Date: October 11th 2007
Source: Daily Telegraph

Organisations must be aware of the importance of good relationships if they are to work together like one happy family
Almost all firms conduct joint projects with other firms. Yet, a recent study conducted at the University of Cologne has shown that over 50pc of supply-chain management projects fail.

For instance, in early 2006, a large German chemical producer attempted to improve its delivery process with a major client. The latter was to transfer data to the producer in order to increase the level of service and simultaneously reduce stock levels. 
This sounded good for both parties. However, far too late in the day, the customer realised that the chemical company would be receiving detailed information on its demand, stocks and costs. The managers baulked at revealing what they regarded as confidential information. This reluctance to divulge data, and the associated conflicts between seller and buyer failed to be resolved and the project ultimately petered out. 

Such simple, but prohibitive difficulties result in the failure of many supply chain projects, which really could have and ought to have been mutually beneficial.

At the University of Cologne, Andreas Brinkhoff and Ulrich Thonemann have researched supply chains for three years and found that the majority achieve less than expected. 

This is particularly problematic given that firms often devote years and substantial proportions of their IT budgets to this part of their operations. Brinkhoff and Thonemann investigated 87 supply chain projects in the manufacturing and consumer industries to determine which factors lead either to success or failure. 

They concentrated on inter-organisational initiatives which are becoming increasingly more important in the current business environment. By 2010, 97pc of the responding managers intend to extend their partnerships with other firms. 

Brinkhoff and Thonemann found that the problems go well beyond the standard text-book issues. The investigation revealed 10 key problem areas (see box). The top five are decisive and by far the main causes of failure. Most (88pc) of successful supply chains were those which managed to avoid the five key problems.

On the other hand, 91pc of the failed projects were characterised by three or more of the infamous five. These are extremely compelling results.
The first factor is that of insufficiently clear goals or insufficient agreement with the other partners. This problem was only manifest for six of the successful projects, but noticeably present in 58pc of the failures. In some cases, the teams actually performed as planned, but went off in different directions. For a joint project, such plans and mismatches are hopeless. Philipp Karallus, who heads the e-business centre of Bayer Material Sciences, found that this problem created enormous difficulties in the supply chain logistics. Fortunately, this was solved early on in the process, through a very consistent and well-communicated standardisation of packaging and quantities.The second cause of disaster is a lack of employee commitment. The people who actually work on the project must be convinced that the planned changes are necessary and appropriate. In 75pc of the failures, the employees directly affected were not fully behind the project. Supply-chain manager Jeremy Bentham of plastics manufacturer Borealis found that joint workshops, including both firms, provide a good solution. These entail not only communication on all elements of the project, but ensure the mutual development of change. This regular exchange of ideas also works wonders for motivation. In fact, the relationship between the company and its clients also improve at all levels of the hierarchy. 

Factor three relates to top management. Their support is particularly vital in order to ensure that the necessary resources are provided. And of course, this applies to both companies. Yet, such support is by no means the rule and two thirds of failures were attributable to this shortcoming. However, a project between 3M Healthcare and a large clinic is one example of where it did succeed. Ulrich Gellings, head of customer service at 3M in Germany, said that “the whole thing worked because the managers of both enterprises were clearly and genuinely behind the project and its objectives”. But he explained that this kind of positive interaction between project and line management can never be taken for granted – particularly between two different firms. 

Next comes the basis of trust, factor number four. As with any relationship, people must feel free to talk openly about problems in order to find solutions. Of the failed projects, just over half were plagued by a lack of trust, whereas this applied only to 19pc of the successful projects. As the manager of a Dutch chemical concern pointed out: “Of course, the partnership has to make economic sense in the first place. But whether or not the whole thing works will ultimately depend on the relationships involved.”Specifically, where there is a lack of trust, the participants often spend more time haggling over contracts than they do on the actual work. The inevitable lack of transparency and concealment that accompanies such relationships, generally leads to the collapse of the project. After all, once the relationships are damaged, getting them right again is somewhere between time consuming and impossible.

The effectiveness of the project leaders constitutes factor number five. Given the time span and organisational separation of the partners, such leadership is fundamental.These leaders form the interface between project teams and have to cope with problems from both sides. They have to be excellent communicators and motivators, not an easy task in complex projects where the contribution of the individual to the whole is not always particularly clear. Brinkhoff and Thonemann found that in many cases, the integrative skills of managers saved the day. Their willingness and ability to approach and resolve conflicts constructively, proved indispensable. So, according to the research, if the five cardinal errors are avoided, the supply chain project has a good chance of succeeding. Nonetheless, the standard bases of project management remain as important as ever. These include sound processes and structures, competent employees, well organised resource flows and a lot more besides. The point is that these criteria were unproblematic for almost all the investigated projects, yet so many still failed. The secret of success is apparently to deal with these five most common sources of disaster, which takes time and is not easy. Objectives and other core managerial processes have to be constantly discussed, evaluated, reworked and coordinated. Employees generally need sufficient workshops and interaction to ensure there is effective communication and consensus. Inter-company relationships have to be cared for and maintained. If all this is done correctly, the benefits are there in both economic and people terms. In almost all successful projects, the relationships between the partners are sound and positive. Not surprisingly, this is never the case where the result is ultimate failure.

Date: 4 October 2007

Source: People Management

Conducting an internal investigation into alleged employee misconduct requires skill and tact. Those carrying it out must balance thoroughness with fair treatment towards those under investigation. This isn’t easy but can be achieved with a little forethought. 

Before holding a disciplinary hearing, it is crucial that employers have sound evidence on which to base their decisions. Failing to conduct a full investigation, in all but the most exceptional of circumstances, may render a dismissal unfair and result in costly consequences in terms of tribunal awards, staff morale and stakeholder confidence. 

1 How serious is it? 

An investigation must establish the seriousness of the alleged misconduct and be proportionate to it. So, your response may range from a brief discussion with the employee to establish the facts, to a full-scale investigation involving other agencies such as the police. The objective should be to provide sound evidence for any subsequent disciplinary action. Investigators should ask themselves what they can reasonably expect to achieve given the time and resources available. Any internal investigation should follow the ‘Lift’ principle – it should be logical, impartial, fair and time-bound. 

