ben

When I first started negotiating with pilot unions in Hong Kong, I never imagined it would shape how I viewed the workplace. But after over 15 years working in employee and industrial relations across countries as varied as Canada, Australia, France, Hong Kong and the UK — from Cathay Pacific flight decks to French works councils and British union consults — I’ve developed an abiding interest in the architecture of employee voice.

Because here’s the thing: we tend to talk about employee voice as a universal good but it is not a universal experience.

At its best, employee voice reflects a well-calibrated, two-way relationship — not a megaphone for worker grievances or a compliance checkbox for the employer. But achieving that balance depends heavily on context: the legal framework, yes, but also the cultural/societal fabric. The assumptions about work, authority, and dialogue differ wildly across borders — and pretending otherwise can lead to disillusionment on all sides.

One Framework, Many Realities

In France, employee voice is institutionalised, codified, and legally protected. The Comité Social et Économique (CSE) is powerful, structured, and — let’s be honest — not always agile. You’re rarely negotiating with individuals; you’re negotiating with roles. It’s formal, precise, and often theatrical. And yet, when you earn the respect of a French works council, you’ve got something enduring — a reliable partner who’ll hold you to account, but also back you when needed.

Contrast that with the UK, where the relationship is more fluid. Unions can be strong negotiating partners, but their power is more contingent — often built on workplace sentiment, not legislation. There’s more room for pragmatism, but also more scope for erosion.

In Hong Kong and Australia, my experience with pilot unions added another layer. These were highly skilled professionals with strong identity and occupational pride — they weren’t only seeking pay rises, but respect, autonomy, and a voice that reflected their technical expertise. You couldn’t bluff your way through a negotiation. You had to listen properly and be technically credible.

In each case, employee voice was not just about what employees wanted to say — but how, when, and to whom they could say it.

Global Company, Local Voice

In recent roles, I’ve found myself increasingly drawn into the challenge of designing structures that accommodate this cultural variance — helping global companies avoid the trap of applying a single model everywhere. You can’t roll out a European-style works council to teams in Singapore and São Paulo and expect it to take root.

One of the most valuable lessons I’ve learned is that voice travels better when it’s embedded in mutual respect. That sounds simple, but it’s not always easy. Respect is built through showing up: by listening, not performing. By recognising what matters locally, not what looks good globally.

I’ve worked closely with European teams where works councils are central actors — sometimes antagonistic, sometimes aligned. The key to making these relationships productive has been consistency, transparency, and a willingness to treat disagreement as a form of respect. If we’re arguing, it means we both care.

Voice as Strategy, Not Risk

Too often, in multinational settings, employee voice is treated as a problem to be managed — a risk to mitigate. But voice, properly harnessed, is a strategic asset. It reveals pressure points before they become more public problems. It surfaces insights that no survey ever could. And it keeps organisations honest — which, in the age of AI, ESG, and constant transformation, might be the most valuable thing of all.

Of course, voice is messy. It’s emotional, political, and sometimes obstructive. But leadership can be too, and nobody ever suggests we should do away with that.

A Final Thought

The biggest thing I’ve learned is that voice doesn’t look the same in every context. The goal isn’t to standardise it, but to enable it. To create the conditions for honest conversation, even if – especially when – it’s hard.

I’m encouraged that organisations like the IPA are creating spaces for this kind of reflection. As someone who’s sat across the table from some formidable negotiators across three continents, I can tell you: when you get voice right, everything else gets easier. Strategy, engagement, transformation — all of it.

So maybe the best question to ask isn’t, “Do we have an employee voice framework?”

But rather, “Do we really want to listen?”

Ian Renwick

July 2025

What enables some places to have an abundance of good work when others don’t? After all, many key drivers of good work – favourable macroeconomic conditions, competition and innovation policies that encourage high-value-added activity, effective policies around education and skills, and high-quality employment regulation – are national, rather than regional in nature. At the regional level, what tends to matter are historical patterns of employment, the mix and type of employer organisations, and agglomeration effects – which include transport links and access to housing. Local institutions – including the education sector – also play an important role.

But even within regions, such broad factors leave significant discretion to organisational leaders and managers, resulting in substantial within-region variation. In this context, for both productivity and good work, management matters.

The role of management practices in driving productivity is well-established. Even within the same size category, industry sector, and region, there are vast productivity differences between individual firms. Different management practices have been shown to be a key explanatory factor. Figure 1 illustrates how this applies at the sector-region level: better management practice scores (relative to each sector’s UK average) are significantly associated with higher productivity (relative to each sector’s UK average) (R² = 0.13, p = 0.001), even though other factors clearly play a role, too.

Figure 1: UK regions with higher relative management scores also have higher relative productivity

Source: ONS; author’s calculations.

What is less often highlighted in national policy debates is the role of good leadership and management in supporting staff engagement, job satisfaction, and worker wellbeing—despite the potential of worker wellbeing to create a virtuous cycle with productivity growth ¹. The evidence at the level of individuals and firms is solid—good managers enable good work ². However, it is messier at a sector-region level. Figure 2 shows only a modest correlation between management practices and job satisfaction (R² = 0.07, p = 0.016).

Figure 2: There is only a modest correlation between sector-regions’ management practice scores and average job satisfaction

Source: ONS; University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic Research. (2024). Understanding Society: Waves 1-14, 2009-2023 and Harmonised BHPS: Waves 1-18, 1991-2009. [data collection]. 19th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 6614, http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6614-20; author’s calculations.

This points to three important questions to pursue. First, are all management practices equally important for productivity and worker wellbeing? Second, are all highly productive companies also good for their workers? And third, how can we further enhance the metrics for measuring, analysing, and understanding good work?

Looking at the productivity-enhancing management practices in the literature ^{3 4} , they only partially overlap with approaches that support worker wellbeing. For one, these measures do not capture important psychological factors, such as the quality of workplace relationships and social networks, an empowering organisational culture, or the degree to which management instil a sense of learning, progress, meaning, and purpose in workers’ daily lives ⁵. These were important dimensions of the Pissarides Review into the Future of Work and Wellbeing ⁶.

Moreover, depending on how they are implemented, some management practices—such as the presence of performance tracking, targets, and performance-based incentives—can drive a negative, rather than a positive, dynamic in the workforce. Having said that, many of the recognised practices—such as training, engaging with all staff, and involving non-managers in decision making—should indeed be beneficial for workers. It seems more research is required to untangle the connections between specific management practices, productivity, and worker wellbeing.

Moreover, it would be naïve to assume that all productive firms are good for their staff, or the other way round. A striking study ⁷ by McKinsey Global Institute found that there are two very different company archetypes that achieve strong financial performance: one focused on challenging, top-down, goal-oriented management (with, consequently, higher levels of staff attrition and lower returns on people-oriented investment), and the other focused on still challenging, but collaborative and nurturing practices (benefiting from better outcomes for their people, too). Interestingly, while the MGI research found that both archetypes were highly profitable, it was the people-oriented companies that delivered better resilience through economic perturbations.

All of this points to a need for a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the links between productivity and good work, and the role of specific management practices in them. For such a picture, we would ideally need matched data on management practices and staff experiences—something I hope productivity and wellbeing researchers will pursue.

But, at a higher level, shouldn’t we also call for routine measurement and publication of job satisfaction data, to complement the existing metrics on good work? With the world of work rapidly changing, monitoring what matters—including subjective measures of satisfaction—is a high priority.

Tera Allas CBE is a senior advisor to McKinsey & Company, having led their UK economic research for 10 years. She chairs PBE, The Productivity Institute’s Advisory Committee, and The Health Foundation’s NHS Productivity Commission. She is a trustee of Be the Business and a governor of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and contributes to several expert advisory bodies, including the Office for Budget Responsibility. She holds an Honorary Professorship at the Alliance Manchester Business School and is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences and the RSA

July 2025

Footnotes

[1] Workplace Wellbeing and Firm Performance, University of Oxford Wellbeing Research Centre Working Paper 2304, 2024. https://wellbeing.hmc.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2304-WP-Workplace-Wellbeing-and-Firm-Performance-DOI-2024.pdf

[2] The boss factor: Making the world a better place through workplace relationships, McKinsey Quarterly, 2020. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/the-boss-factor-making-the-world-a-better-place-through-workplace-relationships

[3] Management practices in the UK: 2016 to 2023, ONS, 2024. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/productivitymeasures/bulletins/managementpracticesintheuk/2016to2023

[4] Management matters in an era of disruption, World Management Survey, 2024. https://poid.lse.ac.uk/textonly/publications/downloads/Management-matters-wms-2024.pdf

[5] Meet the psychological needs of your people—all your people, McKinsey Quarterly, 2022.

