ben

A recent study undertaken by Cerus Consulting with a number of organizations in the charity sector has indicated that employee survey results frequently overstate the level of engagement that exists within the organization, and often fail to reveal serious considerations that need to be addressed. However this issue is not only confined to the 3^rd Sector and as survey results often provide the underpinning for future change and improvement interventions, there is therefore a need to look afresh at the ways in which we measure engagement and the robustness of the information upon which actions are predicated.

The specific findings from the study were that:

• Employees are frequently engaged with considerations such as the ‘cause’ or the customers or beneficiaries they are there to serve, rather than with the organization per se
• Traditional approaches to measuring employee engagement often fail to make this distinction and where employees are delivering ‘above average’ levels of performance it is often despite, as opposed to because of, the organization
• Employee engagement scores frequently mask underlying psychological concerns of employees that can result in ‘self protection’ behaviors and reduced short term performance
• Ultimately higher levels of burn out, stress, sickness and absenteeism are likely with the attendant implications for employee wellbeing and sustainable organizational service and performance.

Introduction

The current economic environment is particularly challenging for organizations operating in the charitable and not for profit sectors but the pressures are not unique to this sector – the requirement to ‘do more with less’ and to deliver ever higher levels of performance against a fluid and continually changing backdrop, are challenges faced by most organizations – and it is not likely to improve in the foreseeable future. If there was ever a time when high levels of employee engagement were required, the time is now, and on the face of it, there is considerable ‘evidence’ (eg the high engagement scores that many organizations report from their employee engagement surveys) to indicate that employees are rising to the challenge and are being successful in creating high performance work environments which stimulate engagement and performance.  

However we believe that, for many organizations, this may not in fact be the case and that these high scores may well be providing a distorted picture and masking a number of potentially serious issues. This belief has been borne out in conversations with a number of HR Directors who have expressed a degree of unease about the apparent disconnect between observed employee behaviors and survey results. Accordingly, we undertook a study involving eight UK based charities in order to test three hypotheses:

1. That employees within 3^rd Sector organizations are more engaged with the cause that the charity is involved in, as opposed to being engaged with the organization per se
2. That as a consequence, engagement survey scores frequently present an artificially positive picture of the level of engagement that actually exists within the organization
3. That this ‘over-positive’ picture masks deeper psychological concerns that employees have which have implications for both employee well being and sustained organizational performance.

Research Methodology

In total eight UK and International charities took part in the study and responses were received from a total of 56 respondents drawn from a cross section of organizational roles and levels. Respondents were asked to complete a short questionnaire to assess (using a five point measurement scale) the levels of pride, emotional identification, loyalty and advocacy they felt for both their organization and the cause that the organization was working for as well as the extent to which they were prepared to put in additional discretionary effort on behalf of the organization or the cause. They were also asked to rate their level of commitment and to select 5 words from a predefined list that most accurately reflected their feelings about working for their organization.

Results

Analysis of the results showed overwhelming evidence that employees are more engaged with the cause than with their organization. The distribution of responses to statements regarding pride, loyalty, identification, advocacy and discretionary effort are shown below and indicate that employees responded much more positively to statements about the cause than the organization.

Detailed comparisons showed that employees were much more likely to express strong agreement about their level of pride, their willingness to advocate, their levels of emotional identification and loyalty and their willingness to put in additional effort, when asked about the cause as opposed to the organization, as shown below:

The relatively low scores / high gaps associated with identification, advocacy and loyalty are of particular concern indicating that employees are putting in additional effort despite, as opposed to because of, organizational behaviors and practices. This conclusion is borne out by the extent to which respondents indicated where their greatest level of commitment lay with the analysis showing that employees considered themselves to be more committed to the cause than to their organization.