2 Separation of powers 


Those conducting the investigation should not also hear the disciplinary complaint. These two functions should be kept separate in the interests of natural justice. Tribunals and the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures acknowledge this will not always be possible, especially for small businesses (www.acas.org.uk). Even so, if funds permit, employers should consider commissioning an independent investigator for more serious cases. For larger organisations, it is important that HR and the investigating manager work together. Protocols need to be agreed and good communications maintained throughout the investigation.

3 Keep an open mind 

Do not assume guilt or innocence. Decide whether the employee should be suspended on full pay pending the investigation. Make sure this is described as a precautionary measure – it should be made clear it is not a disciplinary sanction. Such action should only be considered in more serious cases where the employee’s continued presence in the workplace might have a disruptive effect or enable employees to undermine the case against them.

4 Establish the evidence 

Identify the types of evidence you need to gather. Don’t rely merely on witness statements. Think about gathering files, documents, CCTV footage or computer records, if available. Policy documents and training records can also be used. If any evidence is likely to perish or be removed, gather it as a priority. Decide who you need to interview and do it as soon as possible before memories fade. You are entitled to interview the employee against whom the allegation has been made, but it should be made clear it is an exploratory interview and not a disciplinary hearing. Identify what you need to establish from each interviewee and prepare accordingly. It is not advisable to have a pre-prepared list of questions as you may need to explore particular responses in more detail during the interview. It is better to prepare a list of topics and decide on the order in which you wish to deal with them.

5 Interviewing witnesses 


Make full notes when interviewing witnesses. At the end they should be invited to read through the notes and sign them. Draft statements should be taken back to the witness for signature and the notes on which the statement was based retained until the conclusion of any disciplinary hearing or subsequent appeal. Don’t put words into witnesses’ mouths or suggest answers. Your questions should encourage them to recall their version of events in their own words.

6 Manage witness expectations


Witnesses should be informed at the end of the interview that if the case results in a disciplinary hearing, they may be required to give evidence. They need to be aware that anonymity cannot be guaranteed unless there is a genuine fear of reprisal. 

7 Is it criminal? 

Some of the more serious allegations of misconduct may potentially be criminal offences. If you suspect this is the case, you may need to inform other agencies – for example, the Health and Safety Executive or the police. The evidence you gather for your internal investigation may also be required for a parallel criminal investigation. If this is the case, continuity of evidence is important. For your evidence to be admissible in a criminal prosecution, you need to be able to demonstrate its physical location at any point in time. Seek legal advice at an early stage on how continuity can best be achieved.

8 Handle confessions with care 

If an employee admits to a criminal offence during the course of an internal investigation, it is advisable to make a note of it in case it needs to be used as evidence in any subsequent criminal proceedings. The note should be timed, dated and signed by the person taking it and the employee should read and sign it. Where the employee disagrees with the record, note the details and ask them to read and sign them to the effect that they accurately reflect the disagreement. Any refusal to sign should also be recorded. The investigation should then be terminated with a view to involving the police or any other appropriate investigatory body. Failure to do this is likely to make such unsolicited comments inadmissible in a criminal court. 

9 When it’s over, it’s over 

Once you feel you have sufficient evidence on which to base a decision, finish the investigation. The standard of proof for most internal investigations and any subsequent disciplinary hearing will need only to be “on the balance of probabilities”. You do not have to prove your case “beyond reasonable doubt” for it to stand up in a tribunal. 

Key Points 

• Those conducting the investigation should not be involved in the decision-making at any subsequent disciplinary hearing. • For more serious cases, consider suspending the employee on full pay.• Approach investigations with an open mind and decide in advance what evidence you need.• If you decide to interview the employee against whom the allegation has been made, make it clear that it is not a disciplinary hearing.• The civil standard of proof (“on the balance of probabilities”) is an acceptable standard to work to.

Date: 4 October 2007


Source: People Management


Conducting an internal investigation into alleged employee misconduct requires skill and tact. Those carrying it out must balance thoroughness with fair treatment towards those under investigation. This isn’t easy but can be achieved with a little forethought. 


Before holding a disciplinary hearing, it is crucial that employers have sound evidence on which to base their decisions. Failing to conduct a full investigation, in all but the most exceptional of circumstances, may render a dismissal unfair and result in costly consequences in terms of tribunal awards, staff morale and stakeholder confidence. 


1 How serious is it? 


An investigation must establish the seriousness of the alleged misconduct and be proportionate to it. So, your response may range from a brief discussion with the employee to establish the facts, to a full-scale investigation involving other agencies such as the police. The objective should be to provide sound evidence for any subsequent disciplinary action. Investigators should ask themselves what they can reasonably expect to achieve given the time and resources available. Any internal investigation should follow the ‘Lift’ principle – it should be logical, impartial, fair and time-bound. 


2 Separation of powers 


Those conducting the investigation should not also hear the disciplinary complaint. These two functions should be kept separate in the interests of natural justice. Tribunals and the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures acknowledge this will not always be possible, especially for small businesses (www.acas.org.uk). Even so, if funds permit, employers should consider commissioning an independent investigator for more serious cases. For larger organisations, it is important that HR and the investigating manager work together. Protocols need to be agreed and good communications maintained throughout the investigation.


3 Keep an open mind 


Do not assume guilt or innocence. Decide whether the employee should be suspended on full pay pending the investigation. Make sure this is described as a precautionary measure – it should be made clear it is not a disciplinary sanction. Such action should only be considered in more serious cases where the employee’s continued presence in the workplace might have a disruptive effect or enable employees to undermine the case against them.