[6] The Pissarides Review into the Future of Work and Wellbeing, Final Report, Section 3, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61e471292531e621931e557d/t/67a080fd20dd7d70748980f7/1738572041937/TPR-FinalReport-26-01-25v4.pdf

[7] Performance through people: Transforming human capital into competitive advantage, McKinsey Global Institute, 2023. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/mckinsey%20global%20institute/our%20research/performance%20through%20people%20transforming%20human%20capital%20into%20competitive%20advantage/mgi-performance-through-people-full-report-vf.pdf

One through line of all the organisations I’ve worked for is ‘learning by experience’. Something that is even more prevalent when moving away from front-line roles and into management. I was not surprised to read that 82% of new managers had no training in how to manage (CMI), as I was one of them. At 17, I was managing a night shift team in retail during the COVID-19 pandemic, then into my next role where I was leading teams across multiple sites aged 19, all with no management training.

Unsurprisingly, gaining the trust of my team was incredibly difficult. Especially as they saw a teenager and university student who was clearly learning how to manage as he went along. I felt, on top of my actual inexperience, I had a perception problem so was determined to find a solution to both- two birds, one stone. I settled on external management training as I was hoping it would improve the quality of my managing as I got to grips with what it taught and, upon completion, formal accreditation would improve my professional image.

The first difference I noticed whilst mid-coursework was understanding why the business was making the decisions that it was; I’ve always been a numbers and technical solution person, so the aspects covered by the CMI came to me more quickly, even if that wasn’t my initial goal. Understanding the wider business made it easier to communicate with the team, particularly on change management. From that understanding, it was also easier to network internally, creating more of a professional reputation.

The first milestone was in the improvement in quality of one-to-one sessions, my first set of quarterly feedback meetings since properly engaging with the people management side of the CMI’s resources. I had been trying out a few bits from the training (letting colleagues do more of the talking in one to ones, as well as feedback models) and was trying to come to an end result that still felt like ‘my style’. We went through a few uneventful ones, not really any different from pre-training. Which typically involved having to deliberately keep momentum and draw answers out of people. But, at the third meeting it’s like I knew what the responses and challenges were going to be, and they were following the path laid out by the model. More than that, it wasn’t me fighting to keep it on track, it felt like my counterpart was equally, and unwittingly, reading from the same script; even when it came to improvements needed.

I was aware of how well it was going at the time and was torn. Was this the training, the time spent thinking and reflecting on why the previous ones felt as stilted as they did, or was it just luck? After all, I was completing around twenty one to ones a year, one going well by chance isn’t unthinkable. All that said over the next six months more and more of the meetings, both formal and ad hoc, started to go the same way becoming more satisfying and less work intensive, but still meaningful to both parties.

The lightbulb moment above was really the catalyst, I knew now that what I was learning did hold water in the real world, and proved its worth over the past few years in difficult and unexpected conversations; when you trust it, the training just takes over.

Tweaks, and new implementations, are still happening in my management practices. They always will as the role and people I work with change. The main changes in this initial phase of learning were to prepare properly with the facts and context needed, allow others to talk, and to emotionally engage with your team in one to ones, all whilst keeping to an agenda and remaining professional.

Following on from this, and bringing in other knowledge learnt along the way, I felt much more confident. I was now rarely dreading meetings with my team, or people in the wider business. As I became more confident and effective my professional reputation in the business grew. There came a point where I was still studying when the issue of others’ perception and first impressions of me resolved itself, based on what I had learned and changed through training, implementation, and refinement.

Staying within one business you get to cultivate your professional image and maintain it. By moving businesses, you lose the internal reputation you’ve built up. This is where I feel having the complete CMI qualifications came into its own. Again, I moved roles, now aged 21 and managing a well-established team some of whom had their reservations when they first heard the news about my appointment. But after searching through my LinkedIn and saw the qualifications and past roles, they felt more at ease, which they confirmed to me.

Daniel Chapman, June 2025

There is a lot of change about for organisations, and it feels like changes are speeding up. We may have got used to multiple overlapping individual, team and organisational changes, like a new job, new colleagues, new technology, new ways of working or new locations. But it is the pressures bearing down from the external operating environment that is making it such a worrying time for all of us as workers, citizens and residents and what’s keeping our leaders awake at night. Take your pick from Artificial Intelligence, Ukraine, tariffs, cost of living, aging workforce, productivity and fears about redundancy to name but a few. Is your organisation responding effectively to the current political complexity and financial uncertainty? A recent IPA Employee Hub event explored how to become a change-smart organisation, ready to address a collective capability for change in a complex operating environment. So, what did we discuss?

Firstly, consider how highly your organisation scores in your attitude surveys for ‘managing change well’? Does it respond effectively to expected and unexpected change? If so, very well done as most struggle to act swiftly consistently and reliably in response to in an increasingly complex and unpredictable operating environment. The failure rate of organisational change has remained constant over the last 40 years suggesting organisations have not been learning from past mistakes. A history of not “doing change” very well can be an organisational albatross.

It is all too easy for individuals to feel change is being foisted on them and suffer “change fatigue” at the thought of yet more changes.

Secondly we heard about an Institute for Employment Studies and Henley Forum action research project conducted in collaboration with 11 employers across back in 2018/19 which has resonance today. The research aimed to improve the employers’ ability to ‘do change better.’ The focus was on teams. In theory, all organisations know that they should have change-ready and change-capable teams if they are to remain dynamic and thrive. In practice what constitutes readiness and capability may not be clear cut at all to the teams themselves and their wider organisations. Through an evidence-based survey with 228 team members responding from 9 teams across 5 large organisations in four countries, plus follow-up interviews, the project sought to uncover what helps and what hinders their teams becoming more able for change. The study found what helps teams in times of change is:

• sense of communityship within the team and between their team and others
• some knowledge of change and confidence in the team’s collective ability to self-manage through change
• positive experience of previous change (or a belief that lessons were  learned).

The study also found that what teams do for themselves in support of each other was a powerful enabler of individual and collective well-being. A set of change tools for teams were co-developed as part of the project which were thoroughly tested by participating employers during 2019/20 and implemented in a range of contexts with other employers ever since.

Feedback from employers consistently reinforces that making the human aspects of change, rather than the organisational impacts, a particular target for attention is crucial to success of change initiatives.

Thirdly, we discussed what practical insights have we learned or ideas we can adopt to help ourselves, our colleagues and our employers becoming more change smart. This included:

• Listening – collect  feedback and reflections from teams on the previous change so lessons can be learned from what worked well or not so well.
• Visioning – offer a compelling vision explaining why the future changed state will be better than the status quo for both customers and staff. Focus the vision at an emotional level: it is not sufficient to describe change only in terms of its rationality.
• Embracing the grit in the oyster – do not silence those who express doubts early in the change process. Let these contributors identify the pitfalls to be avoided.
• Reframing  – enable  teams  to reframe the purpose to something that makes sense to them and their context.

Reflections and comments from Hub attendees included: The importance of obtaining the colleague voice before a change; Creating a sense of choice;  Providing a consistent narrative; Change fatigue is real; Similar reflective process would be useful in helping people think about statutory consultations; In the context of stagnant employee engagement, we need to remember lack of trust gets in the way of change; Unions have a key role to play; Not all change is good or done well so we need to embrace the naysayers; We all have a moral responsibility to support colleagues; and that learning organisations must take the time to learn lessons.

Final thought is that organisations need to prioritise these human aspects of change to improve change-capability: both having adaptable, responsive teams and a longer-term ability to anticipate when change is needed and, when necessary, to carry it out.

Dr Alison Carter is a principal research fellow at the Institute for Employment Studies (IES). She speaks and consults on a range of HR, change and leadership development issues. Her current research includes support for workers with caring responsibilities but it is her evaluation of workplace coaching for which she is recognised as an international expert.

June 2025

A persistent divide exists across the UK workforce, one that significantly impacts employee wellbeing, performance, and overall attitudes toward work.

While early signs of improvement in engagement levels are encouraging, there remains a concerning lack of consistency in people management practices across the UK. This inconsistency is having a material (and potentially detrimental) effect on the quality of work experiences, organisational performance, and overall employee wellbeing.

Now in its third year, the Engage for Success (EFS) annual engagement survey of the UK working population reveals stark variations in engagement levels. Findings show that two in five employees work in organisations where neither senior leaders nor line managers sufficiently prioritise people issues. In contrast, two in five employees work in organisations where both leadership and management do sufficiently prioritise these issues.

While the concept of contrasting managerial styles is not new, the findings highlight the significant and concerning impact these opposing approaches can have on employees, particularly in terms of their engagement, wellbeing, and attitudes toward work. There is a 32% difference in engagement levels between employees in organisations that prioritise the people issues and those that do not. Employees in organisations that embed the people issues in their strategic and day-to-day decisions have an average engagement level of 77%. This contrasts with employees who perceive that neither their line managers nor senior leaders prioritise people issues, reporting engagement levels of just 45%.