An analysis of the words selected by respondents to reflect their feelings about working for their organization indicated that the most common words selected, in order, were:

1. Stimulated
2. Enthusiastic
3. Frustrated
4. Satisfied
5. Happy

It is interesting to note that whilst the first two statements are associated with high levels of engagement, they were frequently accompanied by the third statement, ‘frustrated’, which is not. Further exploration into the causes of frustration was carried out in order to ascertain if this was in response to the broader economic and political environment in which they operated or reflected issues which were internal to the organization (eg about culture, leadership, job design etc). Without exception respondents indicated that their frustration was as a result of internal organizational factors (ie aspects which were within the organizations ability to control or influence). This suggests that much of the positive energy and effort being exerted by employees is being dissipated in an attempt to overcome internal barriers.

Further analysis of these responses indicated that:

• Approximately 30% of responses reflected feelings that were positive in terms of potential impact on organizational outcomes and employee wellbeing. They exhibited high levels of activation and a positive emotional state and hence could be seen as being highly engaged with the organization
• Approximately 40% exhibited a state that indicated positive wellbeing but which was not likely to lead to above average levels of performance; maintaining a ‘comfortable’ and stable working environment would be the priority concern for this group – a reality which might be difficult to realize in the current economic environment
• In total 14% exhibited signs of fatigue and burnout and 7% highlighted feelings that are indicative of stress.

In other words 70% of employees were not channeling or aligning their energies in a manner that best served the needs of their organization. Of these, approximately 20% of respondents reported feelings that are often precursors of health and stress related issues and which can manifest in high levels of sick absence; they certainly do not lead to positive organizational outcomes as these individuals are most likely to adopt ‘survival’ behaviors to protect themselves, irrespective of the organizational consequences.

Conclusions

The study involved a relatively small number of organizations and respondents but nevertheless produced consistent results. In addition, despite the fact that it was focused specifically on the charitable sector we believe that the findings have much wider applicability. There is  a clear preference for ‘cause’ over ’organization’ and whilst we cannot conclude categorically that employee engagement survey responses are being distorted in every case, we believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that many organizations are not obtaining an accurate picture of their employee engagement levels from their surveys.

Further, we conclude that this may well mean that critical aspects of organizational behavior and practice are being overlooked in the belief that they are not fundamentally affecting engagement when the reality is that people are ‘going the extra mile’ despite the organization and not because of it. This may be manifesting itself in enhanced levels of performance and service in the short term but at a price; eventually frustration with organizational practices, burnout and stress will come to the fore with the inevitable consequences of physical and / or emotional withdrawal of effort. Consequently organizational performance will invariably suffer as will employee wellbeing – a doubly disastrous outcome not only for employees but for the customers and beneficiaries whom the organization aims to serve and for the organization’s reputation.  

What to do about it

This analysis highlights the critical importance of obtaining accurate measures of employee engagement and the potential risks and consequences of adopting measures that paint an artificially positive picture. Organizations therefore need to:

1. View survey results critically and evaluate the extent to which they are borne out by day to day observations and other evidence – are they painting an accurate picture of reality?
2. Be prepared to question underlying survey constructs and whether the measures truly reflect employees emotional connectivity with the organization
3. Acknowledge that employees have different loci of engagement (be it cause, colleagues, job etc) – different thing matter to different people and a ‘one size fits all’ approach is seldom appropriate
4. Recognize that engagement is not just about the ‘here and now’ – past experiences and future expectations play a significant part in shaping behavior and these need to be taken account of
5. Managers need to ‘own’ engagement – they need to be equipped to interpret survey results correctly, empowered to take appropriate action and adopt ways of continuously assessing engagement levels within their teams

 

About the Author

Doug Crawford is the Managing Director of Cerus Consulting and a specialist in employee engagement and performance management. He has over 20 years consulting experience across a wide range organizations, both in the UK and internationally. For further information contact [email protected] or visit our web site www.cerusconsulting.co.uk

©Cerus Consulting 2013

 

 

I spent many years working for different trade unions mostly in the public sector and for several years in the private sector where I would regularly be asked this question.

I was almost always confident in answering in the affirmative, but there were times when it was not easy or when there was a nagging doubt in my mind. People would often ask me the question with a hint of sympathy in their voice or with the clear suggestion that the real answer had to be no.

