status, fear of losing rewards, fear of the unknown; fear of undermining credibility, fear of our own ignorance and, fear of how people with different opinions will change the ways we do things around here.  

Further, dominant groups in an organisation in relation to gender, race, nationality, physical ability etc. as well as, dominant ways of working, are all motivated to maintain the status quo.  Dominance amounts to power.  Why would you want to give your power away or even share some of it?   

Fear and dominance are at the heart of keeping things the same.  So as to address this we need to be courageous enough to delve into the root of emotions.  Once we know where the emotions stem from then we can begin to plant the seeds for new behaviours.  Therefore two actions that leaders can take to address unconscious bias are to identify, make explicit and role model the behaviours that they expect others to demonstrate and practice.  When these behaviours are breached, consequences must be administered so that those responsible are sanctioned appropriately.

Further, rather than the organisation implementing a host of bolted-on/one-off initiatives, leaders to integrate the diversity strategy into the organisational strategy; Leaders need to steer and position the anchor in the right direction by investing and providing adequate resources to directly deal with, and root out, bad practices.

This leads us onto the second arena – that of culture.  Organisational concepts that relate to unconscious bias such as ‘fit’ and ‘values’ make up a part of the equation that is organisational culture.  Many organisations persist in employing people who are a ‘good fit’ with the culture.  This is akin to saying ‘we like people who are like us’.  Adopting a rigorous systemic approach to enabling people who are different to be included in your organisations culture will enable organisational structures, systems and processes to adapt to difference whilst facilitating the demise of unconscious bias and fostering innovation.  The organisational culture needs to show how diversity is an advantage to its long-term health in relation to attracting talent and realizing growth.

Additionally, when differences collide, the organisations should have processes in place that enables constructive conflict to be explored without emotion rather than to sweep conflict under the table.

This leads us unto the third area that will help to reduce unconscious bias: that of employee engagement.  Connecting to, and collaborating with others so that robust conversations can be had and radical honesty can be practiced will enhance transparency.  Further, organisational structures should be agile enough so that across all levels, employees can be encouraged to be involved in high profile projects so that the success of the organisation is determined by all rather than a select few.

Rolling out training programmes for unconscious bias is not sustainable as it does not address the root causes of bias.  Organisations need to move from training to practical actions by embracing a holistic approach to dealing with bias.   Unconscious bias takes into account our identity as well as our different ways of thinking and different ways of behaving in different contexts. Let us embrace and leverage all that is good about difference through pragmatic means.

There is no short-term fix, for rooting out unconscious bias.  Organisations have to invest in behavioural interventions and be prepared to be in it for the long haul.

Dr Sylvana Storey is a Management consultant and business psychologist. You can follow Sylvana on Twitter – www.twitter.com/SylvanaStorey

The IPA is currently working on a project examining the impact of unconscious bias in the workplace and effectiveness of training interventions. Please get in touch with [email protected] or call 020 7759 1000 if you would like to get involved.