The impact extends beyond engagement, shaping workplace experiences and influencing attitudes toward work. Employees in organisations that prioritise people issues are more likely to express a strong intention to stay, demonstrate a greater willingness to support colleagues, contribute higher levels of discretionary effort, and actively propose innovative ideas.

Survey data also reveals a strong line between autonomy and engagement. Employees who report having control over their work processes – from organising daily tasks to setting the pace of their work – experience significantly higher levels of engagement. Employees who felt they had autonomy over how they organised their work reported 24% higher engagement compared to those who did not feel the same. Those who believed they could influence decision-making processes within their organisation reported 32% higher engagement. Worryingly, although survey findings show a clear connection between autonomy and engagement, research indicates that autonomy and decision-making are in decline due to advances in technology.

Prioritising people issues also has a significant impact on employee wellbeing. Survey results show that unmanageable job stress is five times higher in organisations that do not prioritise their people, reinforcing a systematic risk to organisational health and sustainability. Added to this, levels of presenteeism are significantly higher in these organisations. Not only are employees working in these organisations experiencing lower engagement – 20% lower than the national average – but they are more likely to view their job merely as a way to earn money, find less intrinsic satisfaction, and be at a higher risk of not just leaving their current employer, but the workforce entirely. In contrast, employees in organisations that prioritise people issues find greater enjoyment in their roles, are more likely to remain engaged even if financial need is removed, and experience a stronger sense of purpose in their work.

Poor managerial practices can trigger a deeper disconnect from work, exacerbate health inequalities, and increase the risk of economic inactivity. This raises a critical question: Are poor management practices actively depleting our UK workforce?

It’s important to clarify that the question focuses on management practices, not the managers themselves. While line managers have a direct influence on employee engagement, they are also facing significant challenges themselves. Increasingly, line managers are being given more managerial responsibilities, whilst still being expected to meet their core operational responsibilities. This is creating concerning patterns of unmanageable job stress, discrimination, and bullying, particularly among those with protected characteristics or long-term health conditions.

Two-thirds of managers reported facing unreasonable deadlines and feeling that their opinions were ignored. Most concerningly, half of the managers said they had remained silent about work-related concerns due to fear of negative consequences, and two-thirds felt that nothing would change if they did speak up.

When line managers are engaged, it has a positive impact on team engagement. Yet, when line managers are struggling, it has a ripple effect on employee wellbeing and organisational outcomes. Competing priorities and growing workloads often leave little time for effective people management. While they are expected to manage their teams, they are frequently not given the necessary time, resources, or training to do so effectively. Survey findings highlight this issue, with only one-third of managers reporting that team engagement is included in their performance appraisals. The lack of accountability sends a clear message that engagement is considered a secondary concern, a ‘nice to have’, not a strategic priority. Even well-intentioned and motivated line managers may prioritise immediate operational demands over longer-term engagement efforts – especially when under pressure.

The divide in how people issues are managed across UK organisations is a significant concern, with far-reaching implications for employee engagement, wellbeing, performance, and attitudes to work. For businesses to thrive in today’s landscape, senior leaders need to recognise the strategic importance of people management and give it the same level of priority as other strategic concerns. The role of line managers is critical, as they are the ones who directly influence the work environment and employee engagement. To ensure line managers can succeed, they need adequate support, resources, and training. Prioritising people issues is not just a moral imperative – it is a strategic necessity for ensuring long-term organisational success, resilience, and employee retention. Only by addressing this divide can we create a workforce that is not just in work, but is motivated, engaged, and empowered to contribute.

Dr Sarah Pass, Senior Lecturer HRM, Nottingham Trent University

May 2025

The Welsh Government’s 2025 Future Generations Report represents a key milestone since Wales embarked on an ambitious roadmap to secure a sustainable future for the next generation and beyond. The legislation is the first of its kind to explicitly compel public bodies to build the wellbeing of future generations into their strategic planning. In so doing, it recognises – and attempts to tackle head-on – the inherent complexity in delivering environmental and economic sustainability for the long-term, primarily through its 7 Wellbeing Goals.

In many respects, the report does not make for cheerful reading. Alongside the Welsh Auditor General’s report, it flags the wide variation in the extent to which public bodies have made concrete steps to deliver on the Act’s objectives:

“Ten years on from its inception, I see energy and enthusiasm for the Act in various quarters; and I see public bodies having different conversations, making decisions informed by the Act, and changes in practice. But for all the good examples, there are those that are not so good. The Act is not driving the system-wide change that was intended.” (Adrian Crompton, Auditor General for Wales)

In his address to the Future Generations Summit, Derek Walker, Future Generations Commissioner, touched on the global (and often unforeseen) challenges that have thwarted progress over the past 10 years; he also recognised that short-term funding arrangements for many public bodies pose a serious challenge for long-term thinking. While he seeks to address funding mechanisms, including calling on public bodies to ring-fence preventative funding,  there may be a need for pragmatism (rather than defeatism) in a world now seemingly dominated by a VUCA narrative. Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity are the exact reasons why organisations and partners need to coalesce in response to both long-term sustainability goals and real-time decision-making pressures. Covid-19, for all its trauma and lasting impacts, illustrated what can be achieved when partners rally in times of crisis.  

IPA has facilitated partnership working between employers and trade unions in Wales who have have needed to strike this balance between short-term decision-making with long-term sustainability.  Late announcements of funding arrangements and in-year funding changes have brought partners together to evaluate options at pace, enabling representatives to speak on behalf of their members and give decision-makers vital insight into the potential impacts of budget cuts, as well as offering alternative proposals for savings and efficiencies that have ultimately led to better outcomes. This has often required a shift in culture and mindset on both sides, as well as an evaluation of employment relations architecture. Are we tied to historic negotiation machinery, or can this be updated to facilitate meaningful social dialogue?

Welsh Government promotes 5 Ways of Working through which the 7 Wellbeing Goals can be achieved – Long-term, Prevention, Integration, Collaboration and Involvement. There is of course interdependency between these ways of working, and navigating the competing interests that may emerge in these spheres is one among many challenges for public sector leaders tasked with delivering change.

It is more than just an exercise in semantics to think through where the role of trade unions and employee voice more broadly sits in these ways of working – while the ways of working guidance from Welsh Government is helpful, there is room for debate here. Are employers simply seeking to ‘involve’ their workforce and trade union partners in delivering systemic change, sticking broadly to traditional information and consultation arrangements? Or are they prepared to pursue meaningful collaboration with these partners, recognising the essential systemic insight that the workforce can provide?

Long-term workforce planning, another priority highlighted in the report, is increasingly critical as sectors face complex transitions—from climate adaptation to digital transformation (those wondering where to start should read this recent blog by my IES Colleague Dan Lucy). Social partnership enables workers and their representatives to engage early in shaping responses to these changes. For example, joint discussions on skills development, job design, and fair work practices can lead to more resilient labour markets and equitable transitions. IPA’s 2021 report on Just Transition, produced in partnership with Friedrich Ebert Siftung, highlights both the opportunity and challenge for employers in engaging the workforce in large-scale, complex change.  

The Social Partnership Act (2023) is in its infancy compared with the Future Generations Act; it remains to be seen how effectively employers embrace the opportunity it provides to enhance employee voice and therefore decision-making. It also remains to be seen how wider trade union membership engages with the longer-term, strategic conversations that the Act makes space for. The Social Partnership Act goes further than the 2015 legislation in obliging public sector employers to consult trade unions on their wellbeing objectives. Getting this right will not only produce more meaningful, deliverable objectives that move beyond a corporate tick-box, it will also deliver the ‘meta-benefit’ of improving trust in decision-making – another key priority highlighted in the Commissioners report.

As policymakers look ahead to the next phase of implementing the Well-being of Future Generations and Social Partnership Acts, the challenge is clear: to move from principle to practice. Legislative frameworks have laid a strong foundation, but their success hinges on how meaningfully public bodies embed employee voice into strategic decision-making. Trade unions offer more than representation—they provide a systemic perspective grounded in the realities of service delivery. Harnessing this insight will be critical for shaping responsive, preventative, and people-centred policies. This is a moment to lead with intention, investing in the structures and behaviours that make collaboration not just possible, but powerful.

Lucy O’Melia, head of learning and development, IPA 

May 2025

 

There has been growing evidence in recent decades of the importance of participation in decisions at work both for employees’ well-being and for their work motivation. But have British employers been increasing opportunities for such participation? The Skills and Employment Survey Series has been tracking the changing quality of jobs in Britain since 1986, with representative samples of the workforce. The trends in, and effects of, employee participation have been among its core themes. There have been 8 successive surveys, with consistent key variables. The results of the most recent survey, carried out in 2024, have just been released. Given the increasing recognition of the benefits of participation, what does the evidence tell us about the trends in participation?