The challenge facing unions today is greater than ever but at the same time, now is a great opportunity for them to make the case in their favour. The scale and pace of change in the workplace is greater and faster than at any time in history. It is also a time when employers need the knowledge, experience and support of their employees more than in the past.

Unions are agents of change when at their best. Helping to introduce better ways of working, leading social change and helping employees to achieve their potential. However unions sometimes risk being “small c conservative”, slow to respond to major change and prone to focusing on their internal issues. They can also be very bureaucratic, but then again so can many employers.

Since the 2008 crash we have seen many unions in the private sector being creative, fast moving and helping to solve serious problems – using their collectivism and democratic processes as forces for good. That has been the case in manufacturing in companies like Jaguar Landrover and other parts of the automotive industry. A progressive approach has been well championed by USDAW in retail. Unions are working with NHS Trusts across the country to manage the challenges facing the service.

In workplaces across the UK individual union full timers and elected representatives do lots of great work, improving workplaces, tackling inequality, corporate malpractice or just helping to sort out day to day issues.

You will not read about these things in the media or hear about them radio or TV. Sadly there are virtually no industrial correspondents left in the UK media. Most of the current journalists covering union stories have little knowledge of their subject and talk in outdated clichés. So many times I was asked if we faced another winter of discontent by a young journalist who didn’t really know what it was and who wasn’t born then. If I tried to get a good news story about unions in the media I was wasting my time. Industrial strife or militant political statements were all they wanted. Sadly, by focusing only on this rather than on the everyday positive work representatives do, they further undermine the public perception of trade unions.

The steady rise of employee engagement and employee voice has nevertheless been quietly gaining traction with more and more employers and progressive trade unionists recognising this as the way forward for unions in a modern, fast paced global economy. In today’s economic environment the past opposition to working in partnership is exposed as out of step with today’s employees. It has enabled unions to present their offering in a modern context, illustrate their professionalism, utilise their members’ vocational knowledge and crucially to influence employers for good.

It has also exposed unions to employees who previously had no face to face experience of unions, and challenged the clichés unions are so overwhelmed with at times. The unions have themselves benefitted from this experience as they learn more about modern employees’ attitudes and aspirations at work. The missed opportunity of using the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations to establish effective works councils is starting to present itself afresh for progressive trade unionists, with works councils and employee forums being seen more as an opportunity and less of a threat. Modern employees are ethical, want to develop their skills and get on at work.  They like working for a successful organisation, expect quality management, and respect diversity. Sounds like a union agenda to me.

It is clear to me that unions have both the opportunity and the skill base to be a significant influence and a positive influence in the modern workplace. The question for them is not new, will they be brave enough to take it? The same question applies to employers. If they do not, both sides will lose out and so too the UK economy. I fear though that the unions would be hit hardest with their numbers having already suffered a steady decline over the last thirty years.

It does not have to be and should not be like that. The progressive spirit of unions and today’s workers can come together and finally kill off the old clichés. Play safe and the future remains difficult, be brave and opportunities will grow and grow.

Graham Steel is a former senior officer at PCSU and a member of the IPA Executive. He writes in a personal capacity.

 

The IPA report “Meeting the Challenge-successful employee engagement in the NHS” provides an invaluable insight into how NHS organisations are sustaining staff engagement in challenging times. It showcases the successful approaches taken by differing organisations such as Kingston Hospital, Oxleas mental health and community services, and the Royal Marsden Hospital. They serve populations from Chelsea to inner city Manchester.  

Previous reports have concentrated on highlighting the scale of the engagement challenge in the NHS or looking at lessons from other sectors. This report instead shares experience from NHS organisations that have either sustained successful staff engagement or increased engagement significantly over time.  Through developing effective approaches to staff engagement, these Trusts have been able to meet the current challenges in the NHS.

The common elements to their approach are that staff engagement is not a separate HR activity but an essential part of how things are done and a key ingredient on meeting overall objective of improving patient care.

