Source: People Management magazine
Issue date: 10 August 2006

Line managers need to focus on working with employees individually to identify and manage their causes of stress

It is simply not possible to remove all sources of stress at work but, according to our recent research, empowering line managers to manage stress among their teams will help to reduce some of its consequences, such as: poor morale, reduced performance and team conflict. The research, Managing Stress, shows that line managers, rather than HR, are predominantly responsible for managing stress within their teams, and 67 per cent of these say they would “probably” or “definitely” benefit from training or development in this area.

Taking time off was the least commonly reported way of managing stress. Survey respondents were more likely to take on work challenges than to avoid them, and to manage their stress proactively through planning, prioritising and delegating work.

Yet 33 per cent said the support they got was “rarely” or “never” adequate, and 42 per cent said they were unable to prevent repeated stress from the same cause. Line managers therefore need to focus on working with employees individually to identify and manage their causes of stress.

1 Create a supportive culture

Macho cultures where stress is denied are at risk of extreme reactions when it does occur. A supportive work culture is one where employees feel they can speak openly about stress, and where asking for help is not seen as a sign of weakness. One way of encouraging such a culture is to ensure that one-to-one and team meetings explicitly address issues such as workload and clarity of objectives.

Research consistently shows that the most effective support comes from people’s direct managers. Employees who feel their line manager is willing and able to support them suffer fewer negative effects of stress. In contrast, those who do not have the benefit of their manager’s support experience poor health and reduced job satisfaction during times of change and peaks in workload. A supportive manager can therefore “buffer” the impact of work stresses, as can support from peers and colleagues.

2 Appreciate people’s differences

Although some jobs are inherently stressful, one person’s stress can be another person’s challenge. For example, while some people are terrified at the prospect of giving presentations, others thrive on public speaking.

People’s reactions depend not only on whether they can do the tasks necessary for their role, but also on whether they will find it enjoyable or stressful to be doing these things as often as is required. Identifying the personality characteristics as well as the key competencies that suit different job roles can help to ensure the right people are matched to the right job, particularly when recruiting.

3 Recognise the signs of stress

When under stress, people react in different ways. One person will become reflective, thinking through the issues and potential solutions, whereas another can become verbose, seeking advice and support. Under extreme pressure, one person may “explode”, while another will withdraw completely.

Line managers need to be able to recognise these different signals and know their team members well enough to understand what type of support they need in times of stress. While some employees will appreciate the opportunity to talk things through and discuss their reactions, others will want practical advice to get them through the situation. Personality questionnaires can help to identify these individual needs.

4 Resolve issues as they arise

Left unresolved, even apparently small issues can grow into a source of stress. Be prepared to address issues such as workload prioritisation, office layout and personal disagreements as they arise. Anticipate that any kind of workplace change, from a complete organisational restructure through to repainting the walls, can unsettle employees. Make sure that the people factors in any change are thought through and addressed.

5 Consider teambuilding

Developing good working relationships can be crucial to preventing work stress  84 per cent of survey respondents say relationships can cause stress and 90 per cent believe relationships can help to manage stress.

Focused teambuilding events can help to build effective work relationships. They can raise awareness of individual differences in the experience of, and reactions to, stressful situations, and help team members to understand how they can work together effectively and resolve interpersonal conflicts.

Unfortunately, all too often the progress achieved during a teambuilding event can dissipate once everyone is back at work. Effective teams embed the lessons learnt into their everyday business processes. Regular team meetings enable staff to share what they are doing, understand their own and each other’s workloads and build a supportive team culture.

6 Enable autonomy

A demanding, high-pressure job need not be stressful. There is a considerable body of research demonstrating that people can manage sustained high workload without negative effects if they have control over how they manage this workload. There are many ways to provide flexibility for your employees, including flexible work hours, homeworking and devolving decision-making within the role. When employees are more satisfied with their working conditions, their working hours will be more productive.

7 Remember remote workers

The rise of remote working has great potential to reduce stress. Relieving individuals of a tedious daily commute can help them to manage their work-life balance, and working from home typically provides considerable autonomy for managing individual work tasks.

However, out of sight can mean out of mind. Talk to your remote workers and find out what support they need. Requests could be varied in nature, covering requirements such as regular virtual team meetings, IT support, or access to information from the wider business.

8 Have a contingency plan

While it is desirable to prevent stress occurring, it is inevitable that symptoms of stress will arise from time to time, whether as a result of unavoidable work pressures, or personal events outside of work. Whatever the cause, it is important to have plans in place to enable an effective response when the need arises. Options include employee assistance programmes, peer support networks and stress management interventions. For many people, simply being aware that such support is available can reduce anxiety.

Checklist

Top tips for preventing stress

• Carefully assess different job roles to identify the skills and competencies required.
• Consider the personality characteristics required by a role at the recruitment stage, to ensure a good match between people and job roles.
• Remember that people respond in different ways to pressure.
• Give staff control over their workload and a high level of autonomy to buffer the negative effects of stress.
• Understand your employees’ individual needs and responses in times of stress.
• Use teambuilding to create a supportive work environment that will help people to manage the effects of stress.

Further info

The CIPD and the Health and Safety Executive have commissioned research aimed at identifying the line management behaviours associated with the effective management of stress at work. See Study notes, PM 1 June 2006, and the next edition of PM for more details.

Source: CPID
Date: May 2006

This factsheet gives introductory guidance. It:

• outlines the decline in formal industrial relations work in organisations
• describes what HR professionals think of as ‘employee relations’
• assesses the state of the employment relationship
• discusses how to secure an engaged workforce and the skills required of employee relations specialists
• includes the CIPD viewpoint.

What is employee relations? 

The term ‘employee relations’ was conceived as a replacement for the term ‘industrial relations’ but it’s precise meaning in today’s workplaces needs clarification. In 2004/5 CIPD undertook research into the changing nature of employee relations work in UK organisations, through interviews with HR and Employee Relations managers to provide a snapshot of current attitudes and practice. The findings are reported in our recent Change Agenda1 and are summarised in this factsheet. 

The decline of ‘industrial relations’ 

‘Industrial relations’ is generally understood to refer to the relationship between employers and employees collectively. The term is no longer widely used by employers but summons up a set of employment relationships that no longer widely exist, except in specific sectors and, even there, in modified form. 

The decline can be measured on a number of different dimensions. From a peak of some 12 million plus, union membership has fallen to around 7 million today. Between 1980 and 2000, the coverage of collective agreements contracted from over three-quarters to under a third of the employed workforce. At the same time, the range of issues over which bargaining took place decreased massively. The Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS) 19982 showed that union officials spent most of their time not on negotiating pay and conditions but in supporting grievances on behalf of individual members. Even where collective bargaining continued, its impact on the exercise of management discretion was greatly diminished. 

The shift in the coverage and content of collective bargaining has been reflected in a dramatic reduction in industrial action since 1980. The number of working days lost per 1,000 union members decreased from an annual average of 1,163 in the 1970s to 76 in the 1990s. 

What do employee relations mean for employers? 

Some broad conclusions emerging from research are: 

Employee relations can be seen primarily as a skill-set or a philosophy, rather than as a management function or well-defined area of activity. The emphasis of employee relations continues to shift from ‘collective’ institutions, such as trade unions and collective bargaining, to the relationship with individual employees. The ideas of ‘employee voice’ and the ‘psychological contract’ have been accepted by employers and reflected in their employee relations policies and aspirations (see our factsheet on Managing the psychological contract for more information). Employee relations skills and competencies are still seen by employers as critical to achieving performance benefits through a focus on employee involvement, commitment and engagement. 

Employee relations is seen as strategic in terms of managing business risk: both the downside risk of non-compliance with an expanded body of employment law, and the upside risk of failing to deliver maximum business performance. What is the state of the employment relationship? 

The early findings of the WERS 20043 give a mixed picture of the state of employee relations. Managers in 30 per cent of workplaces report that relations have improved a lot since 1998. However, employees’ views have changed little over the period. Despite the introduction in April 2005 of the Employee Information and Consultation Regulations (see our Employee Information and Consultation Regulations factsheet), the current survey records a decline in the incidence of joint consultative committees. 

A key issue for managers is focus. Are they directing their attention to the issues that will make a real difference to business performance? There is strong evidence that a positive psychological contract with employees will lead to superior economic performance, but managing the psychological contract appears to figure fairly low in the list of management, and specifically of the HR function’s, priorities: in our survey Where we are, where we’re heading4, only one in two respondents placed employee involvement among the top five priorities for the HR function in their organisation. 

What is employee engagement? 