4 Establish the evidence 


Identify the types of evidence you need to gather. Don’t rely merely on witness statements. Think about gathering files, documents, CCTV footage or computer records, if available. Policy documents and training records can also be used. If any evidence is likely to perish or be removed, gather it as a priority. Decide who you need to interview and do it as soon as possible before memories fade. You are entitled to interview the employee against whom the allegation has been made, but it should be made clear it is an exploratory interview and not a disciplinary hearing. Identify what you need to establish from each interviewee and prepare accordingly. It is not advisable to have a pre-prepared list of questions as you may need to explore particular responses in more detail during the interview. It is better to prepare a list of topics and decide on the order in which you wish to deal with them.


5 Interviewing witnesses 


Make full notes when interviewing witnesses. At the end they should be invited to read through the notes and sign them. Draft statements should be taken back to the witness for signature and the notes on which the statement was based retained until the conclusion of any disciplinary hearing or subsequent appeal. Don’t put words into witnesses’ mouths or suggest answers. Your questions should encourage them to recall their version of events in their own words.


6 Manage witness expectations


Witnesses should be informed at the end of the interview that if the case results in a disciplinary hearing, they may be required to give evidence. They need to be aware that anonymity cannot be guaranteed unless there is a genuine fear of reprisal. 


7 Is it criminal? 


Some of the more serious allegations of misconduct may potentially be criminal offences. If you suspect this is the case, you may need to inform other agencies – for example, the Health and Safety Executive or the police. The evidence you gather for your internal investigation may also be required for a parallel criminal investigation. If this is the case, continuity of evidence is important. For your evidence to be admissible in a criminal prosecution, you need to be able to demonstrate its physical location at any point in time. Seek legal advice at an early stage on how continuity can best be achieved.


8 Handle confessions with care 


If an employee admits to a criminal offence during the course of an internal investigation, it is advisable to make a note of it in case it needs to be used as evidence in any subsequent criminal proceedings. The note should be timed, dated and signed by the person taking it and the employee should read and sign it. Where the employee disagrees with the record, note the details and ask them to read and sign them to the effect that they accurately reflect the disagreement. Any refusal to sign should also be recorded. The investigation should then be terminated with a view to involving the police or any other appropriate investigatory body. Failure to do this is likely to make such unsolicited comments inadmissible in a criminal court. 


9 When it’s over, it’s over 


Once you feel you have sufficient evidence on which to base a decision, finish the investigation. The standard of proof for most internal investigations and any subsequent disciplinary hearing will need only to be “on the balance of probabilities”. You do not have to prove your case “beyond reasonable doubt” for it to stand up in a tribunal. 


Key Points 

• Those conducting the investigation should not be involved in the decision-making at any subsequent disciplinary hearing. • For more serious cases, consider suspending the employee on full pay.• Approach investigations with an open mind and decide in advance what evidence you need.• If you decide to interview the employee against whom the allegation has been made, make it clear that it is not a disciplinary hearing.• The civil standard of proof (“on the balance of probabilities”) is an acceptable standard to work to.

Date: 1 October 2007


This latest CIPD conflict at work survey reports survey findings on:�

• the impact of the statutory dispute procedures 
• training to manage conflict at work 
• mediation 
• formal disciplinary and grievance cases 
• employment tribunal claims 
• causes of conflict at work 
• sources of advice for UK employers in managing employment disputes 

Click here to review the report in full. (This link will take you to the CIPD’s website) 
http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/general/_mngcnflcwk.htm

Source: CIPD
Date: 4 July 2007
Something seems to be happening to the state of the psychological contract. The CIPD research report, Employee Well-Being and the Psychological Contract, highlights areas that many HR professionals, as strategic business partners, will want to be thinking about. So the wealth of material contained in this survey is invaluable to HR professionals.


At the CIPD, we’ve been undertaking annual surveys into employee attitudes since 1996. This report is based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,000 people in employment in Great Britain.


The psychological contract is built on the three pillars of:

• fairness 
• trust 
• delivery of the deal between organisations and employees.

And research has shown that a positive psychological contract is the best guarantee of good performance outcomes.


Analysis of the causes and consequences of the psychological contract



This research report outlines the state of the psychological contract on the main dimensions of trust, satisfaction and commitment. Findings suggest that organisations are now more successful in delivering on their promises than they were in earlier years. But there are real issues in relation to employees’ feelings of fairness and trust, levels of which have been decreasing over the last two years or more.


The survey concentrated on four distinctive themes – the concept of the good employer, effective supervisory leadership, the high-quality workplace and the link to work-related stress, and contemporary career preferences.


The concept of the good employer


A cluster of practices are associated with the concept of the good employer. These include the presence of a range of progressive HR practices, the adoption of flexible family-friendly practices, effective supervisory leadership and the delivery of promises leading to perceptions of fair treatment and high levels of trust.


The composite measure of the good employer is strongly associated with higher levels of worker satisfaction, commitment and excitement at work, as well as higher levels of motivation, positive behaviour at work and a lower intention to leave the job. The findings therefore confirm that engaging in good employment practices brings benefits not only to workers but to the organisation as well.


Effective supervisory leadership


One of the biggest challenges for HR is to support line managers in their role of managing and developing people. Line managers have emerged from earlier surveys of employee attitudes as the ‘good guys’. Employees have reported feeling significantly more trust in them than in senior managers or in the organisation as a whole. The picture that emerges this year is less positive. A majority of line managers seem to be failing in many or most of the basic elements of good management – including providing regular feedback or offering to help improve individuals’ employment.


The high quality workplace and stress


Stress has been moving steadily up the workplace agenda in recent years and the survey asked a number of questions about possible sources of stress. These questions were designed jointly with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The survey shows that on a number of dimensions respondents are reporting stress levels that exceed those incorporated in the HSE standards on stress management.


The survey provided a preliminary measure of six criteria identified by the HSE as likely to be associated with lower levels of stress at work.


Contemporary career preferences


There has been much debate about what’s happening to careers. The survey identified three distinct groups of employees in terms of their attitude towards their career:


Traditional – working longer hours than most, displaying high commitment and motivation. These people wanted long-term tenure in one organisation and upward mobility, and tended to be younger workers. 


Disengaged – work is not a central life interest, and they want no emotional ties to the organisation. These employees tend to be older, long-tenure, low-income workers, displaying low levels of motivation and a reluctance to do anything extra. 