Key elements of their approach include:

• committed leadership that is highly visible and seeks feedback from staff
• employee voice with leaders prepared to act on staff ideas
• partnership working with local staff side
• support for line manager to develop their teams

These Trusts have utilised a range of techniques, with Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust using Appreciative Inquiry and Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust introducing quality improvement groups. Partnership working has been especially well developed at the Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust where the staff side chair is also head of partnership. The case studies make for fascinating reading and provide some great examples of best practice.

In addition to taking part the national staff survey, these Trusts have developed innovative ways of seeking employee views.  

This report was produced by IPA on behalf with support from NHS Employers and we hope to work with IPA over coming months to further develop employee involvement in the NHS.

The National Minimum Wage turns fifteen this April. While today it is a pillar of the UK labour market, even its short-term survival looked in doubt prior to its introduction. With warnings of up to two million job losses and soaring inflation, it is no surprise that Professor Sir George Bain, the chair of the Low Pay Commission which set the first rate, wasn’t sure whether the minimum wage would last. But its success in eliminating extreme low pay without hitting employment has won it backing from across the spectrum. A new report from a panel chaired by Professor Bain and hosted by the Resolution Foundation argues though that the cautious approach which helped the policy bed in now looks too narrow, short-sighted and passive to tackle the wider problem of low pay.

To get an idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the minimum wage, first it is important to understand the architecture behind it. Each year, the rate is recommended to the Secretary of State for BIS by the Low Pay Commission (LPC). The LPC is made up of nine members: three drawn from a trade union background; three from an employers’ perspective; and three independent members consisting of two academics and the Chair. Placing this social partnership approach at the heart of the minimum wage has been vital to the minimum wage’s acceptance, ensuring buy-in from unions and business. Particularly impressive has been the LPC’s ability to reach a unanimous view in every report it has produced, including throughout the difficult economic environment since 2008.

The rate that the LPC initially agreed on was cautiously low. This allowed the policy to find its feet, showing that a wage-floor would not lead to skyrocketing unemployment. But now that a large and rigorous body of evidence has demonstrated it has had no detrimental impact on employment, the current settlement looks too narrow, short-sighted and passive to dent the wider problem of low pay, with a fifth of UK employees low paid. Although a single national wage-floor will always be an ill-fitting garment – it pinches hard in some parts of the economy while many other employers could afford to pay more – there are fears that in some sectors it has become a ‘going-rate’. The LPC has no powers to encourage employers to pay more when they could afford to. And if employers were keen to reduce their reliance on low pay, the lack of a sense of where the minimum wage is heading or what it is trying to achieve, only being announced six months in advance, appears an obstacle.

The report identifies three ways in which the minimum wage and the Low Pay Commission (LPC) should be strengthened:

First, by broadening the LPC into a watchdog on low pay, driving the government’s work on low pay in the same way the OBR drives progress on fiscal policy. This would mean the LPC going well beyond the narrow role of setting the minimum wage to support a new long-term government ambition to lift 1 million workers out of low pay.

Second, by making the minimum wage more far-sighted. The review recommends that the government set out its ambitions for the minimum wage over the medium-term, noting that a minimum wage worth 60 per cent of median hourly earnings would be a challenging but realistic goal. The review also argues that to offer more certainty for employers, the LPC should make a preliminary recommendation for two years’ time. But the social partnership process through which the annual rate is agreed should remain at its core.

Third, by giving the LPC tools to push employers to go beyond the minimum wage, in particular by publishing analysis that shows whether certain sectors could afford to pay more. For sectors which have a relatively small number of low paid workers, a significantly higher minimum wage would result in only a small rise in their overall wage bill. But in industries which are more dependent upon low paid staff, for example social care, even small increases can be difficult for some firms to manage. The LPC should assess what would be affordable in sectors and release these figures to inform wage negotiators, campaigners and public debate, but also flag up the barriers that prevent higher pay within problematic sectors e.g. local authority funding of social care.

These recommendations alone will not solve the problem of low pay. A serious attempt to tackle low pay will require efforts to raise the productivity of low paid workers and low-paying parts of the economy. But a more ambitious minimum wage, complemented by additional tools and overseen by a more powerful LPC, would be a meaningful step forward.