The surveys distinguish between participation in the form of direct employee control over their job tasks and wider employee voice over organisational decisions that affect their work.  Task level participation can take two forms: decisions may lie in the hands of individual employees or they may be taken jointly by employees in semi-autonomous teams. Research on the effects of participation on well-being and health has largely focused on individual control of job decisions, or task discretion, while the decentralisation of decisions to teams has been strongly advocated in some of the managerial literature.

The most striking feature to emerge from the data is the sharp fall in individual task discretion since the early 1990s. Whereas, in 1992, 62% of British employees reported that they had a high level of influence over how they did their jobs, by 2024 the proportion had declined to 34%. There were two main periods during which this decline took place. The first was in the 1990s, between 1992 and 2001, but the second was in the period 2012 to 2024. It is notable that the change between our last two surveys 2017 and 2024 was a nearly linear continuation of the downward trend evident since 2012.

Did the decline in the discretion given to individuals at work reflect a preference by management instead to vest decision-making responsibilities in work teams? There was certainly a notable increase from 2001 in the proportion of employees working in teams – rising from 43% to 62% in 2024. But teams may still be primarily directed by supervisors rather than by joint decision making by team members. In practice, throughout the period from 1992 to 2024, only about a third of employees in teams reported significant team influence over decisions about how the work was done. Moreover, the most recent period between 2017 and 2024 saw a marked decline in the proportion of employees in such teams (from 22% to 15%). In short, employees have been losing influence about how they do their jobs whether as individuals or as team members.

Has the loss of control over immediate decisions about jobs been compensated by increased influence at a higher organisational level about decisions affecting work? A feature of the last two decades has certainly been a marked increase in the use by management of meetings with employees through consultative committees.  But are such committees primarily used to convey information downwards from management to employees or do they provide an effective means for employees to influence decisions? Taking the overall period between 1992 and 2024, it is clear that approximately half of employees regarded such committees as primarily a channel of downward communication. Moreover, the long-term trend was towards a decline in proportion of employees reporting that they could exercise either a great deal or quite a lot of influence on organisational decisions – from a peak of 37% in 2001 to 30% in 2017 and 27.6% in 2024.

What types of employees were most affected by the overall decline in participation? Throughout the period there was a strong skill gradient with respect to opportunities to participate, with the higher skilled having higher participation in terms of both immediate task decisions and wider organisational influence. But between 2017 and 2024 those with higher skills – managers, professionals and associate professionals – experienced a percentage point  decline in task discretion that was comparable to that of the least skilled and an even sharper reduction in organisational participation than either those with intermediate or lower skills. There was also a notable difference in the experience of male and female employees. The decline in task discretion was much sharper among female than male employees, in part reflecting the fact that caring and sales occupations had a more negative pattern of change. In contrast, it was male employees that were more likely to have a reduction in organisational participation.

Does the decline of employee participation in Britain reflect the fact that it has become less relevant over time as a source of well-being and work motivation? Our evidence shows that employees with greater opportunities to participate in decisions at work – whether at the level of the task or with respect to wider organisational decisions – were less likely to have symptoms of depression or anxiety, more satisfied with their jobs and more likely to feel that their values were similar to those of the organisation. At the same time, they reported higher motivation with respect to their willingness to work harder to help their organisation succeed, their view that their organisation encouraged their very best job performance, the advantage they took of opportunities to learn new things on the job and to personally make suggestions to improve efficiency.

Our evidence points to a paradox. The benefits of employee participation in terms of well-being and motivation remain high, but British employers have been reducing opportunities to participate in a period when they have confronted major difficulties in reducing stress levels at work and productivity growth has declined and fallen behind major comparator countries such as Germany and France. Why have British employers failed to enhance the prevalence and quality of participation to help meet these challenges?  There is clearly an urgent need for an investigation of the determinants of organisational policies in this respect and the adequacy of management training to implement effective forms of participation.

Prof Duncan Gallie is an Emeritus Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford

April 2025

 For further information, see : Gallie, D., Davies, R., Felstead, A., Green, F., Henseke, G., and Zhou, Y. (2025) What is Happening to Participation at Work? Findings from the Skills and Employment Survey 2024, Cardiff: Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research and Data, Cardiff University.

As a mediator of almost 30 years, I describe myself as allergic to formal grievances. The same allergy applies to most formal disciplinary hearings and how organisations deal with conduct and capability issues. Formal processes do not resolve issues – they simply drive entrenched positions and exacerbate problems. When an employee feels attacked, they will naturally defend – it’s a basic human instinct. Most mediations we conduct should never have needed to come to an external mediator. The most common phrase we hear after a successful mediation (and we run at over 97 per cent resolution) is “I wish we’d had these conversations months or years ago. Unfortunately organisations have simply lost the art of conversation – or, more likely, they never learned the art in the first place.

I see a lot of risk aversion in organisations where the right conversations are avoided, and in my experience there’s a perfect storm brewing:-

• Employment law increasingly puts demands on employers, and this will increase over the coming months and years.
• Organisations are becoming leaner – managers have less time for people.
• Promotions into management positions are increasingly due to technical skills, not leadership capabilities.
• Appointed managers are not given the skills (and therefore the confidence) to deal with people issues effectively but are criticised for not doing so.
• The HR profession continues to train the theories but doesn’t develop and (importantly) test the real practical skills for having conversations.
• Employees working remotely / hybrid reduces opportunities for real conversations and increases the ‘excuse’ of not having them.
• As technology develops, we have more written communications than real dialogue between people. Chat GPT does not know the answer to an employee’s unique challenges!
• The risk aversion around having real conversations is increasing – people are more comfortable sending an email – the courage to talk is continuously declining.
• There is a growing “just in case” culture, eg send that email just in case you need to prove it in future (to give the perception of a “fair” process).
• Trade Unions will be more prevalent, experience of working with unions effectively has declined.

We need to do much more of something we’ve been capable of for many thousands of years, which is to talk and (most importantly) listen. In the workplace, however, most of us need some development in how to do this in the most effective way – especially leaders. The ability to have effective employee conversations is an art form, and it takes learning and practise. The sooner we start, the sooner organisations and employees will reap the benefits.

People often ask me for my best tip when it comes to resolving and avoiding conflict, probably expecting some ingenious ideas involving complex theories from psychology. I’m not quite sure whether people are disappointed or relieved when I say “just get to know people as people”. As a mediator, I don’t spend the first hour or so talking about the problems or the conflict – I’m keen to know about the person and what matters to them. I also bore them a bit about me – they don’t know me, so why would they trust me?

Everything in workplaces (and outside work) is about trust and relationships. Just think how you are with people you trust implicitly compared to those who you wouldn’t trust as far as you could throw them. It’s a very different dynamic. Trust is earned. We all know it’s also very quickly lost. Whenever we get involved in workplace issues, more often than not strong foundations to the working relationship have never been formed. Relationships with solid foundations don’t crumble easily. When colleagues  start to learn more about one another it’s amazing how the issues can soften. I’ve had people who hate each other first thing in the morning having brilliant and productive conversations by lunchtime – the main turning point being when they both find out the other owns a cockerpoo, or they like cycling too, or they support the same football team.

An organisation with the skills and confidence to talk and listen effectively will achieve a rapidly changing culture. It’s a very simple concept which we see in mediations every day:

• Talking enables listening. 
• Listening gives insights. 
• Insights change thinking. 
• Thinking changes behaviours. 
• Behaviours are culture – “it’s the way we do things around here”.

There are two types of organisations in my view: the ones who recognise that leading people is the hardest part of any manager’s job, so they invest time (and some money) in developing the right skills so they become effective leaders. Then there are those who, when somebody signs a contract saying “manager”, they expect a fairy to appear to sprinkle her magic leadership dust over them. Leading people needs development and support. Invest in the time needed and the organisation will save so much time in the long run. It’s a bit of a hare & tortoise thing.

Whilst wellbeing has always been an important subject, it’s never been higher on the agenda of most organisations. However, I see a real disconnect in organisations which don’t recognise the link between effective conversations and employee wellbeing. Anybody who has been subject to a formal process, felt aggrieved by something or had some kind of dispute knows how much it consumed them and how stressful it was. Everybody will recognise the stress, but for some reason we don’t make the connection in organisations that proper conversations relieve stress massively.

Given where we’re at in terms of pending governmental changes and the evolving employment landscape, the working relationships with employees and representatives is increasingly critical. In my personal view good old-fashioned employee relations skills have diminished significantly over the last couple of decades, and this goes back to the lost art of conversation. One of the biggest benefits I had from learning mediation skills back in 1996 (at British Steel) was working more effectively with Trade Unions during testing times of mass redundancies and the need for new working practices. The ability to build the trust and relationships with employees and their representatives is so critical for all HR professionals and managers. It’s the foundation to employee relations and to culture.