The achievement of business goals and financial returns is increasingly dependent on delivery by front-line employees. ‘Engagement’ has been described as a combination of commitment and organisational citizenship. These are both shown by CIPD surveys to be routine outcomes of a positive psychological contract. 

There is no shortage of evidence about people management policies and practices that contribute to building employee engagement. They include: 

Employee voice: Research for the CIPD by Professor Mick Marchington5 shows that managers are much more convinced than they were a decade ago that involvement produces business benefits. This is confirmed by the range of methods for direct communication and recognising individual employee contribution that HR departments now implement and operate.�
Teamworking: WERS 19982 commented that ‘training, teamworking, supervisors trained in employee relation matters and problem-solving groups are all associated with one another. In combination, this group of practices might be construed as a model of direct employee participation in decision-making.’�
Work-life balance: Policies on work-life balance are being used by employers to underpin positive workplace behaviours. Our various surveys of employee attitudes, for example Guest and Conway6, have underlined the link between work-life balance, commitment and performance, and there is strong support by employers for the current legislation giving employees the right to request flexible working. See our factsheet on Work-life balance for more information on this topic.

There are clear links with the business performance model constructed by John Purcell and his colleagues at Bath University7. The model focuses on the implementation of HR practices by line managers, and on employees’ ability, motivation and opportunity to practise discretionary behaviour. Employee relations can be seen as a critical ingredient in the ‘black box’. 

How do HR professionals display employee relations competencies? 

Communication is the glue that makes policies real and without which they are ineffective. The fact that communication is necessarily a two-way process, involving dialogue rather than simply instruction, is well established. Yet many organisations perform badly in this area, failing to give communication the priority it deserves. 

Getting communication right involves both professionalism and persistence. The qualities required include focusing on positive behaviours and outcomes, taking a positive, problem-solving approach, anticipating problems, recommending solutions and being able to offer sound advice to senior managers about implementation. Negotiating skills are still useful but needed less often. A much wider area of knowledge is now required, along with the skills to apply it, including surveying and interpreting employee attitudes, communications and conflict management. Most important is the ability to ‘fit’ policies and practices to suit the organisation’s goals and the character of its workforce. 

Managing workplace conflict 

Although workplace conflict is no longer reflected in high levels of industrial action, the ability to manage conflict remains a key issue for many organisations. Mediation as a method or technique of resolving workplace issues represents an important shift from the traditional industrial relations framework, with its emphasis on formal discipline and grievance procedures, towards more of a ‘win-win’ approach consistent with the philosophy of HR management. 

The decline of industrial relations means that managers may need to be reminded that employees’ interests are not necessarily identical with those of their employer; that despite the decline in strikes and other forms of industrial action, workplace conflict still needs to be managed; and that HR management philosophies may understate the ‘messy realities’ of managing people. 

What is the continuing value of employee relations? 

To a considerable extent, it is only in the public sector that trade unions retain a measure of their former strength and influence in the workplace. This is partly through the existence of institutions of collective consultation, reinforced by continued reliance in many cases on industry-level bargaining and the public policy emphasis on ‘partnership’. 

Union influence in the private sector, on the other hand, continues to decline. The main areas of the private sector where industrial disputes are still experienced from time to time, for example, public transport, are those where there’s a clear public or political interest and/or the Government is seen as the ultimate ‘banker’. ‘Employee relations’ as a term remains ambiguous, with no clear boundaries. Few organisations outside the public sector now have employee relations departments, and most HR people don’t use the term on an everyday basis. It is not calculated to help managers focus on what they need to know and do to increase performance – the language has echoes of a historical era that offers few insights into contemporary practice. 

The traditional academic models of industrial relations have only limited relevance to what managers do today. Employers are in charge and the role of ‘joint control’ and ‘rule-making’ by employers and trade unions has been substantially replaced by employment regulation and organisational values. Employee relations can nevertheless point to an underlying philosophy and attitudes and skills that are still needed by HR practitioners. The current ‘business partner’ model is helpful in identifying an ‘added value’ framework within which HR practitioners need to operate, but an unreflecting business focus may lead to a neglect of the softer skills, which are essential to managing the employment relationship, and of employee interests and influence. Employers also need HR managers with a positive, ‘can do’ attitude who will resist the temptation to adopt a defensive or compliance-led HR culture. Commitment and engagement are crucial to performance but they are not consistently high enough in the hierarchy of line management – or, often, HR – priorities. The Employee Information and Consultation Regulations may be helpful in raising the profile of employee voice and involvement, but the WERS 20043 findings give little basis for optimism that this will happen. 

More effort needs to be put into training and supporting line managers in, for example, teamworking and change management as the basis for establishing and maintaining motivation and commitment, which is a critical role for employee relations managers. Issues about ‘alignment’ of HR and business strategies have mostly to be resolved within this area. There is too much focus within organisations on strategy formulation and planning, and not enough on implementation and delivery. Managing the employment relationship rests heavily on the shoulders of line managers, but their competence in this area is, in general, seriously neglected. The concept of engagement is helpful in promoting wider interest in the measurement of HR outputs, including through the widespread use of employee attitudes surveys and in performance management/appraisal systems. 

Conclusion 

Engagement offers managers a framework for monitoring a range of indicators, including employee attitudes and behaviours, of the state of the employment relationship. But beyond that, it represents an aspiration that employees should understand, identify with and commit themselves to the objectives of the organisation they work for. What does this mean for employee relations specialists? It means being more strategic and seeing the ‘bigger picture’. It means being familiar with a wide range of techniques and skills, including mediation and communications. But, ultimately, it may also mean asserting more strongly the employee interest and agenda. This may not fit well with a management culture still based on ‘command and control’: it’s a genuinely transformational message. But without some significant progress in this direction, both high-performance working and strategic business partnering are unlikely to succeed (see our factsheets on High performance working and Strategic business partnering for more information on these topics). 

CIPD viewpoint 

CIPD research underlines the continuing significance of good employee relations: 

Managers see employee attitudes and commitment as contributing to business performance via better employee contributions and productivity gains. The psychological contract model, validated by successive employee attitude surveys, suggests that HR practices strongly affect the way people feel about their work. 

The informal climate of involvement and consultation appears to be more strongly associated than collective machinery for negotiation and consultation with employee satisfaction and commitment. Mechanisms in use for employee voice include two-way communications, project teams and joint consultation but there is also growing interest in electronic media, attitude surveys and ‘partnership’. 

The major constraints on employee commitment are lack of skills and enthusiasm on the part of managers and employees. 

References

• CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PERSONNEL AND DEVELOPMENT. (2005) What is employee relations? Change Agenda. London: CIPD. Available at http://www.cipd.co.uk/changeagendas
• CULLY, M., WOODLAND, S. and O`REILLY, A. (1999) Britain at work: as depicted by the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey. London: Routledge.
• KERSLEY, B., ALPIN, C. and FORTH, J. (2005) Inside the workplace: first findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS 2004). London: Economic and Social Research Council.
• EMMOTT, M. (2003) HR survey: where we are, where we’re heading. Survey report. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at http://www.cipd.co.uk/surveys
• MARCHINGTON, M. et al. (2001) Management choice and employee voice. Research report. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
• GUEST, D.E. and CONWAY, N. (2004) Employee well-being and the psychological contract: a report for the CIPD. Research report. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
• PURCELL, J. at al. (2003) Understanding the people and performance link: unlocking the black box. Research report. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Further reading 

CIPD members can use our Advanced Search to find additional information on this topic. Books DANIELS, K. (2006) Employee relations in an organisational context. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Journal articles

• BRADLEY, D. (2004) Polar vision. People Management. Vol 10, No 18, 16 September. p17.
• CRAIL, M. (2005) Beyond dispute? Prospects for workplace peace in our time. IRS Employment Review. No 824, 27 May. pp9-13.
• EGAN, J. (2005) Evolution, not revolution: the changing face of the workplace. IRS Employment Review. No 832, 30 September. pp8-15.

This factsheet was written by CIPD staff.

Source: CPID
Date: May 2006

This factsheet gives introductory guidance. It:

• defines diversity and how it has developed
• discusses the difference between equal opportunities and diversity
• outlines the business case for diversity
• suggests ways in which to manage diversity, with tips for action
• includes the CIPD viewpoint.

This factsheet summarises the key issues on diversity, an area where CIPD has played a central role in setting the agenda and developing debate. It is based on our guide Managing diversity: people make the difference at work – but everyone is different1. It does not cover legal aspects in any depth as these are covered by separate factsheets – see the links within the text below. 

What is diversity? 

People are not alike. Everyone is different. Diversity therefore consists of visible and non-visible factors, which include personal characteristics such as sex, race, age, background, culture, disability, personality and work-style. Harnessing these differences will create a productive environment in which everybody feels valued, their talents are fully utilised and organisational goals are met. 