Conor D’Arcy is a researcher at Resolution Foundation

 

Reform, don’t end zero-hours contracts, says Resolution Foundation

A leading think tank has rejected calls for a ban on zero-hours contracts, instead calling for legislation to protect the rights of workers on the contracts.

The Resolution Foundation report, released this month, argues that workers on zero-hours workers should be given a fixed-hours contract after a year in the job. They call for a ban on the use of the exclusivity clauses, preventing employees from taking on extra work elsewhere. The report also highlights the need for employees to be given a better understanding of their rights and for good practice to be developed for employers.

The controversial contracts which do not guarantee a minimum number of hours a week have been heavily criticised by trade unions who argue they are insecure, exploitative and prone to abuse. The Labour Party has promised to ban the use of exclusivity clauses and the Government have begun a review into the contracts.

Previous research conducted by the CIPD has shown that the prevalence of zero-hours contracts has been hugely under-estimated. However, they found that most workers on the contracts were satisfied with their jobs.

 

Continued NHS pay squeeze provokes strike threat

A further round of below-inflation pay increases for NHS workers in England has sparked anger among the trade unions.

This month, the government announced a 1%. However, contrary to the recommendations of the NHS pay review body, they plan to withhold this increase from any staff also receiving the automatic incremental pay rises they are entitled to.

The offer remains below the rate of inflation, adding to a lengthy pay squeeze in the sector. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt argued withholding the increase from some staff was necessary in order to save jobs and protect the standard of care. However, trade unions in the NHS responded by saying they would consult members over possible industrial action.

This was shortly followed by the announcement from the Local Government Association that it will also offer a 1% pay rise for council workers. Again, the move was criticised by local government trade unions for prolonging the pay squeeze in the sector. However, workers on lower incomes will be offered a higher increase of 4%.

Despite the continuing pay restraint in the public sector, there are signs that the pay squeeze may be starting to ease. Figures released this week by ONS showed that CPI inflation had fallen to 1.7%, its lowest level since 2010. Although this remains above the average wages increase, the gap is narrowing and real incomes are expected to rise again soon.

 

TUPE Changes come into effect

Changes to the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment (TUPE) regulations came into force recently. BIS have published a guide to the changes, available here and there’s more detail and analysis available here.

The changes in the regulations now ensure that any redundancies resulting from the transfer will not automatically be deemed unfair.

The regulations make clear that for there to be a service provision change, the role carried out by the employee being transferred must be ‘fundamentally the same’ as those under the previous organisation. It allows for contractual variations if there is an economic, technical or organisational reason for them to take place, and if both employer and employee agree on them.

Variations to collective agreements will be permitted if the change happens over a year after the transfer and if the new terms are ‘no less favourable’ to employees.

Under changes to the collective redundancy law, where there are 20 or more transferring employees being made redundant, the transferee organisation can undertake pre-transfer consultation with those affected if both the employees and the two employers consent.

The effects of the changes on employers should not be dramatic as they are not as significant as those originally proposed by the government. However, some of the amendments may be open to challenge in Europe as they may contravene EU legislation such as the Acquired Rights Directive 2001.

Although conflict is a significant feature of organisational life, the importance of the way that it is managed, or often not managed, has been conspicuously absent from the employee engagement debate. However, a new Acas Policy Discussion paper, ‘Reframing Resolution – Managing Conflict and Resolving Individual Employment Disputes in the Contemporary Workplace’ argues that a more strategic approach to the management of discontent is not only vital in resolving conflict but also in securing increased engagement. The paper is based on a series of seminars, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), held over 12 months across the UK and which involved around 300 policy-makers, HR practitioners and academics.