Independent – low commitment and satisfaction. They want career success, but on their own terms and without being tied to any one organisation. They tend to be graduates on high incomes and with a short tenure. They report lower organisation commitment, lower satisfaction, a poorer psychological contract and a higher intention to quit.

Source: CIPD
Date: 4 July 2007
Something seems to be happening to the state of the psychological contract. The CIPD research report, Employee Well-Being and the Psychological Contract, highlights areas that many HR professionals, as strategic business partners, will want to be thinking about. So the wealth of material contained in this survey is invaluable to HR professionals.


At the CIPD, we’ve been undertaking annual surveys into employee attitudes since 1996. This report is based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,000 people in employment in Great Britain.


The psychological contract is built on the three pillars of:

• fairness 
• trust 
• delivery of the deal between organisations and employees.

And research has shown that a positive psychological contract is the best guarantee of good performance outcomes.


Analysis of the causes and consequences of the psychological contract



This research report outlines the state of the psychological contract on the main dimensions of trust, satisfaction and commitment. Findings suggest that organisations are now more successful in delivering on their promises than they were in earlier years. But there are real issues in relation to employees’ feelings of fairness and trust, levels of which have been decreasing over the last two years or more.


The survey concentrated on four distinctive themes – the concept of the good employer, effective supervisory leadership, the high-quality workplace and the link to work-related stress, and contemporary career preferences.


The concept of the good employer


A cluster of practices are associated with the concept of the good employer. These include the presence of a range of progressive HR practices, the adoption of flexible family-friendly practices, effective supervisory leadership and the delivery of promises leading to perceptions of fair treatment and high levels of trust.


The composite measure of the good employer is strongly associated with higher levels of worker satisfaction, commitment and excitement at work, as well as higher levels of motivation, positive behaviour at work and a lower intention to leave the job. The findings therefore confirm that engaging in good employment practices brings benefits not only to workers but to the organisation as well.


Effective supervisory leadership


One of the biggest challenges for HR is to support line managers in their role of managing and developing people. Line managers have emerged from earlier surveys of employee attitudes as the ‘good guys’. Employees have reported feeling significantly more trust in them than in senior managers or in the organisation as a whole. The picture that emerges this year is less positive. A majority of line managers seem to be failing in many or most of the basic elements of good management – including providing regular feedback or offering to help improve individuals’ employment.


The high quality workplace and stress


Stress has been moving steadily up the workplace agenda in recent years and the survey asked a number of questions about possible sources of stress. These questions were designed jointly with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The survey shows that on a number of dimensions respondents are reporting stress levels that exceed those incorporated in the HSE standards on stress management.


The survey provided a preliminary measure of six criteria identified by the HSE as likely to be associated with lower levels of stress at work.


Contemporary career preferences


There has been much debate about what’s happening to careers. The survey identified three distinct groups of employees in terms of their attitude towards their career:


Traditional – working longer hours than most, displaying high commitment and motivation. These people wanted long-term tenure in one organisation and upward mobility, and tended to be younger workers. 


Disengaged – work is not a central life interest, and they want no emotional ties to the organisation. These employees tend to be older, long-tenure, low-income workers, displaying low levels of motivation and a reluctance to do anything extra. 


Independent – low commitment and satisfaction. They want career success, but on their own terms and without being tied to any one organisation. They tend to be graduates on high incomes and with a short tenure. They report lower organisation commitment, lower satisfaction, a poorer psychological contract and a higher intention to quit.

Source: CIPD
Date: 20 June 2007

5 Steps to Risk Assessment

Well-being Solutions
Employee well-being is an important critical success factor in the modern organisation. Corporate health and well-being programmes that include building relationships provide more than an attractive and workable employee benefit, they can actually be a profitable investment. The ill health of employees is a key detriment of long-term profitability and competitiveness.In 2001, the HSE published “Tackling work-related stress: A managers’ guide to improving and maintaining employee health and well-being” (HSE Books). These guidelines encourage managers to manage and minimise the health risks associated with stress by taking a stress risk assessment approach.  They advise managers to use the same five steps to assess stress risks as are used for other health and safety risks.  These five steps are:

1. Identify the hazards
2. Decide who might be harmed and how
3. Evaluate the risks, by: Identifying what action you are already taking; Deciding whether it is enough; If it is not, deciding what more you need to do
4. Record the significant findings of the assessment
5. Review the assessment at appropriate intervals

Risk assessment and the Management Standards
HSE launched the Management Standards on 3rd November 2004.  The Standards cover six categories of work-related stress ‘hazards’:

• Demands
• Control
• Support
• Relationships
• Role
• Change

THE MANAGEMENT STANDARDS (HSE 2004) DEMANDS 
Includes issues like workload, work patterns, and the work environment

The standard is that:

• Employees indicate that they are able to cope with the demands of their jobs; and
• Systems are in place locally to respond to any individual concerns.

What should be happening / states to be achieved:

• The organization provides employees with adequate and achievable demands in relation to the agreed hours of work;
• People’s skills and abilities are matched to the job demands;
• Jobs are designed to be within the capabilities of employees; and
• Employees’ concerns about their work environment are addressed.

CONTROL 
How much say the person has in the way they do their work

The standard is that:

• Employees indicate that they are able to have a say about the way they do their work; and
• Systems are in place locally to respond to any individual concerns.

What should be happening / states to be achieved:

• Where possible, employees have control over their pace of work;
• Employees are encouraged to use their skills and initiative to do their work;
• Where possible, employees are encouraged to develop new skills to help them undertake new and challenging pieces of work;
• The organization encourages employees to develop their skills;
• Employees have a say over when breaks can be taken; and
• Employees are consulted over their work patterns.

SUPPORT 
Includes the encouragement, sponsorship and resources provided by the organization, line management and colleagues

The standard is that:

• Employees indicate that they receive adequate information and support from their colleagues and superiors; and
• Systems are in place locally to respond to any individual concerns.