CIPD defines diversity as valuing everyone as an individual – valuing people as employees, customers and clients. 

But there is no single way of treating employees, as each one will have their own personal needs, values and beliefs. It follows that the notion of best practice, while helpful in a theoretical setting, will not provide all the answers in reality. There are multi-variables and many shades of grey – a fuzzy and complex world that relies on approximate reasoning. 

How the concept has developed 

Changes in the social and economic landscape led to legislation covering equal pay, sex and racial discrimination in the 1970s, followed by disability laws in the 1990s. More recently, discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and religion has been added to the list covered by the law, at least partly driven by European legislation. All these initiatives were grounded in developing a level playing field for disadvantaged groups; in other words, ending or reducing discrimination and improving social justice. They can therefore be described as being about equal opportunities rather than diversity, and by the 1990s it was being recognised that they had had limited success in achieving their goals. 

In the early 1990s, American writers argued for a shift from equal opportunities to diversity because the equal opportunities approach was insufficiently holistic in its attempts to eradicate discrimination (some disadvantaged groups were not represented, or were not adequately represented), and because those who were represented were regarded as homogeneous groups (although, for example, each disabled employee requires individual consideration). At around the same time, researchers were also finding that culturally diverse teams were more creative than homogenous teams and contributed more effectively to meeting organisational goals. Thus there was a business case for diversity, although coping with it would be much harder than simply managing equal opportunities to meet legal requirements. 

Three separate commissions have been established, covering gender, race and disability discrimination, to promote equality and monitor their particular aspects of the legislation. Under the Equality Act 2006, a new Commission for Equality and Human Rights is to be established in 2007 to cover all equality issues, including the new age discrimination legislation being implemented from October 2006, as well as issues of human rights. 

Some statistics 

Unemployment is twice as high among people from ethnic minorities, although there are relatively more Chinese, Indian and Black African graduates than white graduates. Only 12 per cent of white men are in professional occupations, as opposed to 21 per cent of Chinese and Indian men. 

White men have the lowest rate of participation in full-time education between the ages of 16-24 (37 per cent), followed by white women (40 per cent). 41 per cent of white women in employment work part-time, but only 7 per cent of white men do so, as opposed to 38 per cent of Bangladeshi men. 

Black and Asian people are 2.5 times less likely to have jobs than whites. Ethnic minorities account for 8.1 per cent of the overall population. Because they are relatively younger, it is projected that ethnic minorities will account for half the growth in the working population to 2009. 

In the past ten years, the employment of the over-50s has risen by almost 25 per cent. The number of people aged over 60 is forecast to rise by 40 per cent in the next 30 years.

The social justice or equality case 

The social justice argument is based on the belief that everyone should have a right to equal access to employment and when employed should have equal pay and equal access to training and development, as well as being free of any direct or indirect discrimination and harassment or bullying. This can be described as the right to be treated fairly, and nowadays the law sets minimum standards in terms of pay, race, disability, gender, sexual orientation, harassment and bullying, and from October 2006, age. 

For more information on these topics, see our factsheets on: Age and employment, Disability and employment, Harassment at work, Race, religion and employment, Sex discrimination, sexual orientation, gender reassignment and employment. 

The business case 

Why should any employer want to push the boundaries set by the law? Equal opportunities is often seen as meaning treating everyone in exactly the same way. But to provide real equality of opportunity, people often need to be treated differently in ways that are fair and tailored to their needs. Arguably, the social justice and business case arguments for diversity are complementary, because unless people are treated fairly at work they will feel less than fully committed and will therefore under-perform. But diversity takes equality forward, and evidence indicates that organisations that are serious about diversity show better overall financial performance. 

There are three broad strands supporting the case for going beyond what is required by legislation and introducing diversity policies: people issues, market competitiveness, and corporate reputation. Organisations which follow them are also more likely to find it easier to comply with increasingly complex legal obligations, not least because diversity will be embedded in their cultures. 

People issues 

Research shows that people aspire to work for employers with good employment practices, and to feel valued at work. To be competitive, organisations need to derive the best contributions from everyone. Skill shortages and difficulties in filling vacancies are forcing more organisations to recruit from more diverse pools and to offer different employment packages and working arrangements. Creating an open and inclusive workplace culture in which everyone feels valued helps to recruit and retain good people.

• Employers who offer good working conditions benefit from more positive and committed employees, who are less likely to leave.
• Employees who are happier at work are less likely to suffer from stress or become sick, leading to fewer disruptions in production or service.
• Good employers will receive more applications for jobs, leading to a larger pool of talent to choose from.
• A diverse workforce will be more creative and innovative.

Diversity policies also help organisations to:

• Quality assure policies and working practices because diversity fits well with business excellence models and initiatives such as Investors in People and total quality management.
• Create an environment in which people from all backgrounds can work together harmoniously by combating prejudice, stereotyping, harassment and undignified and disrespectful behaviour.
• Bring about cultural change.
• Market competitiveness

A diverse workforce can help to inform the development of new or enhanced products or services, open up new market opportunities, improve market share and broaden an organisation’s customer base. Examples include:

• Financial institutions addressing the needs of ethnic-minority businesses.
• Local authorities seeking to improve the way they provide services to diverse groups within their communities.
• The Foreign Office recruiting from a wider pool so that embassy staff give a more accurate and balanced image of Britain.
• Supermarkets offering products to satisfy a wider range of eating preferences.
• Health services seeking to provide more choice for patients recognising their backgrounds and requirements.

Corporate reputation 

Healthy businesses flourish in healthy societies and the needs of people, communities and businesses are interrelated. Social exclusion and low economic activity rates limit business markets and their growth. Thus businesses need to consider corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the context of diversity. CSR is usually thought of as being linked to environmental issues, but an increasing number of employers take a wider view, seeing the overall image of an organisation as important in attracting and retaining both customers and employees. Indeed, it can be argued that CSR is part of the psychological contract between a firm and the community or communities in which it operates. CSR measures may include:

• Employing people who are representative of the local community.
• Seconding employees to charities.
• Supporting other initiatives designed to stimulate economies and employment, locally, nationally, or (in the case of multi-nationals) even globally.

Ethical behaviour is important too. Setting standards by means of value statements (and ensuring that they are adhered to) sends messages to present and potential customers, suppliers and employees. 

Leading-edge ‘dignity at work’ policies require that all forms of intimidating behaviour, including racial harassment and bullying, are regarded as contravening the values of an organisation and are treated as serious disciplinary matters. 

Managing diversity 

Managing diversity is about ensuring that all employees have the opportunity to maximise their potential and enhance their self-development and their contribution to the organisation. It recognises that people from different backgrounds can bring fresh ideas and perceptions, which can make the way work is done more efficient and make products and services better. Managing diversity successfully will help organisations to nurture creativity and innovation and thereby to tap hidden capacity for growth and improved competitiveness. 

But how to go about it? It is a complex task and every organisation will have to do it differently. The lead needs to come from the top. Unless the chief executive and board members are committed, change will not occur. It requires systematic management action, with a focus on the development of an open workplace culture in which everyone feels valued and can add value. It is a continuing process, and is at least partly about managing conflict, complexity and ambiguity. 

Ultimately organisations should aim to make managing diversity a mainstream issue, owned by everyone so that it influences all employment policies and working practices. 

Excellence in communications is central. People must be willing and able to talk to each other and listen to each other, and respect different views and ideas. 

Figure 1 suggests how organisations can move from where most are at present to a situation in which diversity enters the mainstream.�
Figure 1: Managing diversity – how to move equity forward�

Tips for action 

Although there is no single ‘right way’ to go about managing diversity, the following tips may help organisations considering diversity policies. 

Overall strategy

• Ensure that initiatives and policies have the support of the board and senior management.
• Remember that managing diversity is a continuous process of improvement, not a one-off initiative.
• Develop a diversity strategy to support the achievement of business goals, including ways of addressing the diverse needs of customers.
• Focus on fairness and inclusion, ensuring that merit, competence and potential are the basis for all decisions about recruitment and development.
• Keep up to date with the law and review policies through checks, audits and consultation.
• Address work-life balance challenges in ways that take account of employee and organisational needs and offer suitable choices and options.
• Encourage ownership and discourage risk aversion, aiming to create an empowering culture so that decisions are not passed upwards without good reason.
• Design guidelines for line managers to help them respond appropriately to diversity needs, as they are vital change agents, but give them scope for flexible decision-making.
• Link diversity management to other initiatives such as Investors in People and total quality management.
• Be aware that if your organisation operates internationally, its approach to managing diversity will need to take account of the ways that individual working styles and personal preferences are influenced by national cultures.