Pete Colby

April 2025

What’s next for DEI? This question is top of mind for HR leaders and diversity, equality, and inclusion advocates ever since Donald Trump signed his (in)famous executive order banning radical and wasteful government DEI programs. A spate of well-regarded American companies have announced rollbacks and cuts to their DEI investments. Will UK employers follow suit?

A slim majority of UK employers (53%) recently surveyed say they would not be ditching DEI, with firms like Deloitte UK notably diverging from its US counterpart in reaffirming its DEI commitments. However, ripples across the ocean take time to reach the opposite shore. Nearly 70% of those surveyed expect changes in the UK as a result of the US about-face on DEI. Last week, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) withdrew its plans to publish new rules of diversity and inclusion for the financial services industry.

Yet, DEI is not dead. The Equality Act 2010 provides a strong legislative bulwark against efforts to easily undo DEI initiatives and progress. UK companies are required by the law to protect people with specific characteristics from discrimination, bullying, and harassment. Since 2017, regulations have also needed large employers with over 250 employees to report their gender pay gaps mandatorily. Employees increasingly want to work in a safe, inclusive, and values-driven workplace, and the business case for diversity in recruitment and retention remains strong, as the UK population is set to become more ethnically diverse and older. Now is not the time to take the foot off the accelerator on building a more diverse and inclusive workplace.

To help companies navigate this chaotic and fast-evolving landscape, the agenda needs to be reframed around core principles. We should pivot away from ‘traditional diversity’, which focuses on representation metrics or promotes identity-based strategies, toward fostering ‘inclusion for all’, which acknowledges the varying and intersectional needs of all staff. I identify three levers for change that HR and business leaders can use to intervene constructively:

1. Encourage a spirit of dialogue among staff networks –

Traditional diversity efforts are increasingly seen as leading to polarisation and what can be termed ‘divisive diversity’. Employee resource groups or staff networks established with an intention of giving voice and access to employees with shared protected characteristics risk becoming a hotbed for competing political agendas and skirmishes over scarce executive time and organisational resources.

Encouraging a spirit of dialogue that aids mutual respect and understanding of differing viewpoints ensures that all voices are heard, without falling prey to cancel culture. Dialogue recognises the complexity of human needs and experiences. It acknowledges that people do not belong to only one specific identity or homogenous group. Instead, employees have multiple intersecting identities and simultaneously participate in several groups. It is, therefore, incumbent on staff networks to work collaboratively to promote psychological safety at work while aligning with the broader organisational agenda.  

2. Promote senior leadership engagement and line managers as linchpins –

Forthcoming IES research demonstrates that senior leadership engagement is a crucial organisational enabler for DEI progress. Not only is it imperative for the board and executive team to role model the values of trust, respect, fairness, and belonging, but line managers at every level are a critical linchpin in creating an inclusive team environment that considers the needs of diverse people.

However, the Chartered Management Institute worryingly reports that 82% of managers are ‘accidental managers’, with no formal management or leadership qualifications. This creates a toxic work culture that alienates staff who need extra support or workplace adjustments, such as those with caring responsibilities or opting for hybrid working. Moreover, a say-do gap exists in managers agreeing that EDI is important and being able to create inclusive workplaces. Training managers on the importance of taking feedback and listening is the first step. The next is developing comprehensive and tailored inclusive leadership programs that help managers connect organisational goals to institutional culture and interpersonal behaviour.

3. Take an intersectional approach to EDI –

Intersectionality is a framework that acknowledges the different socio-political identities of people to show how interlocking systems of power affect the most marginalised in society. To illustrate, men may have more power than women, but a white woman is likely to have more power than a black man due to her ethnicity, and a white woman with young children is likely to be discriminated against more at work than an Asian, married man with children. These intersecting identity characteristics can put people at an advantage or disadvantage in different settings.

A survey conducted by IES for the Care Quality Commission on workforce inequalities in health and adult social care, showed that nearly two-thirds of the respondents faced combined discrimination, that is, unequal treatment due to two or more protected characteristics. Social mobility and caring responsibilities are increasingly becoming important axes for diversity and inclusion, even though the Equality Act does not legally cover them. Adopting an intersectional approach in policy and programming allows organisations to address the differentiated needs of marginalised staff without alienating or excluding dominant groups.

To conclude, practitioners and academic experts recognise that there is no silver bullet for nurturing inclusive workspaces. However, one thing we must do is move away from divisive diversity and politicisation of the agenda. Mature leaders know that they must do this without throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

Dr Meenakshi Krishnan, Principal Research Fellow

Institute for Employment Studies

The UK labour market faces a growing and complex challenge: rising economic inactivity driven by long-term health conditions. Over 2.8 million people are currently out of the workforce due to health-related reasons—a figure that continues to grow. The UK Government has recognised the severity of this issue with the launch of its “Get Britain Working” White Paper, aimed at reducing economic inactivity and supporting individuals back into meaningful employment. However, getting people back into work is only one piece of the puzzle. To create a sustainable approach to employment, we must also build workplaces that foster engagement, inclusion and wellbeing.  

While reducing economic inactivity is critical, it is equally important to recognise the growing number of individuals in work who are living with work-limiting health conditions – now estimated at approximately 3.7 million and rising. This trend represents a significant public health challenge and a pressing concern for economic productivity and workforce sustainability. Long-term health conditions are now the fastest-growing reason for economic inactivity, with the most rapid increase seen among younger workers – challenging traditional assumptions of workforce vulnerability. To address this challenge effectively, it is not enough to focus solely on health outcomes; organisational culture and employee experience must also be part of the solution.

Against this backdrop, findings from the Engage for Success (EFS) annual engagement survey highlight the critical role of employee engagement in mitigating these risks. The data reveals a strong link between low engagement, unmanageable job stress, and the risk of economic inactivity – particularly for those with long-term or work-limiting health conditions. One in four employees stated they had either a physical and/or mental health condition that was classified as long-term. Employees in this group consistently report reduced engagement and job satisfaction, often driven by unmanageable job stress, a perceived lack of managerial support, and organisational cultures that failed to prioritise employee wellbeing. One in eight employees categorised themselves as neurodivergent and expressed similar responses as employees with long-term health conditions. As a result, both employees with long-term health conditions and neurodivergence were more inclined to contemplate leaving the organisation, reinforcing the need for more inclusive and supportive workplace practices.

Survey findings highlighted a critical concern around the employee disclosure of health conditions and how they are supported in the workplace. While one in four employees reported having a physical and/or mental health condition, over a third had not disclosed it to their employer. Among employees identifying as neurodivergent, two-thirds chose not to disclose to their employer, with fear of discrimination cited as the primary reason. Even when disclosure of health conditions or neurodivergence occurred, support was often lacking.   More than a third of those who shared their condition reported that no workplace accommodations were made. This lack of support had a tangible impact: engagement levels were 20 percent-points lower for those who disclosed a health condition but did not receive support, compared to their peers without health conditions. Moreover, employees without reasonable adjustments experienced unmanageable job stress three times the rate of those without work-limiting health conditions.  

Work-related stress reportedly costs the UK economy an estimated £28bn a year, and its growing prevalence is a pressing concern.  Survey findings reveal that unmanageable job stress is five times higher in organisations that do not prioritise the people issues. In these environments, employees report lower enjoyment in their work, viewing it as a financial obligation rather than a fulfilling experience. This erodes engagement, productivity, discretionary effort, and collaboration. In contrast, high levels of engagement can buffer the effects of workplace stress. Even under pressure, engaged employees continue to contribute ideas, support their colleagues, and maintain a sense of enjoyment in their work. What sets them apart is receiving strong managerial support, having a voice in decision-making, and trusting in ethical leadership.

The survey highlighted an additional challenge – organisations fostering a culture of presenteeism. Findings revealed that presenteeism was especially common in organisations that failed to prioritise people-related issues. Beyond its detrimental impact on engagement levels and employee wellbeing, the cost of presenteeism is estimated to be five times higher than sickness due to prolonged loss of productivity. This issue was particularly prevalent among employees with long-term health conditions, neurodivergence, and unmanageable job stress. As a result, these employees face an increased risk of further health deterioration, deeper disengagement, and loss of productivity.

The increasing costs of long-term and work-related health conditions are compounded with the productivity losses caused by low engagement and presenteeism. Employee engagement is key in mitigating these risks, but it must be supported by an inclusive culture that prioritises people and wellbeing. However, a proactive and collaborative approach is required. A coordinated effort between public policy and organisational practices with employee engagement at the heart of this response is crucial. Without this shift, employees with long-term and work-limiting health conditions risk deepening the cycle of exclusion, disengagement, and economic inactivity.