What should be happening / states to be achieved:

• The organization has policies and procedures to adequately support employees;
• Systems are in place to enable and encourage managers to support their staff;
• Systems are in place to enable and encourage employees to support their colleagues;
• Employees know what support is available and how and when to access it;
• Employees know how to access the required resources to do their job; and
• Employees receive regular and constructive feedback.

RELATIONSHIPS 
Includes promoting positive working to avoid conflict and dealing with unacceptable behaviour

The standard is that:

• Employees indicate that they are not subjected to unacceptable behaviours, e.g. bullying at work; and
• Systems are in place locally to respond to any individual concerns.

What should be happening / states to be achieved:

• The organization promotes positive behaviours at work to avoid conflict and ensure fairness;
• Employees share information relevant to their work;
• The organization has agreed policies and procedures to prevent or resolve unacceptable behaviour;
• Systems are in place to enable and encourage managers to deal with unacceptable behaviour; and
• Systems are in place to enable and encourage employees to report unacceptable behaviour.

ROLE 
Whether people understand their role within the organization and whether the organization ensures that the person does not have conflicting roles

The standard is that:

• Employees indicate that they understand their role and responsibilities; and
• Systems are in place locally to respond to any individual concerns.

What should be happening / states to be achieved:

• The organization ensures that, as far as possible, the different requirements it places upon employees are compatible;
• The organization provides information to enable employees to understand their role and responsibilities;
• The organization ensures that, as far as possible, the requirements it places upon employees are clear; and
• Systems are in place to enable employees to raise concerns about any uncertainties or conflicts they have in their role and responsibilities.

CHANGE 
How organizational change (large or small) is managed and communicated in the organization

The standard is that:

• Employees indicate that the organization engages them frequently when undergoing an organizational change; and
• Systems are in place locally to respond to any individual concerns.

What should be happening / states to be achieved:

• The organization provides employees with timely information to enable them to understand the reasons for proposed changes;
• The organization ensures adequate employee consultation on changes and provides opportunities for employees to influence proposals;
• Employees are aware of the probable impact of any changes to their jobs. If necessary, employees are given training to support any changes in their jobs;
• Employees are aware of timetables for changes;
• Employees have access to relevant support during changes.

How will the Management Standards influence management practice?

Organisational action the main emphasis

The Management Standards are more about organizational action in terms of risk assessment and benchmarking than individual management action.  The model underlying the Standards is one of constant improvement.  HSE want employers to conduct organizational stress risk assessments using the Management Standards as a template, in order to establish a benchmark of how well the organization is doing at preventing and reducing stress at work.  Once a benchmark has been established, the employer should work to improve its performance over time.  The ultimate goal is to reach the standards set now by the best 20% of employers (measured in 2004).  HSE have developed tools and guidance to enable employers to conduct suitable and sufficient risk assessments.

Managing ongoing risks

However, the Management Standards will also have a significant impact on all managers, because they are the people on the ground who manage stress risks in an ongoing way, and it is managers who must implement improvements introduced as a result of carrying out risk assessments.  Notice that for each Standard, systems should be in place to respond to individual concerns.  In reality, it is likely to be managers that will be responding, because if individuals have concerns about stress at work, managers will need to work with them to make adjustments so that risk is reduced.  Managers can be trained to work proactively with teams to prevent stress at work, and to respond appropriately when stress-related problems occur, in order to reduce the risk of stress.  

For more information on the Standards, visit the HSE website: www.hse.gov.uk/stress

By: Julia Cusack Head of Coaching & Learning, Globis


Date: January 2008


The thought of performance appraisals elicits a variety of reactions: from a fluttering in the stomach and a dry mouth, through procrastination to outright avoidance.  Indeed a recent survey indicated that 35% of managers would rather do a bungee jump for the first time than tell their team they are not performing.


However there are some straightforward steps you can take to improve the likelihood of a pleasant and productive appraisal.  The New Year is a good time to start preparing, and by the time the reviews come around you will be feeling calm, prepared and confident.  The three steps are:


1.         Focus on your intention


Visualise beforehand how you would like the appraisal to go.  It’s not just a coincidence that successful sportsmen and women imagine in detail how their race will be run – and won.  They mentally construct a picture of success.  David Hemery tells a compelling story of how he suddenly realised, after coming 2nd in the 1972 Olympics 400m hurdles, that, without realising, he had actually been preparing mentally to lose rather than win; he had rehearsed perfectly, but for the wrong result.  A host of research and literature shows that the more detailed you are defining your intent, the more likely you are to realise it.  That’s all very well, you might think, but I just know so-and-so will throw a wobbly.  As Billy Connolly said on Parkinson’s final show “I think if you actually believe something, there’s a great chance it might happen. I know if you set your sights low that’ll definitely happen”. 


Ask yourself “what is my intention for this appraisal? What would be an ideal outcome of the session?”  Having the aim of “fixing” the appraisee, getting them to own up to or understand poor performance, will result in a defensive response.  A good productive performance review is about engaging in genuine two-way dialogue about mutual behaviours and intentions.  Approaching the appraisal with curiosity is something many managers ignore as they are so focused on the “I must deliver this message” approach.  However, if you hold your intention lightly, with an authentic sense of inquiry, you will automatically be far more effective at questioning and listening – core skills for an appraisal.  Not only that, the spin-off is that you will obey the golden rule of “Don’t do all the talking”.


2.         Involve the appraisee


Many managers prepare for an appraisal by reading the previous year’s review documentation, trawling through their file of collated evidence and correlating this with the performance criteria, identifying the individual’s strong and weaker areas.  Some reflect on pertinent questions such as:

• what factors have affected performance – both within and outside the individual’s control ? 
• what actions could be taken by both parties to develop or improve performance ?  
• what objectives might be agreed for the next review period ?  

Most however do not pay enough attention to ensuring the performer is equally prepared.  How often have you specifically asked your appraisee to think in advance about those same questions and others such as:

• What do you enjoy about the job and how might you want to develop the role ? 
• What are the aspects of your work where improvement is required and how might this be achieved ? 
• What level of support and guidance do you require from your manager ? 