Workplace behaviour

• Introduce a value system based on respect and dignity for all.
• Aim to describe the desirable behaviours to gain positive commitment.
• Make clear that everyone has a personal responsibility to uphold the standards.
• Introduce mechanisms to deal with all forms of harassment, bullying and intimidating behaviour, making clear that such behaviour will not be tolerated and setting out the consequences of breaking the organisation’s behaviour code.

Communication

• Develop an open culture with good communication channels based on open dialogue and active listening.
• Use different and accessible methods such as newsletters, in-house magazines, noticeboards and intranets to keep people up to date with diversity policies and practices.
• Consult people for ideas.

Training

• Build diversity concepts and practices into management and other training and teambuilding programmes to increase awareness of the need to handle different views, perceptions and ideas in positive ways.
• Consider awareness-raising programmes about diversity and skills training to help people work together better in a diverse environment.
• Include diversity issues in induction programmes so that all new employees know about the organisation’s values and policies.
• Train line managers about diversity, aiming to help them understand the issues and drive them into organisational and operational policies and practices.
• Measure, review and reinforce
• Regularly audit, review and evaluate progress and keep qualitative data to chart progress and show business benefits.
• Use employee surveys to evaluate initiatives, to find out if policies are working for everyone, and to provide a platform for improvement.
• Track actions to see if they have had the intended results and make appropriate changes if necessary.
• Include diversity objectives in job descriptions and appraisals, and recognise and reward achievement.
• Benchmark good practice against other organisations and adopt and adapt relevant ideas where appropriate.
• Network with others from inside and outside your organisation to keep up to date and to share learning.
• Celebrate successes and identify learning opportunities from failures, to use them as building blocks for further progress.

CIPD viewpoint 

CIPD believes that recognising and valuing diversity is central to good people management practices. HR practitioners have an important role to play in creating inclusive workplaces where everyone can contribute to the success of the organisation. There is a compelling business case which should encourage organisations to look beyond legal compliance with anti-discrimination laws to a value-added approach enabling competitive benefits to be gained from developing good practice. Employers who sit on the sidelines regarding diversity will quickly become less attractive to existing and prospective employees. 

References 

WORMAN, D., BLAND, A. and CHASE, P. (2005) Managing diversity: people make the difference at work – but everyone is different. Guide. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/guides CIPD has carried out annual surveys and various research on the psychological contract. 

Further reading 

Books

• CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PERSONNEL AND DEVELOPMENT. (2006) Diversity in business: how much progress have employers made? First findings. Surevy report. London: CIPD. Available at: http://www.cipd/co.uk/surveys
• DANIELS, K. and MACDONALD, L.A.C. (2005) Equality, diversity and discrimination: a student text. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
• MACDONALD, L.A.C. (2004) Equality, diversity and discrimination: how to comply with the law, promote best practice and achieve a diverse workforce. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
• MULHOLLAND, G., OZBILGIN, M.F. and WORMAN, D. (2005) Managing diversity: linking theory and practice to business performance. Change agenda. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/changeagendas
• PEARN KANDOLA. (2006) Managing diversity. 2nd ed. CIPD toolkit. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
• TATLI, A., OZBILGIN, M.F. and WORMAN, D. (2006) Managing diversity: measuring success. Change agenda. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/changeagendas
• THOMAS TAYLOR. W., PIASECKA, A. and WORMAN, D. (2005) Managing diversity: learning by doing. Change agenda. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/changeagendas
• WORMAN, D. and WILLIAMS, P. (2005) Driving diversity progress: messages from a showcase of CIPD research. Change agenda. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/changeagendas

Journal articles

• ALLEN, K. (2004) Implementing a diversity strategy. Equal Opportunities Review. No 126, February. pp13-19.
• ARKIN, A. (2005) Hidden talents. People Management. Vol 11, No 14, 14 July. pp26,28-30.
• THOMAS, D.A. (2004) Diversity as strategy. Harvard Business Review. Vol 82, No 9, September. pp98-108.
• Understanding the change process is key to diversity success. (2005) IDS Diversity at Work. No 13, July. pp7-11.

Source: CPID
Date: May 2006

This factsheet gives introductory guidance. It:

• introduces the forthcoming statutory regulation
• explains about employment practices which do not discriminate on the grounds of age
• sets out recommendations and an action plan for avoiding the use of age and age-related criteria in employment
• concentrates on discrimination against older workers
• includes the CIPD viewpoint.

What is age discrimination? 

Although there is no statutory definition of age discrimination as yet in the UK, age discrimination can be explained as occurring when someone treats a person less favourably because of that person’s age, and uses this as a basis for prejudice against and unfair treatment of that person. 

Age discrimination in employment can:

• affect anybody regardless of how old they are
• reduce employment prospects for older people, younger people and parents returning to work after a period of full-time childcare
• favour people in the age group 25 to 35
• prevent the full consideration of abilities, potential and experience of employees.

Our recent survey1 found that age discrimination remain a significant problem in the workplace with 59 per cent of respondents saying they have been disadvantaged because of their age. 

The legal position 

Age discrimination is the main area of discrimination which is protected in some other countries but which is currently not directly protected in the UK. This will change from 1 October 2006 when the government will introduce age discrimination legislation – the final version of the regulations was published on 9 March 20062. The October date is in advance of the December deadline set by the Equal Treatment Framework Directive (2000/78/EC) which requires the UK to implement national legislation preventing age discrimination. 

Age discrimination can take many forms. In legal terms, it will follow the same pattern as existing forms of discrimination law in the UK, namely direct and indirect discrimination, victimisation and harassment. CIPD members can find details of the new regulations and their legal implications for employers, including the transitional procedures for retirements, in our Age discrimination and retirement FAQ in the Employment Law at Work area of our website. 

Go to the Age discrimination and retirement FAQThe Age Partnership Group (APG), of which CIPD is a founder member, is funded and co-ordinated by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It is comprised of organisations that represent the different needs of small, medium and large employers, as well as those who work directly with or provide information to employers and employees. APG has issued guidance3 which lists 10 key points about the new regulations: 

Age regulations are due to come into force on 1 October 2006. The regulations cover employment and vocational training. This includes access to help and guidance, recruitment, promotion, development, termination, perks and pay. The regulations cover people of all ages, both old and young. All employers, providers of vocational training, trade unions, professional associations, employer organisations and trustees, and managers of occupational pension schemes will have new obligations to consider. 

Goods, facilities and services are not included in the regulations. Upper age limits for unfair dismissal and redundancy will be removed. A national default retirement age of 65 will be introduced making compulsory retirement below age 65 unlawful (unless objectively justified). 

All employees will have the ‘right to request’ to work beyond the default retirement age of 65 or any other retirement age set by the company and all employers will have a ‘duty to consider’ requests from employees to work beyond 65. Occupational pensions are covered by the regulations, as are employer contributions to personal pensions. However, the regulations generally allow pension schemes to work as they do now. The regulations have more details. The regulations do not affect state pensions. 

In June 1999 the Government published a voluntary Code of Practice Age diversity in employment4 together with implementation guidance and case studies to show how a number of employers have tackled age discrimination. The Code sets out good practice principles to adopt in recruitment, selection, promotion, training and development, redundancy and retirement and reflects the advice given in this factsheet. There is growing evidence, through initiatives such as Age Positive, that UK employers are already taking voluntary action to regulate their own working practices. 

The business case 

It is estimated that age discrimination costs the economy between £19 and £31 billion a year in lost output. To be successful in an increasingly competitive market place, organisations need to attract and retain valuable employees and develop the talents of all their employees. 

Some key points:

• More people are living longer, active and healthier lives5.
• Evidence shows that differences in absenteeism between age groups are slight.
• Older workers stay in their jobs longer than younger people.
• Age discrimination leads to under-achievement, reduced self-confidence and motivation, lower self-esteem and loss of personal income and status.
• Findings from many studies show that younger and older workers are on average equally effective in their work.
• Research shows that, given the right training, older people are just as capable of learning new skills as younger people.

As life expectancy increases and the birth rate remains low, the proportion of the population aged over 65 will increase dramatically. Older people will become an ever more significant proportion of the population and society will increasingly depend upon the contribution they can make. In their publication Opportunity age: meeting the challenges of ageing in the 21st century6 the DWP gives details of the demographic shifts that are expected over the next few decades. The Government has stated that the best way to offset the impact of future changes in the age structure of society is to reduce levels of inactivity. Around 1 million people choose to work beyond state pension age already and the Government aspires to encourage a million older workers to do so, thereby maintaining the ratio of workers to non-workers in the economy at about the same in 2050 as it is now. Research information1 shows that there is a keen appetite amongst older employees for flexible working and flexible pensions and statistics indicate that activity levels for older female employees are expected to continue to rise. 