 

In 2008, the consultants OPP, estimated that UK employees spend almost two hours per week dealing with conflict at work resulting in an annual “loss” of 370 million working days. Since then, the financial crisis and subsequent recession has created the ‘ideal’ conditions for increased conflict as organisations have sought to cut costs, improve performance and enact far-reaching change processes. According to the CIPD’s 2011 conflict management survey, ‘the scale of workplace conflict is remarkable and has increased in the recession’. However, the capacity of organisations to respond to these challenges has been fundamentally weakened.  In an increasing proportion of workplaces, the network of relationships between HR practitioners, frontline managers and employee representatives that have traditionally facilitated the discussion and negotiation of difficult issues no longer exist; in others they are under significant strain.

There is clear evidence that informal processes of resolution are more likely to be found where there are high trust relationships between employee representatives and managers. Consequently, the disappearance of representational structures from UK workplaces threatens to have a profound impact on dispute resolution. Perhaps not surprisingly, a succession of studies has linked falling union density with increases in individual employment disputes and litigation. At the same time, the changing nature of the HR function has placed much greater responsibility for the day-to-day management of conflict in the hands of line managers.

A recurring theme of the ESRC seminar series was that line and operational managers often lack the skills and confidence to intervene effectively to resolve difficult issues at an early stage. This is made worse by a lack of support from senior management, who may not see conflict management as a priority. This has two related effects. First, frontline managers do not receive sufficient time and space to devote to dealing with conflict, which is seen as secondary to immediate operational considerations. Second, key performance indicators on which managerial performance is judged rarely contain any reference to workplace conflict. In addition, managers fear the ramifications of making mistakes in conflict handling, and particularly the threat of litigation.

While these developments limit the ability of organisations to resolve conflict quickly and effectively, the way that managers respond to conflict also shapes employee engagement. If individuals feel that they and their colleagues are being treated fairly, this will help to counter the distrust of management and provide a basis for increased commitment and improved performance.

Nonetheless organisations can take measures to start to plug this ‘resolution gap’. First, they can place conflict management at the heart of their wider HR strategy by making conflict resolution a core competency for managers and leaders. People management, negotiation and mediation skills can be embedded into training and development programmes and into the criteria used to recruit, promote and assess managerial performance.

Second, organisations can invest in more creative approaches to managing conflict. There is growing evidence that workplace mediation can help to resolve complex and seemingly intractable issues, offering substantial savings in terms of staff time and cost and also delivering a greater sense of procedural justice for participants compared with conventional procedures. There is also tentative evidence that, in certain contexts, developing in-house mediation capacity can help to build trust and improve employment relations. Critically, innovative approaches to conflict management need to be integrated with broader strategies related to employee health and wellbeing and engagement.

Third, providing for structures of employee representation and providing support and training for staff in representative roles will reinforce existing, or cultivate new, processes of informal resolution. Building high trust relationships with trade unions and/or employee representatives is crucial in identifying potential sources of conflict and developing effective and early interventions.

Public policy is also critical in shaping organisational attitudes and approaches to workplace conflict. There is a danger that the collapse in employment tribunal volumes following the introduction of application and hearing fees will decrease the visibility of conflict but do little to treat its root causes. Instead, a regulatory framework is needed that incentivises early resolution, rebuilds structures of employee voice and encourages organisations to place the management of conflict at the heart of organisational strategy.

Richard Saundry is Associate Professor in Human Resource and Leadership Studies, Plymouth University.

 

For more information about the IPA’s mediation and conflict resolution services please contact [email protected]

 

Since employee voice was established as one of the 4 enablers of employee engagement in the MacLeod report in 2009, the IPA Best Practice Network has argued that the most effective is the Informed Employee Voice. This is not to say that the words independent and representative are not important but they can be less effective if they are not backed-up by knowledge and information.

By illustrating this in practice, the Best Practice Network has influenced Engage for Success to talk about the Informed Voice and this event aimed to showcase that good practice through a series of case study presentations from Best Practice Network members. For example, the scrutinisation of “the what, the why and the what else”, the resulting communication informing staff about what’s going on and the resulting change, eventually, in how the Informed Voice “speaks” and how it contributes to the business and higher engagement levels enables us to argue that the Informed Voice is more difficult for organisations to ignore.  