In the review itself, let the individual begin with their thoughts on their performance and they will typically take more responsibility for the appraisal and be more committed to the output.  You will also gain a clear idea of their opinion and avoid the mistake of making assumptions about how well they think they have performed.


3.         Reduce surprises


Waiting until the annual or bi-annual review to tell direct reports about their performance is a definite no-no.  There should be no surprises: we all know this so it’s surprising that we still have surprises!  Generation Y performers in particular need constant feedback and affirmation.  To them, no news is not good news, unlike the baby boomers; if they didn’t hear from their boss it meant everything was fine, but that is no longer true.  Take the surprise out by giving frequent affirmative and remedial feedback between appraisals.


Try these three steps, see how they make a difference.  Happy New Appraisals!


This article is also published in the Opportunities Magazine

Source: People Management
Date: Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Being bullied is a horrible, isolating experience – and worse still if the person you would normally go to for help was the culprit. But that kind of thing wouldn’t go on in an HR department… would it?

It was when the journalist said: “Your boss gave me your home number,” that Liz Jones, then a junior personnel manager, felt the final straw had come. Jones (not her real name) was due to give birth that day – and, no, she had not agreed to take press enquiries for the office.

“I was furious,” she recalls. “The bullying from this one middle manager had been going on for 18 months. I’d gone on maternity leave as early as possible to escape it and I knew I would have to take action before returning.” (See below)

Bullying happens in HR departments just as it does everywhere else. As with all bullying, it’s hard to quantify, because the vast majority of cases go unreported. But when PM recently published a news story about bullying in HR, the magazine was flooded by emails from readers sharing their experiences of being bullied within the profession.

Tracy Walters, head of diversity at Brent Council, thinks the function is bad at facing up to bullying in its own ranks. “HR doesn’t like being the patient,” she says. “We have a role in telling other people what to do, and we’re not very good at taking our own medicine.”

What this means is that if HR professionals are being bullied, they can feel even more isolated than other victims. “They are more likely to think they should be able to solve the problem themselves,” says Charlotte Rayner, professor of HRM at Portsmouth Business School, who has just completed a study on workplace bullying on behalf of the DTI and union Amicus. “HR people are habitually inward-looking when solving problems because they are guardians of confidentiality.”

On a practical level, there’s often nowhere for an HR person to go if the bullying occurs within the department, because anti-bullying policies are usually channelled through HR. Rayner, who has seen dozens of anti-bullying policies as part of her research, says very few offer multiple channels for people to go through. The advice is usually to contact your line manager or HR manager, formally or informally.

A consultant in this field, recently mediated in a bullying case where the alleged bully was a senior HR executive and “great mates with the head of HR”. The company policy simply “didn’t work for HR”, “Most anti-bullying policies don’t have a range of options that are low-level, informal and people-friendly,” she adds.

Rayner agrees that informal approaches are the way forward. Describing the DTI/Amicus research, she says: “We had gone into the exercise expecting to find that if an issue reached tribunal, everyone would feel it had been a failure. But what we actually found was that people felt it was a failure if it went to formal grievance. Changing the perception of the complaints system is difficult, so organisations need to find other, informal ways of tackling bullying.”

One problem, says Rayner, is that some HR practitioners believe complaints have to be made formally before they can be investigated. “HR people come from a careful culture, and for many the constant thought is: what if this ends up in court? HR as legal guardian is a classic role, and one it is highly valued for.”

The threat of legal action is, of course, a real one (see panel, above). Last summer Deutsche Bank in the City of London was ordered to pay £800,000 in damages for psychological injury and loss of earnings to an employee who had been bullied. Ben Willmott, CIPD adviser, employee relations, points out that if a legal case were ever brought against an HR professional, the courts might take an even dimmer view.

Ironically, says Rayner, the fear of legal action sometimes stops organisations probing the scale of the problem. “Organisations are sometimes told by their lawyers not to ask on the staff survey whether people have been bullied, because you will be more liable if you know there is a problem. The best companies receive that advice and ignore it, because they feel it’s more valuable to know.”

Rayner believes that while HR does have a role as legal guardian, the profession must not let that determine its thinking. “A legal mindset is not necessarily conducive to solving a human problem,” she explains. And bullying is very much a human problem. “Respondents to the DTI/Amicus survey said they thought 80 per cent of bullying was down to miscommunication that escalated into real interpersonal problems,” says Rayner.

This is the main reason why informal approaches are often so successful – because most alleged bullies don’t intend to be nasty. “Very few people deliberately go out of their way to make others’ lives a misery,” says Herbert. “Most people don’t realise how hurtful they are being. In a case I dealt with recently, when the woman found out the impact she was having on this man’s life, she burst into tears. Actually, she simply had a poor management technique and didn’t know how to handle someone who was driving her nuts, because he was very old-fashioned.”

Rayner says it’s often useful to make a first approach without using the “B” word – which is very loaded and ups the emotional ante before you’ve even started. “You can talk to someone off the record about management style or diffusing conflict, without mentioning bullying. The idea is to pop the balloon, not to blow it up further, to take the emotion out of it. None of us need to like each other, we just need to be able to work together,” she argues.

The experts also say it’s important to tackle the issue as early as possible, so that bad behaviour doesn’t become entrenched and end up defining the relationship between the people in question. As Herbert puts it: “If you talk to someone after the first time they have behaved unacceptably, it’s easier than after the twenty-fifth time. Apart from anything else, their first question will be: ‘Why didn’t you say anything before?’”

Charlotte Coupe, founder of Personnelise, a consultancy that helps people with problems at work, is a good example of why early action is so valuable. After being bullied herself for several months, Coupe eventually decided to keep a diary, and confronted her manager in a private meeting with chapter and verse on their unacceptable behaviour. “At first, my manager was outraged, but when they realised I had evidence, they admitted everything,” Coupe recalls. “They even apologised. I asked them why they had done it and they said it was because I had everything they wanted.”