Recommendations for employers 

Employers need to prepare now for the new legislation by bringing all their policies and procedures into line with the new requirements, and seeking advice where necessary. Many employers have already taken action on age discrimination as a way of keeping ahead of their competitors and some companies, including B&Q, Asda, HBOS, Barclays Bank, GlaxoSmithKline and Nationwide, have adopted policies specifically to attract older workers. 

Age discrimination is a pervasive issue and the challenges of tackling it and ‘age proofing’ employment policies and practices are complex and take time. Each stage of the employment cycle should be examined as discrimination can occur throughout a person’s working life. All those involved in making decisions about the employment and training of people need to understand the implications of age-stereotyping. 

Recruitment and selection 

Age, age-related criteria or age ranges should not be used in advertisements other than to encourage applications from age groups which do not usually apply. Where this is the case, it should be clearly stated. 

It is desirable to state that age criteria will not be taken into account in employment decisions but used only for monitoring purposes. This information can be asked for in a ‘tear-off’ section of the application form and be kept separate from the application process. 

Interviewers and those concerned with selection must not be subjective on the basis of physical characteristics and unfounded assumptions, and must ensure their decisions are based on objective criteria, relevant to the job and merit. 

Medical advice 

An individual’s age should not be used to make judgments about their abilities or fitness. Where such a judgment is required, an occupational health or medical practitioner should be consulted. 

Reward 

Pay and terms of employment should not be based on age, but should reflect the value of individual contributions and standards of job performance. 

Training and development 

All employees should be eligible for training and development programmes as there is the potential to waste talent if particular age groups, eg those near retirement, are automatically excluded. 

Retention and redundancy 

When releasing employees, the organisation’s future needs for knowledge, skills and competencies should be taken into account – the ‘corporate memory’ needs protection. 

Alternatives to redundancy should be considered, such as shorter hours, part-time working, contractual arrangements, secondments and perhaps employment breaks. 

Retirement 

Alternatives to retirement may be considered, such as shorter hours, part-time working, contractual arrangements, secondments and perhaps employment breaks. 

Seventy per cent of 50-year olds stay on in work until state pension age. Research from CIPD1 indicates that many older workers would welcome an opportunity:

• for phased retirement for flexible working
• to work beyond the normal retirement age
• to work on a self-employed basis
• to work in the voluntary sector.

Organisations should also consider the advantages of using retirees as mentors to pass on experience and develop other employees through use of their knowledge and expertise. Our research shows that many organisations do this. 

An action plan 

Review 

Scrutinise all personnel policies, practices and procedures because age discrimination can:

• occur anywhere in the employment cycle from recruitment to redundancy
• be blatant or subtle, direct or indirect.

Policy

• Implement policy as part of an approach to diversity and equality.
• Use only objective criteria essential for satisfactory performance, and ensure these can be objectively justified.
• Communicate policy to all managers and employees, and offer training where necessary.

Stance and key actions

• Undertake an age audit.
• Do not rely on age, age guidelines and age-related criteria.
• Challenge the use of age and age-related criteria in every aspect of employment decision-making.
• Educate and train all staff about the implications of age discrimination.
• Use dates of birth only for monitoring purposes and administration. Give written assurances on this to gain the confidence and trust of job applicants and ensure staff making employment decisions follow this commitment.
• Monitor the age profile of the organisation at regular intervals to identify evidence of unfair discrimination against particular age groups.
• Consider ways of making sure that all age groups have access to development and promotion opportunities.

CIPD viewpoint 

CIPD is committed to the removal of age discrimination in employment because it is wasteful of talent and harmful to both individuals and organisations. The use of age, age bands and age-related criteria reduces objectivity in employment decision-making and increases the likelihood of inappropriate decisions. 

Employment decisions based on age are never justifiable because:

• age is not a genuine employment criterion
• age is a poor predictor of performance
• it is misleading to equate physical and mental ability with age
• when age is used, it tends to be a proxy for underlying factors, such as health or ability to drive, for example.

The efficient and effective use of people’s skills requires that employment decisions should be based on competencies, qualifications, skills, potential and objective job-related criteria obtained through careful analysis of job requirements and job performance. 

CIPD believes there is an important business case for employers to take action to remove age discrimination and has undertaken research and published guidance to raise awareness and educate personnel practitioners and employers about the issues involved. Organisations need to understand this business case and appreciate how competitive benefits can be gained from developing good practice. This will motivate them to implement progressive change and interpret the impending legal duties in positive ways which go beyond a minimum approach to compliance. 

Although CIPD recognises that the law can help to effect change in employment practice, self-regulation based on increased understanding is favoured as the best way to encourage employers to deal with age discrimination. 

References

• CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PERSONNEL AND DEVELOPMENT and CHARTERED MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE. (2005) Tackling age discrimination at work: creating a new age for all. London: CIPD. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/surveys Equality and diversity: age discrimination in employment and vocational training [online]. (2006) London: Department of Trade and Industry. Available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/employment/discrimination/age-discrimination/index.html
• AGE PARTNERSHIP GROUP. 20 key facts your business needs to know. London: Department for Work and Pensions. Available at: http://www.agepositive.gov.uk/newsDetail.cfm?sectionid=44&newsid=590
• DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT. (1999) Age diversity in employment and Age diversity in employment: guidance and case studies. Code of practice. Nottingham: Department for Education and Employment. Current version available at http://www.agepositive.gov.uk/
• SEAGER, A. (2006) Government statistician counts on us living and working longer. The Guardian. 13 January. Available at http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,16781,1685360,00.html
• DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS. (2005) Opportunity age: meeting the challenges of ageing in the 21st century. London: DWP. Available at: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/opportunity_age/

Further reading 

Journal articles

• SMETHURST, S. (2006) State of mind. People Management. Vol 12, No 1, 12 January. pp.24-29.
• SUFF, R. (2004) Using age-diversity policies to attract and retain older workers. IRS Employment Review. No 808, 24 September. pp42-48.
• VICKERSTAFF, S. (2005) Managing the older workforce. Equal Opportunities Review. No 137, January. pp6-10.

Source: CPID
Date: April 2006

This factsheet gives introductory guidance. It looks at:

• why organisations change
• defines the different models for change
• introduces change strategies
• comments on organisational and individual issues
• considers HR’s role and how change can be managed more effectively
• includes the CIPD viewpoint.

Why organisations need to change 

Many things cause organisational change. These include:

• challenges of growth, especially global markets
• changes in strategy
• technological changes
• competitive pressures
• customer pressure, particularly shifting markets
• to learn new organisation behaviour and skills
• government legislation/initiatives.

Research indicates that organisations are undergoing major change approximately once every three years, whilst smaller changes are occurring almost continually. There are no signs that this pace of change will slow down. 

In this context managers have to be able to introduce and manage change to ensure the organisational objectives of change are met, and they have to ensure that they gain the commitment of their people, both during and after implementation. 

For these reasons, it is important that the way change is managed is carefully considered by organisations. Whilst each change situation will be unique, there are still a number of common themes that will help ensure that the change process stands the greatest chance of success. 

The different models of change 

Much has been written on the subject of change, and various models of change proposed. The three main, contrasting models are from Lewin and Beer1 and Shaw2. 

Lewin’s model 

This model considers that change involves a move from one static state via a state of activity to another static status quo. Lewin specifically considers a three-stage process of managing change: unfreezing, changing and re-freezing. The first stage involves creating a level of dissatisfaction with the status quo, which creates conditions for change to be implemented. The second stage requires organising and mobilising the resources required to bring about the change. The third stage involves embedding the new ways of working into the organisation. 

Beer’s model 

Beer and colleagues advocate a model that recognises that change is more complex and therefore requires a more complex, albeit still uniform set of responses to ensure its effectiveness. They prescribe a six-step process to achieve effective change. They concentrate on ‘task alignment’, whereby employees’ roles, responsibilities and relationships are seen as key to bring about situations that enforce changed ways of thinking, attitudes and behaving. Their stages are:

• Mobilise commitment to change through joint diagnosis.
• Develop a shared vision of how to organise.
• Foster consensus, competence and commitment to shared vision.
• Spread the word about the change.
• Institutionalise the change through formal policies.
• Monitor and adjust as needed.
• Shaw’s model

This model looks at change in a different form. Change is seen as both complex and also evolutionary. The starting point for their (and a number of other more recent models) model is that the environment of an organisation is not in equilibrium. As such the change mechanisms within organisations tend to be ‘messy’ and to a certain extent operate in reverse to the way outlined by Lewin. It is not appropriate to consider the status quo as an appropriate starting point, given that organisations are not static entities. Rather the forces for change are already inherent in the system and emerge as the system adapts to its environment. 