Our recent Best Practice Network Masterclass focused on the practical effect of the informed voice on employee engagement and,  provided examples of the “transactional to transformational” journey. Nita Clarke, IPA Director opened the day by providing an overview of the Engage for Success findings related to employee voice.  Nita pointed out that, remarkably, 7 out of 9 people have stated that they would rather have a new boss than a pay rise and that only 13% of managers receive training in the UK. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the UK economy loses around £26 billion through disengagement each year according to Kenexa. Nita concluded that it is the informed voice that gets listened to and; the more effective it becomes, so that £26 million will reduce.

Graham Steel, ex-PCS Official and now the Vice Chair of the IPA, continued this theme by illustrating how Trade Unions have helped to create the informed voice when they have concentrated on delivering high quality communication to their members and, sometimes, staff in general. Graham gave an example of where this helped to establish a system of flexible working in a call centre, something which many people do not believe can be done. He argued that some managers are unaware that they are responsible for what they regard as “people issues”. They believe these are solely HR’s territory and this observation is clearly linked to the lack of training mentioned by Nita.

David Williams, Partnership Manager and Senior Unison representative at United Welsh, discussed how creating an informed voice amongst staff takes time and determination. He explained how simple tools like the IPA’s Option-Based Consultation model are crucial to sustaining high levels of engagement. David illustrated that, once staff are informed, they can get involved contribute to discussions around management’s thinking and become a crucial part of the strategic narrative.

Jane Farleigh, Acting Director of Regulatory Operations Ofqual observed that staff like to be asked for their views but acknowledged that it is easier to listen when those views are informed. Jane also found that encouraging people to take some responsibility for their own level of engagement can be effective through tools such as The Passport about to be introduced within Ofqual.

Andy Bindon, Human Resources Director at Southeastern Railway, discussed how social media can help provide a means for the informed voice to be heard. Despite the misgivings of many organisations, he insisted staff can be trusted to use such tools responsibly. The use of social media can make people feel involved but not necessarily allow them to influence the management’s thinking so it cannot be regarded as a panacea.

Stuart Inness & Paul Muir, VIVO Office Bearers at Standard Life, presented a compelling case of the impact Information & Consultation Forums can contribute to the informed employee voice. They described how using the 15 Strategic Questions developed by the IPA had helped employees understand the business rationale and engage in high quality, informed dialogue. The Standard Life Information & Consultation Forum, called VIVO, used another key enabler – integrity – as the basis of strategy. They concluded that staff representatives can play a crucial role in engaging staff as long as the skills and behaviours of the representatives are of the highest calibre.

Expertly managed by the IPA’s Chairperson, David Yeandle, the event was a great success and the information and discussion generated will feed into the IPA’s Best Practice Network agenda for 2014.

The IPA Best Practice Network: the informed voice for workforce representatives

The Network provides a forum for employee representatives to share and learn from good practice.  It is open to IPA member organisations and meets four times a year at venues around the UK.  The Network supports an annual Masterclass event which all are welcome to attend.  For more information on how to get involved, contact [email protected].

 

 

 

In 2008 we started to develop our engagement programme at Southeastern, building it around the milestones of the launch of the UK’s first high speed service in 2009 and the role our services would play in the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics.

We involved our employees in a range of initiatives. Together we set a new vision and objectives and produced a ‘big picture’ to capture the strategic narrative. We established company level and local focus groups across the business and devolved the running of our employee recognition scheme. We improved people management skills of our leaders and managers achieved IiP Silver status (since achieved Champion status).

During this time we saw improvements in our key business and people results, but we wanted to find ways to involve more than the 15% or so of employees regularly being involved in business issues. Social media seemed a way we could harness technology to accelerate momentum.

We’re probably atypical of companies you would expect to see at the forefront of using social media. The rail industry being perceived perhaps as having a fairly ‘traditional’ approach to people management. But we recognise it could make an impact and so it has proved.

In late 2011 we trialled a platform called Socialtext which we branded as WorkMate.  We felt this platform best met our needs to communicate, learn and share more widely. It provides functionality similar to Twitter, Facebook and Wikipedia. Everyone has a home page which they can customise.