Although Coupe was successful in putting an end to her boss’s bad behaviour, it was a hollow victory. “After the confrontation, my manager’s behaviour improved dramatically and everyone in the department benefited. But I just felt I had to get away. It had drained me so much, I was a wreck. I had gained little from the confrontation,” she says.

Coupe advises individuals who are being bullied to keep records of incidents. Despite her own experience, she believes relationships can be rebuilt after an allegation of bullying if the complaint is handled properly. “Often, a bully is misunderstood. They may have more insecurities than the person being bullied,” she says. “Throwing disciplinary action against people is usually a substitute for spending time getting to the root of the problem.”

Tracy Walters, who oversees Brent’s anti-bullying strategy as part of the authority’s Dignity at Work policy, says a huge effort has gone into changing the culture at Brent and setting up a series of avenues for individuals facing a problem. She says that since the introduction of Dignity at Work four years ago, most allegations of bullying have been sorted out at a low level, by talking to the harasser. “Usually the harasser doesn’t realise they’ve caused offence, or else it’s a line manager who is having problems managing someone,” she says.

Brent has trained advisers who can talk to both parties and facilitate. Anyone with a problem can pick an adviser, who is a member of staff combining the role with their day job. Since the system was introduced, says Walters, the number of formal grievances has fallen, although the number of people coming forward with issues has gone up.

“We don’t have a problem with bullying now, and I say that advisedly. We’ve put a lot of resources into it. The culture of the organisation has changed and morale has improved,” she says. “In my experience, people will only raise a formal grievance if there is no alternative.” And people in HR are perhaps the most reluctant to do so.

One person’s experience

“I was bullied for a couple of years as a junior personnel manager, by one of the middle managers in a public-sector organisation,” says Liz Jones (not her real name).”She did all sorts of things, some of which were very subtle and difficult to name – because they were done with such apparent reasonableness. She would watch me very closely; literally stand over me as I was working. She would put red lines through things I had written like a teacher at school. She would move goalposts. She removed some of my lines of authority without informing me and made inappropriate personal comments about my appearance that I found intrusive. She was just very destructive.

“It wasn’t only me,” Jones continues. “She was bullying two of us, but the other person left. We tried to raise the issue with her together once, but she just blanked us.

“As part of my job, I even sent her on harassment training and she came back and said: ‘Liz, I realise that all those behaviours they were talking about, I do them to you.’ I thought, great, now she knows. But she just carried on.

“I raised it with the HR director, but he was reluctant to do anything because she was his appointee. It did occur to me to speak to someone else, but the person I would have been happiest approaching was PA to the chief executive, and she would have told him and all hell would have broken loose. Plus, by that time I had developed a victim mentality.

“It was quite a long time before I really decided I had to do something. She gave a journalist my home number while I was on maternity leave, without warning me, on my due date. I was furious. I knew I couldn’t go back without doing something about it. I contacted my union rep and we went through mediation.

“The mediator was very skilled. I found it really upsetting to recall events and to listen to this manager defending herself. She thought it was just ‘robust management’. I spent a lot of time crying. She did acknowledge that she had hurt and upset me and I had a lot of forgiving to do. Mediation is hard. You have to go into it being prepared to make yourself vulnerable, and you have to be prepared for resolution.

“Things were better after the mediation, but it was too late: the damage had been done. I stayed on for 18 months and she left before me. I was determined that she would go first because, apart from her, I loved my job.”

Bullying and harassment: where the law stands

Bullying claims are often complex both to bring and defend. Although “bullying” is not defined by statute, discrimination law sets out a legal definition of harassment. It is unwanted conduct that violates an individual’s dignity, or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for an individual. The motive is irrelevant.Employees can resign and claim constructive dismissal on the grounds of bullying or harassment under the Employment Rights Act 1996, but they must establish the employer has breached a contractual term for example, the duty to provide a safe place of work. Those subjected to harassment and bullying can also bring claims in the civil courts, the most common being for personal injury.

Employees have also used the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which applies to “a course of conduct” causing anxiety or distress in the workplace, rather than a single incident.

Remedies vary depending on the statute and type of court involved. Awards for breach of contract will be capped at £25,000 in employment tribunals, but there is no limit on damages in the civil courts, or under the discrimination legislation.

Ranjit Dhindsa is an employment partner and head of the Midlands practice at Reed Smith

What does bullying cost your business?

Use the following information to calculate the direct and indirect costs of bullying and to make a business case for tackling the problem in your organisation.Direct costs
Cost of people leaving:
Research suggests that 25 per cent of people who have been bullied and 20 per cent of witnesses leave the organisation. So first calculate the average employee replacement cost, including HR and management time before, during and after interview, plus training costs and time before a new recruit becomes fully effective. Bullying rates are likely to be similar throughout the hierarchy so use an average replacement cost.

Now consider the incidence of bullying in your organisation. Estimate a “normal figure” of 10 per cent if you have no data. Then multiply the total number of people in the organisation by the estimated incidence rate of bullying and by 0.25 (the typical proportion of people who leave) to get to the cost of replacing employees who have been bullied. Add to this witness replacement costs, based on a conservative estimate of two witnesses per situation.

Take, for example, an organisation with 1,000 employees, 10 per cent bullying incidence and £10,000 average replacement costs.

Cost of replacing targets of bullying:�
1,000 x 0.1 (incidence) x 0.25 (proportion who leave) x £10,000 (replacement cost per person) = £250,000

Cost of replacing witnesses:�
1,000 x 0.1 (number of targets) x 2 (witnesses per target) x 0.20 (proportion who leave) x £10,000 (cost per person) = £400,000�
Targets + witnesses = £650,000 in totalOther direct costs include early retirements and severance payments of other types that can be tracked back to bullying. Investigations and legal action are also costly. The largest component will usually be management time, followed by HR time and legal costs.

Indirect costs

Bullying has a ripple effect on employees’ commitment and morale and therefore reduces productivity. Putting a number on this can be difficult, but if you are making a business case, anecdotes can be as effective.

Bad publicity from legal cases damages an employer’s reputation and makes recruitment harder. Customers and buyers may also be affected. In the voluntary sector, funding may be jeopardised.