Such different models will have implications on the way organisations and their leaders view change, the way they manage change and the effectiveness of any change initiative. 

Some example change strategies 

These can be considered as the different strategies and procedures that are used to categorise the change environment. The relevance of different change strategies is that they build upon different assumptions about human motivation and hence willingness to engage in change at a particular point in time. Four differing views are presented below. These strategies are not intended to be mutually exclusive. Rather they may each be appropriate at a different stage of a particular change process. Once the environment is identified, an effective implementation plan can be composed. 

Normative-re-educative strategy 

This approach believes that changing the norms, attitudes and values of individuals will lead to changes in their behaviours. (As such this strategy is the reverse of the model Beer et al propose above.) It is based upon core beliefs, values and attitudes. So change will occur as individuals change their attitudes and this leads them to want to behave differently. 

Rational-empirical strategy 

This strategy is based on persuasion, and assumes that individuals are rational and as such they will follow their own self-interest once this is made clear to them. The benefits of a change therefore need to be highlighted and sold to the individuals as being of personal benefit to them. 

Power-coercive strategy 

This strategy is based on the application of power, with the belief that most people are compliant to those who have greater power. A potential issue with this process is that once the power is removed, individuals may revert to previous behaviours. 

Action-centred strategy 

This focuses on problem solving, looking at problems and focussing on remedial actions. 

Why is change management relevant? 

Change management is relevant as though the research finds that change is taking place at an ever-increasing pace, the evidence suggests that most change initiatives fail. For example, recent CIPD research suggested that less than 60% of re-organisations met their stated objectives which are usually bottom line improvement. This is consistent with other published research. 

The impact of failures to introduce effective change can also be high: loss of market position, removal of senior management, loss of stakeholder credibility, loss of key employees. 

Finally, one organisational response to change is that organisational forms are themselves evolving. Therefore, the change management response will have to be adaptive. For example, the increased competitive challenges and the need to be responsive to the changing environment are resulting in emerging organisational models. Traditional organisational models following functional or matrix lines are being supplemented by new models. These might rely on project teams, on networks, on virtual structures. 

In theory, certain of these newer models, for example virtual and project-based structures, allow increased flexibility to respond to change. However such models are not always introduced uniformly, and in practice often introduce other issues that also impact upon change management, for example ability to share knowledge and to operate efficiently. Also, as more companies rely on these ‘new structures’, for example, sub-contractors and agency staff, the traditional psychological contract between organisation and employee can no longer be relied upon to elicit employee engagement, motivation and ultimately superior performance, all of which are particularly important in times of change. These ‘structures’ may also impact effectiveness of communication, which again has implications for change effectiveness. 

What issues have been identified in the change management process? 

A large number of issues have been identified as having negative impact on effective change management. Some of the key themes are identified below, covering organisational issues and individual resistance to change. 

Organisational issues 

Individual change initiatives are not always undertaken as part of a wider coherent change plan, for example through considering linkages between strategy, structure and systems issues. Therefore a change that considers a new structure but fails to establish the need to introduce new systems to support such a structure is less likely to succeed. 

Lack of effective project management and programme management disciplines can lead to slippages in timings, in achievement of desired outcomes, in ensuring that the projects do deliver as planned. 

Insufficient, relevant training, for example in project management, change management skills, leadership skills can all impact negatively on the effectiveness of any change initiative. 

Poor communication has been linked to issues surrounding the effectiveness of in achieving effective change in various ways. For example, imposed change can lead to greater employee resistance (see section below also). 

Finally, lack of effective leadership has been identified as an inhibitor of effective change. 

Individual/group resistance to change 

Resistance to change can be defined as an individual or group engaging in acts to block or disrupt an attempt to introduce change. Resistance itself can take many different forms from subtle undermining of change initiatives, withholding of information to active resistance eg via strikes. 

Resistance to change can be considered along various dimensions:

• individual versus collective
• passive versus active
• direct versus indirect
• behavioural versus verbal or attitudinal
• minor versus major.

Similarly two broad types of resistance can be considered: 

Resistance to the content of change – for example to a specific change in technology, to the introduction of a particular reward system. 

Resistance to the process of change. This concerns the way a change is introduced rather than the object of change per se, for example, management re-structure jobs, without prior consultation of affected employees. 

Management need to be aware of these different criteria to ensure they respond appropriately. 

Suggested reasons for resistance include: loss of control, shock of new, uncertainty, inconvenience, threat to status, competence fears. It is important to try to diagnose the cause of employee resistance as this will help determine the focus of effort in trying to reduce/remove the issue. 

What can be done to make change management more effective? 

From the issues raised in the section above, it can be seen that change is complex and there is not a single solution. However, a number of key areas of focus emerge. 

Effective leadership is a key enabler as it provides the vision and the rationale for change. Different styles of leadership have been identified, for example coercive, directive, consultative and collaborative. These different styles may each be appropriate depending on the type and scale of change being undertaken. For example, when there is a large-scale organisation-wide change a directive style has been identified as most effective. 

Appropriate and timely training is frequently identified as key to effective change. Examples of training requirements might include:

• Project and programme management skills to ensure change initiatives are completed both on time and to budget.
• Change management skills, including communication and facilitation. leadership coaching.
• Two-way communication with employees (see our factsheet on Managing the psychological contract) and their active involvement in implementation has also been identified as a key enabler of change. Active participation is one suggested means of overcoming resistance to change. However, research has indicated that part of the communication/participation issue might arise from a potential mismatch between what the employer and employee opinions are regarding levels of communication. For example, in a recent study of both employers and employees, employers believed they were involving and communicating with employees at a considerably higher level than was reported by employees.

Finally, linking all the change initiatives within an organisation coherently, rather than completing changes in isolation is vital to ensure that change effectiveness is maximised. CIPD research has identified seven areas of activity that make successful change happen – ‘the seven c’s of change’:

• Choosing a team.
• Crafting the vision and the path.
• Connecting organisation-wide change.
• Consulting stakeholders.
• Communicating.
• Coping with change.
• Capturing learning.

HR’s role in change management 

People management and development professionals have significant role to play in any change management process. Arising from CIPD research, HR’s involvement in certain areas was identified as sometimes being the difference between successful and less successful projects:

• Involvement at the initial stage in the project team
• Advising project leaders in skills available within the organisation – identifying any skills gaps, training needs, new posts, new working practices etc
• Balancing out the narrow/short-term goals with broader strategic needs.
• Assessing the impact of change in one area/department/site on another part of the organisation.
• Being used to negotiating and engaging across various stakeholders.
• Understanding stakeholder concerns to anticipate problems.
• Understanding the appropriate medium of communication to reach various groups.
• Helping people cope with change, performance management and motivation.

Organisational change is increasing, yet the high levels of failure indicate that effective management of these changes is still lacking. Such a gap indicates that there is much to learn about how to manage change more effectively. From this fact sheet it can be seen that there is no single model of change and no single solution to effective management. 

At present, HR professionals are not always seen as having the appropriate skills to lead on change management initiatives, and are therefore not actively included within the change process. However, many of the issues that are identified concern the ‘people aspects’ of change. HR would therefore appear to be ideally placed to ensure such issues are appropriately and effectively addressed. To achieve this aim HR will need to ensure it has the skills and credibility within the organisation to act as champions of change in the future.�

Source: CPID
Date: March 2006

This factsheet gives introductory guidance. It:

• sets out the many forms and grounds of harassment at work
• outlines how harassment affects people and organisations
• examines the legal implications if employers allow such behaviour to go unchallenged
• gives guidance about the key steps to eliminate harassment and what policies are needed
• includes the CIPD viewpoint.

What is harassment and why does it happen?

Harassment is any unwanted behaviour that violates dignity or creates an intimidating, humiliating or offensive environment. Harassment can take many forms and occur for a variety of reasons. It may be related to age, sex, race, disability, religion, sexuality or any personal characteristic of an individual. It may be directed at one person or many people. Often it takes place when there are no witnesses, but not always. It can be persistent behaviour over a period of time, but a one-off act may also amount to harassment. 

It is not the intention of the perpetrator that is key in deciding if harassment has occurred, but whether the behaviour is unacceptable by reasonable normal standards and is disadvantageous or unwelcome to the person or people subjected to it or witnessing it. In the CIPD survey1 13% of respondents reported experiencing harassment or bullying in the past 12 months. It is important to distinguish sexual harassment from sexual relationships freely entered into and acceptable to those involved. 