Dr Sarah Pass is Senior Lecturer in HRM at Nottingham Trent University

James Court-Smith is a data scientist, visiting Fellow at Nottingham Business School and Director at Stillae Ltd

March 2025

The public sector in the UK is teetering on the brink of a crisis. Trust in government has tanked; productivity has yet to return to pre-pandemic levels, and satisfaction with the NHS is the lowest ever recorded at just 24%. While some pay disputes have been resolved, recent research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that many public sector workers report rising levels of exhaustion, poor mental health, excessive workloads and ongoing dissatisfaction with their pay. The CIPD argue these trends most likely prefigure ‘a slide towards mediocrity’, as employees express less willingness to put in extra effort to help their organisations.

These are worrying developments at a time when strengthening our public services is fundamental to improving the quality of life in the UK, and to addressing the critical health, security and environmental challenges we face.

What can be done? While continued financial investment in the public sector is clearly essential, looking more deeply at the work we are asking public servants to perform, how we are asking them to work, and the context within which they carry out this work also has a foundational role to play in bolstering morale, motivation and performance. Crucially, based on our research, we argue that paying close attention to meaningful work in the public sector is vital.

Meaningful work is work that is evaluated and experienced by the individual as positive, intrinsically valuable and significant. Research has linked meaningful work to a host of positive outcomes, such as increased well-being, employee engagement, work motivation, job satisfaction, job commitment and employee performance and reduced turnover intentions. Recently, McKinsey suggested that employees increasingly seek out meaning and purpose at work, and that this trend may provide the public sector with a unique advantage when it comes to closing the talent gap. Indeed, the role of meaningful work in attracting and engaging talent is perhaps nowhere more pertinent and critical.

Many employees enter the public sector primarily because they are motivated by serving the greater good, which is a crucial factor in making work more meaningful. However, for public institutions to enjoy the benefits of meaningful work, they should not assume that this is enough – it is what happens after people enter the workplace that determines whether this initial sense of meaningfulness is sustained over time. Moreover, meaningfulness is not inherent in specific occupations or contexts of work. While meaningfulness is something that individuals find for themselves within their work, there is much that institutions and organisations can do to actively design work environments that foster meaningfulness by considering job-level and organisational factors.

Research has shown that meaningful work comprises four central dimensions: individuation, contribution, self-connection, and unification. Individuation arises when individuals feel their skills and efforts are uniquely valuable for solving problems. A sense of contribution occurs when people see their work makes a difference. Self-connection occurs when work aligns with personal values and one’s sense of self. Unification arises from sense of belonging and harmony with colleagues. An understanding of these four dimensions can help employers find opportunities to enhance employees’ experiences of meaningful work.

For example, a large body of research has investigated the role of job design in influencing meaningful work. Designing jobs to provide autonomy, skill variety and task variety can directly influence experiences of meaningfulness for employees, particularly via the individuation pathway. Moreover, the relational architecture of jobs — or the way in which jobs are designed to include social interactions, opportunities for collaboration and contact with the beneficiaries of one’s work — is important for meaningful work. Experimental studies have demonstrated that when we perceive we are helping others through our work this can significantly increase experiences of meaningfulness. Thus, to foster the dimension of contribution, managers should help provide regular opportunities to engage with the communities or individuals that employees serve and to receive positive feedback.

Contextual and organisational factors also influence meaningfulness. Bureaucracy, understaffing and austerity measures can have a significant negative impact on employee engagement, and by extension meaningfulness.  When people are overworked, or are given impossible targets to achieve, it is hard for them to sustain a sense of meaningfulness. As a result, the role of the leader is especially important in creating a positive, nurturing environment where meaningfulness can thrive.

Research has also shown that meaningful work is a significant mediator between leadership and employee outcomes in the public sector.  High-quality relationships between employees and managers can positively affect employees’ sense of contribution by increasing their understanding of how their work relates to the larger organisation. A seminal study highlighted how leaders can act as ‘architects’, helping employees build bridges between their daily tasks and the more abstract goals of the organisation. Equally, creating an environment where active conversations take place about meaningful work can also make a significant difference.

There is much that organisations can do to facilitate meaningful work for their employees. If the public sector is to meet the pressing challenges of our time, it must recognise that employees will not automatically find their work meaningful through public service motivation. Instead, it is vital to create a working environment that fosters a sense of meaningfulness, drawing on all four of the dimensions of meaningful work. Will leaders take the necessary steps to redesign work, foster connection, and remove barriers that stifle meaningfulness, or will the sector miss the opportunity to engage the very talent it needs to drive societal progress?

Dr Anna Lelia Sandoghdar (Future of Work Strategist, G-Research)

Katie Bailey, Professor of Leadership and HRM, Northumbria University and Emerita Professor of Work and Employment, King’s College London

The Employment Rights Bill announced by Labour last year holds much promise for workers’ rights. As the biggest shake-up in a generation, it could transform the lives of parents and carers in the UK.

The legislation plans to make entitlement to Paternity, unpaid Parental Leave and Bereavement Leave a day one right, strengthening rights for pregnant workers and ending exploitative zero hours contracts. In addition, the bill aims to progress equality in the workplace with gender action plans and make work more compatible with modern lives through flexible working becoming the default where practical.

The new laws, if made a reality, recognise that, when you support parents and carers to navigate the challenges of managing care and work in the modern world, not only do families reap the benefits, but so does the economy and wider society in general. How can we even begin to tackle the rising mental health crisis among young people or meet the demands of an aging population, with all the financial implications of these, if we aren’t giving families the support they need?

But whilst we at Working Families campaigned for this change and are thrilled to see our collaborative efforts coming to fruition, we acknowledge it’s only a part of the solution. We realise that legislation alone cannot create a better functioning, more equal, more prosperous society. To achieve the change we need in society, we need employers leading the charge. 

Take the example of flexible working, currently a privilege mainly afforded to those in desk-based roles. If we are to make flex fair for all, we need to break the connection between flexible working and remote work. Making flexible working the default would mean employers, especially who employ people who need to work at a particular location, would be required to consider the alternatives to working from home, and there are many – job share, staggered starts, shift-swopping, compressed hours, flexitime, to name a few. The legislation would move us away from a ‘it won’t work’ mindset that, although completely understandable for employers who are up against it and under pressure to deliver, means workers have their needs written off without considering all the options.

And yet, from our work with employers over the past 30 years, we know that embedding the right culture is as important as any policy. Without the buy-in from line-managers, support can be patchy or inconsistent, and without endorsement from senior leaders, take-up of policies will stay low. Going through the motions of the new law without adopting a flex frame of mind based on trust and finding solutions, is never going to deliver the same results and unlock the benefits of increased productivity and staff retention.

Whilst anyone who has been campaigning for changes in the workplace over the past decades will tell you, getting to this point has been an uphill struggle. But in some ways, the hard work starts here to convince employers who may not be happy about legislation making workplaces more family-friendly not just of the return on investment, but also how to create a workplace culture which will mean they can reap the rewards. This is where our Working Families membership comes into its own, equipping hundreds of employers over the years with the tools they need, and why we are launching the first Family Friendly Workplaces accreditation in the UK, to set a new global standard that will build family-friendly workplaces of the future.

Both our membership and the new accreditation have been established because employers can’t be expected to be experts in everything, and with the immense potential they have to affect the lives of their employees, guidance can go a long way. At a recent session during our annual awareness campaign, National Work Life Week, we heard from leaders on how to lead flex from the front, and go way beyond legislation to create workplaces where people can really thrive:

Start with communication

• Take time to understand the individual needs in a team or staff network so that you’re not applying policy in a vacuum, which can be ineffective.
• Remind staff of policies on a regular basis and as they enter different phases of life to encourage take-up.
• Normalise talking about family or caring responsibilities to help everyone feel they can advocate for their own needs.

Be a ‘real model’

• Others look to leaders for permission and their actions can have a big influence on the perceived ability to work flexibly.
• Don’t role model perfection. Be honest about how hard parenting or juggling work with caring is, authenticity is much more powerful.

Adopt a flex frame of mind

• Start with a solutions-based mindset. If a particular working pattern is not possible, what else is available?
• Trust is the foundation to high performing teams, and a sense of control and choice leads to better productivity.
• Modern work is about human relationships. Transparency and dialogue help teams bond so that having different working arrangements are less of an issue.

Think practically

• Equip managers with tools and knowhow, and help managers by busting myths around flexible working.
• Use place and space wisely. Think about which tasks need connection, and which need concentration to use out-of-office and in-office time to the best advantage.
• Support people to unplug completely when not working to ensure they, and the organisation, reap the benefits.

Jane van Zyl, Chief Executive 

Working Families

[email protected]

Is the Labour government about to write a new chapter in the history of British employment relations? That is certainly the declared intention of the Employment Rights Bill currently before parliament, with ministers describing the provisions contained therein as the biggest expansion of employment rights for half a century.  It is certainly the case that these measures represent a decisive break with the approach adopted over the past fourteen years, with individual rights subjected to deregulation or a gradual erosion of protections, alongside the increasingly stringent regulation of the activity of trade unions, exemplified by the Trade Union Act 2016.  