We placed all our key company information on it and tools that would help people do their jobs better. We encouraged staff to log on and try it. There would be minimal regulation (other than our standard code of conduct) and no constant monitoring/moderation of content.  People would be able to use as they wanted – have conversations, ask questions, express opinions, set up private groups.

We ran it for three months alongside our static intranet and the results were phenomenal! During the three months our static intranet had about 550 visits (about the norm) whereas WorkMate had over 52,000! 

After further evaluation and feedback from employees, we decided to scrap our intranet and formally launch WorkMate in April 2012, just a few months before the Olympics.  We used our special Olympic engagement events – attended by over 1,000 of our employees – to promote WorkMate.  It proved an extremely popular and valuable tool over the Olympics, not only carrying the latest company information but enabling employees to exchange stories, pictures and just keep in touch. 

On the back of this, WorkMate really took off after the Games. As of November 2013 we have:

• 80% of employees registered with 2,200 visiting each week and about 500 posting
• 60 business questions are asked every week.
• There have been nearly 90,000 conversations on WorkMate
• 160 active private groups (about 65% are work related, the rest are social)
• We’ve created a new set of company values and produced a ‘values in 60 seconds’ video which has had over 6,000 views
• We’ve used it for pulse surveys and added many more work tools and toolkits (an employee engagement toolkit, launched in July 2013, was accessed over 2,500 times in the first three months)

WorkMate runs with minimal regulation, primarily relying on users to self-regulate. We have had no major issues.  People can and do criticise the company on it, and we welcome that!  We can also sense when issues are bubbling up. Recently when we made changes to our pension scheme a lot of questions and misinformation surfaced on WorkMate which we were able to respond to quickly.  I and others don’t spend all day looking at what people are talking about (we are conscious of suspicions of ‘Big Brother’!)  but you can get a sense of things that are topical.

So what other results have we seen where we feel WorkMate has had an impact?

We have achieved our best ever performance and customer satisfaction scores and best ever people scores on a range of metrics from formal grievances to sickness absence. In only our second ever employee survey, response went up from 68% to 80%. Our engagement metric increasing by 10% to 70% and other areas such as clarity of what we’re trying to achieve, personal contribution, how change is managed, and understanding values improved by 3 -5%

It has helped improve communications and provides an excellent mechanism for us to gauge the current mood.  We have recently used it to collect staff views and opinions on how our services may change over the next 5 years as we negotiate a new contract with the Department for Transport.

Our future plans include more personalisation, more pulse surveys and toolkits, more dynamic content, integration with our HR system, encouraging greater use by our trade unions (some have embraced it more than others).

So, what have we learnt? We’re not as connected as we might think, however extensive your communications. We have extended WorkMate to mobile devices and placed it in the ‘Cloud’ so it can be accessed anytime, any place, anywhere

People do want to connect, with colleagues and the business.  Many of our employees are working in relative isolation, and just being able to have an online conversation has helped people feel they are not alone! It’s a great tool for people to share information and ask questions.

You don’t need to over regulate it, people have used it responsibly. If you have concerns, have you really really considered what they are and weighed them against the benefits?

Social media is a part of every-day life, not the preserve of the under 25’s!  Resistance is futile!

The cost-benefit has been easily proved. The net cost, once we scrapped our intranet, means that the cost is a few £s per employee.

It provides momentum to your engagement programmes. You have to put the hard work in before you launch. If you look at the scores on some of the employee survey results, they have improved but not as much as you may expect in some areas. As the CIPD and IPA have concluded things like WorkMate won’t be a panacea. You still need to work hard at other channels. Since launching WorkMate we have strengthened things like briefings, forums and launched a monthly employee phone-in to Directors, but we try to integrate these with WorkMate.

Voice is integral to engagement. Hopefully, through WorkMate we’re enabling people to connect and voice opinions, concerns and ideas more than ever before, but also using it as part of an overall strategy of meaningful dialogue in making big decisions.

Andy Bindon is Human Resources Director at Southeastern