Harassment thrives in a workplace culture where it is ignored rather than challenged. No complaints do not mean no harassment is happening. Harassment can lead to illness, absenteeism, less commitment, poor performance and resignation. The conflict which harassment creates should not be underestimated. Employees can be subject to high levels of personal stress which can damage morale and lead to higher labour turnover, reduced productivity, lower efficiency and divided teams. 

There needs to be a clear, well-communicated policy so people know the process to follow if they have concerns about the way they, or their colleagues, are being treated. They need to be confident that making a complaint will not result in further intimidation or victimisation for themselves or anyone else involved. 

What are the grounds and forms of harassment? Grounds 

UK discrimination law was amended in 2003 to cover harassment on a variety of grounds including disability, colour, ethnic or national origin, race, religious belief or other similar philosophical belief, and sexuality. Since October 2005 implementation of the Equal Treatment Amendment Directive means the Sex Discrimination Act contains a specific prohibition against harassment and sexual harassment. 

There is no one checklist of what defines harassment as it is often specific to the person, relating to their feelings of respect and dignity. 

Individuals are protected from discrimination both while applying for a job, during it, and after the working relationship ends (for example in terms of the provision of a verbal or written reference). There is also protection for people against harassment on the basis of their membership or non-membership of a trade union and, in Northern Ireland, against harassment on the basis of political belief. 

Forms 

Harassment and bullying can range from extremes such as physical violence to less obvious forms like ignoring someone. Forms of harassment include:

• physical contact
• jokes, offensive language, gossip, slander, sectarian songs and letters
• posters, graffiti, obscene gestures, flags, bunting and emblems
• isolation or non-cooperation and exclusion from social activities
• coercion for sexual favours
• pressure to participate in political/religious groups
• intrusion by pestering, spying and stalking
• failure to safeguard confidential information.

Harassment can also exist as a result of the general prevailing culture, for example one in which it is acceptable to tell homophobic jokes. 

Who is responsible when harassment happens at work? 

Harassment has a negative effect on employees and employers, and both have responsibilities when it happens. 

Employers’ responsibilities 

Employers need to take action to prevent harassment, encourage incidents to be reported, respond promptly and ensure policies are followed correctly. Legally, they have a common law duty of care, and responsibilities under health and safety and discrimination legislation. CIPD research shows that employers need to provide a positive working environment to satisfy employees’ expectations under the psychological contract (see our factsheet on the Managing the psychological contract). 

Employers’ responsibilities extend to any environment where work-related activities take place. These include social gatherings organised by the employer such as work parties or outings (when they are held at a time or place associated with the workplace). Organisations must maintain their commitment to promoting an open and non-threatening environment on these occasions. If they do not, the employer could be liable unless they were able to show they took reasonable steps to prevent harassment. 

An employer can be ordered to pay unlimited compensation where harassment has occurred, including the payment of fines for injury to feelings. 

Individual responsibilities 

Individuals can be prosecuted under criminal as well as civil law and they could be personally liable and have to pay compensation themselves, as well as any payment the organisation may be ordered to make. 

Individuals also have a responsibility to behave in ways which support a hostile-free working environment for themselves and their colleagues. They should play their part in making the organisation’s policy a reality and be prepared to take appropriate action if they observe or have evidence that someone else is being harassed. 

What actions are needed to tackle harassment? 

Policies, communication and training 

The sensitivities surrounding harassment have important implications for the design of effective policies and procedures to prevent it occurring. A well-designed policy statement is an important first step in addressing harassment and should cover all the complexities of intimidating behaviour, including bullying. Policy statements should be agreed with union representatives. Another CIPD survey2 showed that in 2004, 91% of organisations had a diversity or equal opportunities policy, 83% had harassment or bullying policy and 39% had a policy covering dignity at work. A policy does not automatically change cultures and behaviours, so senior management support and communicating the policy is essential, through staff handbooks and intranet, induction and training programmes, and appraisal interviews. 

Policy statements should:

• give examples of what constitutes harassment and intimidating behaviour – it is also useful to define positive and supportive behaviours
• explain the damaging effects and why it will not be tolerated
• state that it will be treated as a disciplinary offence
• clarify the legal implications of harassment
• describe how to get help and make a complaint, formally and informally
• undertake that allegations will be treated speedily, seriously and confidentially
• promise protection from victimisation for making a complaint
• clarify the responsibilities of line managers, HR departments and the role of union or employee representatives
• make it the duty of supervisors/managers to implement policy and ensure it is understood
• emphasise that every employee carries responsibility for their behaviour.

Policies should be communicated so that all employees:

• know their rights and personal responsibilities under the policy
• understand the organisation’s commitment to deal with harassment
• are aware of who to contact if they want to discuss their experiences in order to decide what steps to take
• know how to take a complaint forward and the timescales for any formal procedures.

Any policy should be monitored for effectiveness, including:

• records of complaints, who was involved and where, why and how they occurred
• individual complaints to ensure resolution and no victimisation.

Regular reviews are important to ensure policies and procedures are appropriate and effective. Employers can find out about experiences of harassment and levels of confidence in the policy and procedures through general employee attitude questionnaires or specific surveys, or through informal feedback, return-to-work interviews after periods of absence, appraisal discussions, training feedback or exit interviews. 

Training can prevent harassment being accepted or condoned. Those with responsibility for implementing the policy should be given specialist training. 

Dealing with complaints 

Complaints should never be ignored but investigated swiftly and confidentially ensuring the rights of all are protected. An employer who fails to investigate has little defence at an employment tribunal. Procedures should provide informal and formal mechanisms for raising complaints. Clear time-scales should be set for the resolution of complaints, taking account of legal limitations. 

Advice and counselling 

Employees should be able to contact a nominated person, who may be a trained volunteer colleague, to discuss their experiences in the strictest confidence. This can help complainants decide what course of action to take by exploring their options. The decision to progress a complaint should rest with the individual. However, complainants should be encouraged not to ignore behaviour that makes them uncomfortable, but to take appropriate action so that the behaviour stops. The consequences of not taking action should be explained. 

Nominated contacts for harassment should be carefully selected and trained. Their role should be independent of investigations and they should not be required to provide evidence in proceedings. They should receive ongoing support from management to fulfil this brief. They should understand the nature of the issues related to different forms and grounds of harassment and intimidating behaviour. They should also be able to talk with complainants freely and confidentially in a private environment. They can come from all departments and levels of an organisation. 

Mediation is an increasingly useful tool in managing conflict at work, including harassment issues where difficult personal issues are involved, and it is often one individual’s word against another’s. Mediators can come from outside or inside an organisation. 

Guidance and counselling can be offered to people whose behaviour is unacceptable, as well as those affected by being harassed. Simply punishing those responsible for the harassment risks isolating individuals who may not understand how their behaviour is affecting their colleagues. Sometimes people are unaware of, or insensitive to, the impact of their actions and counselling can help them to accept the impact of their behaviour, change behaviour or prevent further incidents. Being clear about what is acceptable behaviour at work, as well as defining unacceptable behaviours, will prevent ambiguity and stop harassment flourishing. 

Informal procedures 

Ideally, complaints should be dealt with internally and informally. Solutions can be reached quickly, with minimum risk to confidentiality. It pays to act quickly to reduce personal embarrassment and suffering, avoid disruption to work and working relationships and, where complaints are contested, expensive litigation costs and damaged business reputations. 

In many cases it is sufficient for the recipient of harassment to raise the problem with the perpetrator, pointing out the unacceptable behaviour. But if an employee finds this difficult or embarrassing, informal procedures should enable support from a colleague, an appropriate manager or a personnel department representative. A choice of contact should be available in case the person’s manager is the harasser. 

Formal procedures 

Formal procedures are needed if the harassment is serious, if it is the individual’s preference or where an informal approach has failed. Some modification to grievance procedures may be needed for this and employees must know to whom they should make a complaint – for more information see our factsheet on Discipline and grievance procedures. 

Investigation 

Harassment should be treated as a disciplinary offence. Investigation procedures should provide:

• a prompt, thorough and impartial response
• independent, skilled and objective investigators
• representation for both parties
• complaint details, the right to respond and adequate time to respond
• a time-scale for resolving the problem
• confidentiality for all parties.

A record of complaints and investigations should always be made. These should include the names of the people involved, dates, the nature and frequency of incidents, action taken, follow-up and monitoring information. All sensitive information should be treated confidentially and meet the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 – for more information see our factsheet on Data protection. 