Ministers have also been equally clear that the new measures are only the first phase of a programme to make work pay, fix the foundations of the economy, achieve a higher rate of growth and address the UK’s woeful productivity record.  The ambitions are bold and are focused on ensuring that workers secure their fair share of the nation’s rising prosperity, through sustainable wage increases and decent work.  In principle, these are unexceptionable goals, but it remains an open question whether the policies are commensurate with the scale of the aspirations.    

Viewed in a different light, the contents of the bill offer a menu of the exotic and the prosaic. The micro-level regulation of zero hours contracts, for example, is new and genuinely different; it is the first example, perhaps, of government intervention in a specific form of employment contract.  Similarly, the abandonment of any qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection is also new. Hitherto, all governments had required employees to have held their jobs from anywhere between six months and two years before the right crystallised. The proposed changes to the trade union recognition regime, on the other hand, are entirely “normal” and are rooted in a well-established, if somewhat traditional, model of collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays.

If one takes a step back, it is challenging to find a philosophical approach that gives coherence to these measures.  Rather than a comprehensive new settlement, it could be said that the government is engaged in a process of labour market whack-a-mole: “we have identified a problem and we will regulate to solve it”. Moreover, it is difficult to argue that a social consensus exists about the legitimate province of labour market regulation.  Employers still express concerns about burdens on business and trade unions apparently measure their success in terms of the number of new rights added to the statute book. There is ample (although slightly dated) evidence to show that the world of work is characterised by unfairness and bad practice in mainstream employment, that levels of trust are low in many workplaces, that people management often falls short of decent, let alone best practice, and that these phenomena help to explain the UK’s poor productivity record.

Successful policy interventions depend on an accurate diagnosis of the problems confronting workers and their employers, the fostering of institutions to encourage dialogue and a shared understanding of how better outcomes can be achieved and sustained in the future.  At the very least that requires a common frame of reference, which is conspicuous by its absence today. Progress is likely to be impeded by the absence of adequate information – the quality of the official statistics is less than desirable, the most recent Workplace Employment Relations Study dates from 2011 and it is arguable that policymakers lack the information they need to design efficient and effective regulation.

All this helps to explain why the responses to the following questions remain hotly contested. How, for example, should one judge whether people at work are being managed fairly and effectively? What is the appropriate role of trade unions in a growing, competitive economy? Which precise models of collective bargaining are consistent with sustained, non-inflationary growth? Is it desirable for trade union membership to be higher and collective bargaining to be the principal method for the determination of terms and conditions of employment? What role do employers’ associations play in this process? Does the UK simply lack the institutions needed to secure a more effective dialogue between workers and their employers, assuming such a dialogue to be desirable?

One might say that the bill offers implicit answers to these questions, but it falls short of a comprehensive analysis and does not, viewed in isolation, create an opportunity for an open discussion about the various avenues of advance.  Very different answers will be given by trade unions, workers and employers and, in the absence of a national conversation leading to a sustainable settlement, there is a high risk that the role of labour market regulation will continue to be the subject of intense, damaging, disagreement.

Avoiding this outcome suggests an irresistible case for a comprehensive, dispassionate assessment and the development of an appropriate policy response. A Royal Commission, along the lines of the Donovan Commission, appointed in 1965 to review the role of trade unions and employers’ associations, may offer some inspiration for what is required. If the objective is to fix the foundations, then all participants must turn their minds to the task and work co-operatively to achieve a shared goal.  A new and comfortable home cannot be built with half the workforce simultaneously trying to demolish the building. 

David Coats, director Work Matters

[email protected]

January 2025

There’s a crisis in our schools and our new government is going to need big and bold ideas to turn the lives of our young people around.

 

There’s going to be a huge financial cost to recruit thousands of more teachers, pay them a fair wage, and to fix our falling-down schools. That’s a given. It must happen.

 

But there are other ways, far less costly, simple but profoundly effective, and which could begin almost immediately.

 

I have worked in the profession for over 40 years, for most of that time as a teacher and leader, and latterly as a consultant and advisor. My school was often described as ‘succeeding against the odds’: a large comprehensive on a deprived council estate with many dysfunctional families. Yet we achieved four successive ‘outstanding’ Ofsted judgements and year-on-year, we recruited and retained a highly trained and engaged staff.

 

All well and good. But here’s the surprising thing: the ingredients of our success did not require ‘big’ money. As in many walks of life, the important factors aren’t easily measured or costed. An ‘ethos’, for example, cannot be simply quantified or described. But if it’s there, rock solid and everyone is signed up to it, then policy and practice fall in behind it. Not everything of value costs money.

 

Here are seven ideas for the new Secretary of State for Education to consider that are high impact, low cost:

 

1. Boost teacher morale: win back the teaching profession

Cost: minimal

 

2. Make teaching attractive: raise the status and recruit the best

Cost: minimal

 

3. Take the anxiety out of teaching: review the efficacy of ofsted

Cost: minimal; possible savings

 

4. Reduce workload at a stroke: review testing and assessment

Cost: minimal

 

5. Interim curriculum action: a full curriculum review is encouragingly underway

Cost: minimal

 

6. Make successful primary schools the basis for change

Cost: minimal

 

7. Talk to successful school leaders, past and present, in challenging schools

Cost: none

 

 

1. Boost teacher morale

 

Teachers are more than ready for a government that genuinely shows that they care about them. Lots of different people in positions of power need to tell them that they ‘count’. And one sure way to prove it, is to listen to them. Get into schools and listen.

 

Ask them questions about how schools could be improved: what are the right things and what are the wrong things about school? Give them the chance to speak. Make them believe that they have a part to play in the solution. They are best placed to contribute. Teachers are at the chalkface, with their feet planted firmly on the ground.

 

Most teachers come into teaching to ‘make a difference’ to young lives.  This is why it should still be considered a ‘noble profession’ and this ideal should never be disregarded as cliched.

 

Many teachers have lost their initial sparkle and belief. They have become much less in control due to outside political influences as the curriculum and the testing regime have narrowed many children’s chances to succeed.  

 

The whole profession is poised and set for a ‘rekindling’. DfE recognition and acknowledgement cost nothing. Step into schools, listen and demonstrate support.  

 

Get the teachers involved and on board; stop them leaving.

  

 

2. Make teaching attractive

 

Teaching is one of the most important jobs in the land. For a short period of time, teachers are in charge of the world’s greatest resource – our children. It is an enormous responsibility but a privilege too. We can’t afford to get it wrong. But recruitment is currently low and not enough graduates are attracted to the profession.

 

The aim to recruit 6500 new Maths teachers is a bold enterprise and if successful will answer the shortfall in Maths. However, attracting them to apply in the first place, and then vetting and retaining them will be a challenge. As it stands, teaching does not appear to be the choice of enough graduates. There are vacancies right across the board as well as Maths.

 

Advertising pays we’re told. The current recruitment ads on television seem powerful enough, especially to attract more men into the teaching profession.  But have they been successful?  Has there been any research to claim return for the money spent? This is worth a look.

 

A key question to ask is: who are the best advocates of the teaching profession? And how can they be used?

 

• Famous people in the past have been used in advertising campaigns for teaching. There will be many well-known people in the wider community who could tell their stories and would give their time for free. After all, many people remember a great teacher who set them on their way to success.

 

• Similarly, there are thousands of ‘ordinary people’ who could speak up as advocates: ambulance drivers, electricians, care workers, plumbers etc. It would be a worthwhile research project to find people who could recount their positive, life-affirming experiences on camera.  Limited cost.

 

• Also, consider the ‘clients’ themselves. Ask the ‘small’ children and the teenagers what makes a great teacher. They are likely to speak with a high degree of honesty, and freshness. Put them in front of a film crew and let them do the talking. (Think of the impact of the children featured in the John Lewis Christmas ads).

 

• Finally, find current teachers who absolutely love their jobs and make them ‘advocates’. Put them on film, describing their jobs. They could also take their place on recruitment panels. They will be among the best at spotting a ‘natural’, and those who show potential to become one.

 

A consistent way of vetting the candidates is crucial, especially in a time of teacher shortage when wrong decisions are more easily made. The selection process needs to be rigorous and those entering the profession need to be very clear about the responsibility that they will bear, and how they will be valued by society.

 

Clarity is needed about the current criteria for recruitment: academic qualifications? character? stamina? emotional intelligence? Attracting more people into the profession is urgent, but they must be the ‘right people’. Our young people deserve nothing less.

 

 

3. Take the anxiety out of teaching

 

There has been plenty of debate recently about the pressure inflicted on schools by this inspection regime.

 

There is no doubt that it has had a hugely adverse and often demoralising effect on the teaching profession. Many Headteachers and individual teachers feel very badly done by, bitterly disappointed by snapshot judgements.