Charlotte Rayner is professor of HRM at Portsmouth Business School

How can organisations deal with bullying?

• Define the problem – Bullying comes in many guises, so consult widely with the workforce and trade unions and define bullying. Create local or organisation-wide statements about what is and is not “okay behaviour”, and make sure everyone understands them. Update these statements annually.
• Povide managers with appropriate skills – Give managers the skills to deal informally with bullying before problems escalate. They must understand that they must not bully others. Do not appoint managers who have no people management capability.
• Overhaul organisational systems – Monitor levels of bullying, complaints, sickness and exit rates and the activities of support groups, including harassment advisers and union reps. Get a team together to create objectives, such as reductions in the incidence of bullying. Look at the data annually and use it to inform training and coaching. Watch out for hot-spots of leavers and carry out further investigations – for example, via exit interviews – but recognise that even ex-employees may be reluctant to mention anything negative. Have a formal anti-bullying policy, but try to use it as little as possible. It needs to include ways of dealing with malicious complaints and of reintegrating employees who complain about bullying, as well as a route for HR staff to take complaints.
• Provide individual support – Offer as many forms of support as possible, both for victims and anyone accused of bullying. If your organisation is unionised, give reps time to develop informal relationships with local managers and HR staff. That way, all three will be able to deal with situations early and informally.
• Support the supporters – Ensure everyone concerned is aligned to the anti-bullying strategy, and gives and receives feedback, while at all times protecting identities.

Compiled by Charlotte Rayner, professor of HRM, Portsmouth Business School | charlotte.rayner@port.ac.uk. | See www.port.ac.uk/workplace bullying for the full Amicus/DTI report on bullying.

Written by: Clive Lewis
Date: Wednesday, September 06, 2006

The recent news that increasing numbers of civil service staff are overturning dismissals because government HR departments are failing to follow statutory dismissal procedures is not particularly surprising. It was reported last week that the annual report by the Civil Service Appeal Board (CSAB) showed more than one-fifth of all disciplinary cases involving appeals during 2005-06 were deemed ‘unfair’ – a rise of 15% on the previous year.

The introduction of the grievance and disciplinary procedures has meant that thousands of HR professionals are spending an increasing amount of time on a transactional process that adds little value. Legal costs have also risen as HR functions seek advice to ensure that they follow correct procedure. The CIPD Managing Conflict at work survey of 2004 indicated that dealing with conflict is taking up more and more HR time. Over 60 per cent of respondents said they had seen an increase in the use of HR departments to resolve individual disputes in the previous 12 months. At that stage employers said they were spending an average of 10.5 days per case dealing with disciplinary and grievance issues. A little less than the 12.5 days they said they were spending preparing for a tribunal case.

The number of grievance cases lodged with employment tribunals also rose by a third during the last financial year. Claims initially fell by one quarter after the 2004 dispute resolution rules came in. But the latest Employment Tribunals Service (EST) figures show a surge in claims from 86,181 to 115,039 over the 12 months to the end of March.

As a HR director, I recall an ever-increasing percentage of my time was being taken up with discussions about the disciplinary and grievance process. It got to the stage where a large chunk of the Monday morning team meeting was carved out for updates on cases that my team was dealing with. Whilst cases such as gross misconduct probably warrant time being spent on the process, the merit for other cases is less clear-cut.

There are only three ways in which disputes can be resolved. Through power, rights or interests. Power based conflict resolution techniques such as a boss imposing their orders on a direct report, generate a great deal of damage because they create winners and losers, destroy important relationships and only lead to potential further disputes.

Rights based methods such as legislation, litigation and the grievance and disciplinary procedures were introduced to allow disputes to be resolved and encourage individuals to interact more peacefully. The exercise of rights is often perceived by those in power as diluting their authority. Rights-based processes similarly create winners and losers. While power-based relationships focus on preserving hierarchy and obedience, rights-based processes focus on enforcing contractual language and rarely lead to closure. The grievance and disciplinary process has proved to be unwieldy and imperfect for the improvement in human interaction. Both power and rights based methods focus on suppressing or settling conflicts rather than resolving and preventing them.

Interest based processes such as workplace mediation on the other hand, focuses on finding common ground and seeking to understand why people came into conflict in the first place. Interest based approaches focus therefore not just on what people want, but why they want it. As a result people are encouraged to learn from each other and work more collaboratively.

Mediation also offers the advantage that it can be undertaken in tandem with the grievance and disciplinary process, as it is without prejudice. If mediation doesn’t work (and it does in more than 80% of cases) then the tortuous disciplinary and grievance procedures can continue their trajectory. It is only through interest-based processes that everyone’s ability to learn from and prevent further conflict is increased.

Mediation differs from litigation in that the mediator is not a judge or arbitrator who decides the issues for the parties. It is a process that invites the participants to be creative, collaborative and responsible for solutions. It is future-oriented and less concerned with deciding whom is right or wrong than with solving problems so they do not occur again.

There are many reasons that can explain why workplace mediation is now becoming an increasingly used method of dispute resolution for employee conflicts. These include the high increase in the number of employee tribunal cases, the higher levels of compensation, the continuing introduction of new employment legislation and, for many, the realisation that formal procedures and investigations can in some circumstances be so adversarial and stressful to all concerned that any possibility of people working together again is minimal. Workplace mediation is based on the principles of encouraging constructive communication in a safe and confidential environment, identifying mutual solutions and agreements and restoring respectful, professional working relationships.

The CIPD survey Managing conflict at work (27 October 2004) stated, “Awareness needs to be raised about how mediation can make a difference to managing workplace disputes. It needs to be part of the process from the start of the problem, not used as a sticking plaster once relationships have already broken down.”

Progressive organisations that have adopted mediation principles within their HR practices are beginning to see the benefit that this brings. HR functions also have the opportunity to engage in a transformational HR process that will be seen by their internal customers as a great value add tool.

It is only after workplace mediation has begun to be utilised across UK businesses (including Whitehall) that we will begin to see a reduction in the grievance and disciplinary statistics that we are now seeing.