 

No one in the profession is likely to forget the tragic case of Ruth Perry. The widespread criticism in the media which followed her death, revealed deep flaws in the reporting system. Ofsted had dismally failed in its duty to protect her. Over many years, the structure and ways of working have often proved to be counterproductive to the improvement in schools.

 

The name itself is ‘damaged goods’ and could easily be replaced. For example, ‘The Schools Advisory Body’.  A shift of ethos needs to be about supporting schools: the sharing of good practice; advice; assistance; information – a change of emphasis at no cost.

 

Teachers and Headteachers are run ragged chasing results, in fear of league tables, and the next visit from Ofsted. Rebranding and a rebuilding are possible if there’s a will to do it.

 

Last year research showed that 92%of teachers from schools across all gradings agreed that Ofsted is not “a reliable and trusted arbiter of standards” (University College, London November 2023)

 

 

4. Reduce workload at a stroke

 

It’s a fact that teachers work very hard. But they are often working very hard at the wrong things. It’s bad enough to be involved in mountains of paperwork, and marking, but far worse to be working so hard at something they don’t believe in. This is soul-destroying and often the least talked about reason why teachers are so disillusioned; why they leave their profession, early on or well before retirement age.

 

A long hard look at the testing regime in our schools needs to be a priority. This is a big subject and deserves a proper review. For example, by reducing the amount of testing, money can be saved. Current dependency on national exam boards (at primary and secondary level) is very costly. They are the providers of exam papers, practice test papers which are linked up with the publishers of textbooks. It’s a profitable industry that is not necessarily cost effective in terms of improving the quality of education. The whole exam system eg. why grade 3 is deemed a failure at GCSE, needs a rethink. It’s an urgent matter, and will be tied into any curriculum review, and what it is we value in society.

 

Research has shown that schoolteachers spend an inordinate amount of time preparing children for tests, teaching for the tests, administering the tests, and then worrying about the results.  Research has shown that our children are the most tested in Europe, and the most stressed.

 

However, a more immediate possibility is releasing teachers from the strain of constant in-house assessment and recording of progress of children, of all ages. Learning is not linear, and all children learn in leaps and bounds, and have fallow periods too.

 

Begin to build trust in teachers. Show confidence in them to teach and assess in the way that meets the demands of the children in their care. Allow them the creativity and freedom to teach.

 

Some parents may be unnerved by any change to the existing arrangements. eg less dependency on frequent in-class testing. But most could be persuaded to support the argument that this would allow higher quality teaching. Changing the assessment system does not mean a drop in standards. It can mean the opposite. Parents and carers need to be given sufficient information to convince them that there are far better and fairer ways of doing things. Step forward good Headteachers who have a deep understanding of their communities and will know how to explain the changes. ‘Educating the parents’ is key. They need to be on board.

 

Under the current testing arrangements, failure is ‘baked-in’ to school life; stacks of data given as evidence of having failed. This is unacceptable. There are fundamental problems with standardised testing, the least of which is that children don’t come in standardised sizes. A starting point for debate is how we tend to over-value the things we can measure, and how schools are attached to ‘false’ measurements. The whole definition of ‘intelligence’ needs a refresh.

 

 

5. Interim curriculum input

 

The ‘curse of irrelevance’ is deeply rooted within our secondary schools. Many of our problems stem from an inappropriate curriculum: disengaged learners, high levels of boredom, poor student behaviour and high absenteeism. The continuous emphasis on the academic, and the downgrading of practical skills, Sports and the Arts, has had a profound effect on young people’s lives.

 

There will always be a need for academic rigour, surely a good thing. But it doesn’t suit everyone. There are countless people who are brilliant with their hands, or have boundless creative flair, and who do badly at school. What happens to them? Potential and talent squandered.

 

The new government is rightly committed to bringing back the Arts into schools and reviewing the current hierarchy of subjects. Many of our schools have been blighted by the continuous emphasis on the academic, and the downgrading of ‘soft’ subjects.  The curriculum review will inevitably attract costs in terms of setting up an appraisal body and employing researchers and will take time.

 

In the meantime, however, an immediate change to the quality of the school experience might be possible. Raising the status of Drama, Art, Music and Dance could initially be achieved by the offer of lunchtime and after-school clubs. Many currently exist successfully. They can cost very little, if volunteer artists, musicians and actors who have publicly bemoaned the loss of the Arts can be invited and encouraged to come forward and become involved in this venture.

 

Previous governments have been wedded to a National Curriculum which to this day, have continued to fail in keeping up with the rapid changes in our society, where the need for knowledge shifts and turns on an almost daily basis. Any broadening of the curriculum is likely to reach some of our most disengaged learners. Meaningful success in the non-academic subjects and genuine celebration of their achievements will have an immediate effect.

 

There are some very fine minds in the world of education who have wrung their hands at the prescriptive and inflexible curriculum laid out by Michael Gove in 2014. Their research and advice were wholeheartedly rejected. Track them down and bring their expertise and creativity to the table.

 

6. Make successful primary schools the basis for change

 

Get into highly successful primary schools, especially in the early years. The early years teachers are at the beginning of these children’s social lives where they learn to take their place in the world outside of home. They are profoundly important in setting them up to succeed. These are the teachers who understand how children learn best, and how a sense of failure is only a whisker away. They are advocates of the joy of learning, and their enthusiasm and commitment have a great deal to teach a profession which appears, at times, to have lost its way.

 

Outstanding early years teachers get so much right: the creation of highly motivated learners, happy children at ease in their learning, generating a sense of fun and no fear of being wrong. This is where the enthusiasm for learning begins.

 

But it’s a fact that the offer often deteriorates as the children get older, and this is a very big topic for a new Minister of State. Even before they leave their primary school, it’s likely that they will have experienced some pressure from their teachers to produce results at KS2.

 

All good primary Heads will try to protect those pupils who don’t do well at national tests. They will go all out to encourage and celebrate success in other areas – Art, Music, Dance, Drama, in Sports – so at least their charges are sent off to secondary school with a degree of self-confidence and hope.

 

Even so, secondary teachers often find themselves picking up the pieces from those 11–12-year-olds who’ve already decided they are, for example, ‘rubbish at Maths’ or ‘hate reading’. Thanks to the very narrow testing at Key Stage 2 their incompetence has been ‘proved’ in these subjects.  

 

As they move through secondary school there is more pressure to produce results. The joy of learning is easily extinguished by a dull curriculum, delivered by teachers who have had no part in its design.

 

There are many wonderful Primary Headteachers, current or retired, whose knowledge and experience could add to the debate about how to improve our schools. Iain Erskine, in his book ‘Brilliant Headteacher’ describes how his school’s ethos was inspired by the phrase: ‘Do you know a place that makes you long for childhood?’  It’s a terrific ideal for any Headteacher to follow: to make their school that ‘place’.

 

 

7. Talk to school leaders who have a proven track record of success, especially in challenging schools

 

This is perhaps the easiest of all. These people will have encountered many of

society’s problems: poverty, economic and cultural deprivation, discrimination, and disruptive student behaviour. Ask them simply: how did they succeed? How did they retain and recruit their staff? How did they look after their staff? How did they motivate the youngsters? How did they succeed against the odds? The answers are in the schools: with Headteachers, with classroom teachers, with teaching assistants, with the school librarian, with the ancillary staff.

 

Put these school leaders, past and present, at the table with DfE advisors and ministers. Let them explain how they built their schools to withstand and overcome the many disadvantages experienced by their pupils. These are the people who know how to address inequality head on. They consistently demonstrate a tenacity and a drive to offer the best education despite a tide of constraints. They are the believers in the power of education to change lives. They are the people who are well placed to advise on how to achieve it. Find them.

 

Afterword

 

In my school we worked out how to succeed with the most disengaged students; how to attract and retain the best staff; how to build a school community built on mutual respect and trust; how to keep teachers centre stage and look after them; how to build success into pupils’ lives.

 

We got used to questioning the worth of our systems, and whether they encouraged the best outcomes for our students. We tried many different things, ventures that failed, with plenty of missteps along the way. We recognised the dangers of flogging a dead horse and we became better at cutting our losses. But when something worked well, we figured out how we did it so we could repeat it.

 

Ultimately the success of my school revolved around the quality of the teachers. I taught with some of the best teachers and, very occasionally, some of the worst. Both made a difference. Whichever way you look at it, the quality of teaching is at the centre of any conversation about education. The recruitment, training and retention of teachers will always be top of the agenda.

 

Get the teachers right and most of what you hope for, falls into place.

 

There is a huge opportunity for Bridget Phillipson and her team to turn round the fortunes and the futures of our young people, especially those in the poorest areas of the country, and the most disengaged from their education – immediately and with very little cost.

 

Someone once said that “a school should be a reservoir of hope”. With our new Labour government, it’s time now to make it so.

 

Lindy Barclay

Ex Headteacher, Education Consultant, and Writer

October 2024