After the procedure 

Where a complaint is upheld it may be necessary to relocate or transfer one party. It should not automatically be the complainant who is expected to move, but they should be offered the choice where practical. 

Where the perpetrator is transferred, no breach of contract must occur or a claim of constructive dismissal could arise. Transfers on disadvantageous terms can be offered to the perpetrator where allegations are proved, as an alternative to dismissal. 

If a complaint is not upheld, a voluntary transfer of one of the employees should be considered. It is important to check the harassment has stopped and there has been no victimisation or retaliation. 

CIPD viewpoint 

Achieving high levels of performance from people at work is essential in today’s competitive market place. Organisations should treat any form of harassment seriously not just because of the legal implications, but because it can lead to under-performance at work. Eliminating all forms of harassment and bullying makes good business sense. A workplace environment which is free from hostility enables people to contribute more effectively to organisational success and to achieve higher levels of job satisfaction. People cannot make their best contribution when under fear of harassment, bullying or abuse. 

An organisation’s public image can be badly damaged when incidents of harassment occur, particularly when they attract media attention. This can affect relationships between an employer, their current and future employees, as well as their customers. 

Developing and implementing preventive policies and procedures creates a climate of greater confidence in being able to challenge harassment. The right policies and procedures enable employers to tackle individual complaints quickly and effectively. 

An organisation’s goal should be to develop a culture in which harassment is known to be unacceptable and where individuals are confident enough to bring complaints without fear of ridicule or reprisal. Everybody needs to feel responsible for challenging all forms of harassment and for upholding personal dignity. 

References 

• CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PERSONNEL AND DEVELOPMENT. (2004) Employee well-being and the psychological contract. London: CIPD.
• CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PERSONNLE AND DEVLOPMENT. (2004) Managing conflict at work: a survey of the UK and Ireland. London: CIPD.

Further reading 

Books

• ADVISORY CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION SERVICE. (2005) Bullying and harassment at work: a guide for managers and employers. London: ACAS. Available at: http://www.acas.org.uk/
• TEHRANI, N. (2005) Bullying at work: beyond policies to a culture of respect. Guide London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at http://www.cipd.co.uk/guides

Journal articles

• CORSI, J. (2005) A goodbye kiss for harassment. People Management. Vol 11, No 19, 29 September. p20.
• Mind your language. (2003) People Management. Vol 9, No 18, 11 September. p17.
• SIMPSON, S. (2002) How to deal with aggression at work. People Management. Vol 8, No 8, 18 April. pp52-53.
• WOLFF, C. (2006) Ousting the workplace bully: learning from experience. IRS Employment Review. No 841, 17 February. pp8-17.

by Clive Lewis, former HR Director and CEDR accredited mediator
March 2006

The front page of the business section of the Sunday Times, March 12 2006, detailed a rather public falling out amongst some of the key members of the board of Vodafone. The story being articulated wasn’t particularly unusual. In its simplest form, it appears to be a case of a relatively new Chief executive (Arun Sarin) attempting to put his mark on the business and run it in line with his conviction. However, other members of the board, including the current chairman Lord MacLaurin appear to have different views about the direction in which the company is going and the way in which it is being led. This dispute has now spilt into the domain of key investors who have themselves called a meeting with the Chairman to discuss the company’s lack of strategic direction. 

Although the detail may differ slightly, this type of scenario probably takes place in numerous organisations across the country. What was unusual about this one however, was the candid way in which we the public have had a blow by blow account of events. We have our good friends in the media to thank for this. 

A similar scenario unfolded before our very eyes a few years ago when a Chief executive of a well-known retailer went through a prolonged exit. The CEO was leaving the company with what was considered to be rather generous elements of his remuneration package, including bonus and pension, intact. The corollary of his departure made headline news because of what was being billed at the time as ‘reward for failure’. The Company’s performance during his tenure was viewed to have been less than staggering, this also being reflected in the share price. 

What many people don’t know however was that this particular scenario went to mediation. One day it was on the front pages, then it disappeared and nothing else was heard of it. Two of the countries most senior and experienced mediators were called in to try and resolve the dispute that had developed. They succeeded. 

The fact is that there will always be disputes at senior levels in organisations. People who occupy very senior positions in organisations are usually blessed with a personality where they are not backward in coming forward to express their feelings. This is often done with some force. 

Even if an employee dispute doesn’t hit the front page of the business section of The Times, it is likely to attract its own media within an organisation. An example of this is the smoker’s corner. Quite often, if you want the latest gossip on organisation happenings you need to listen in to the conversations that take place amongst employees who gather for their regular nicotine catch up sessions. Someone in the group will have heard about fallout and then has to demonstrate to fellow smokers that knowledge is power. Others replicate the same approach, now sharing it with less privileged non-smokers. Within a few hours you could have a workforce of hundreds talking about the dispute. Of course, while they are talking, they are probably not working.

Growing trend of workplace mediation

In the UK the use of mediation within the workplace has been steadily growing, with more employers using it as an informal method of dispute resolution. With an increasing number of employment related cases being drawn into the media spotlight, organisations can save time, money and quite often their reputation by engaging mediation skills early on when major disputes arise. 

But what is workplace mediation? 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. It is a voluntary, confidential informal process that helps people who are in dispute start talking again, and to jointly agree how to work together better in the future. One of the real values of workplace mediation is that the process can take place, without any employment rights being lost. For example, if an employee is engaged in the tortuous grievance and disciplinary procedure, which came into effect in October 2004, they can still opt for mediation whist the disciplinary process continues. Mediation is ‘without prejudice’. 

For maximum effect, the mediator should be a neutral, third-party, and be seen as such by those with the dispute. The mediator should have with the skills required to cope with emotion, grievances and strong opinions. He or she must be a very effective listener and observer, as well as having the ability to understand the real cause and core of the problem. It is also important to be able to take the parties in conflict to a different ‘space’ of potential solutions. Integrity, neutrality and the dexterity to cope with crises, hidden agendas, long-standing conflict and animosity, as well as unexpected disclosures are absolutely essential. Disputes can often involve more than one party and be culturally diverse, so understanding the power and balance of the relationship is fundamental. In the Vodafone case for example the mediator would need to consider the views of the noted board members but also the key investors that are voicing their concerns. Workplace mediation skills can produce very sound and satisfying rewards. Helping people to overcome blockages and prejudices and to reach their own agreement, which may often involve significant movement on their part, invariably demands sensitivity, determination and patience. One of the most important factors is that the resolution of the dispute remains in the hands of the parties. The mediator will facilitate a process to help them get there.

The Business case

Figures from the last CIPD Managing Conflict at Work survey of 1,190 employers suggest that dealing with conflict is taking up more and more HR time. Over 60 per cent of respondents say they have seen an increase in the use of HR departments to resolve individual disputes in the past 12 months. And it is time-consuming and costly: employers say they are spending an average of 10.5 days per case dealing with disciplinary and grievance issues little less than the 12.5 days they say is spent preparing for a tribunal case. 

There are many reasons that can explain why workplace mediation is now becoming an increasingly used method of dispute resolution for employee conflicts. The high increase in the number of employee complaints, 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. 

HR directors are often asked to justify various HR interventions. Workplace mediation has a sound business case. Conflict decreases productivity, whilst increasing stress and sickness levels. Mediation adds real value by taking these issues away without attracting huge legal fees. HR professionals are often best placed to deploy the skills required to be a successful mediator. But it is not an exclusive HR activity. Line managers of other functions can also become workplace mediators if they possess the key people interaction skills required to do so. 

The principles of mediation can also be used to support other areas such as

• Engaging key employees to collectively work towards business priorities
• Supporting the merger and acquisition process
• Helping to implement change
• Facilitating board level interaction

In summary

The Vodafone case is a great example of demonstrating the value that workplace mediation could add. It is a little unfortunate that due to the nature of the mediation process for handling disputes, its success is often not realised, due to confidentiality restrictions. However, the more it is used, the more the value will be seen by those who have used and the more it will be recommended as a valuable process to be adopted.

by Clive Lewis, former HR Director and CEDR accredited mediator
Originally published in December 2004 

HR professionals seem to be faced with the constant challenge of demonstrating how their functional expertise adds real value to their business. We often hear new HR speak, but as these areas come and go, do they make any difference to lives and organisational effectiveness? In the past 10 years for example we’ve heard about NLP, mentoring and now coaching to name just three. Now a seemingly new term has raised its head – Employment mediation.

Mediation has been practised in the US since the 1960′s. When the term mediation is used, most people probably think of things on two very opposite ends of the spectrum such as matrimonial disputes, or the UN’s role in cross-border dispute resolution. But, increasingly mediation is being used as a method to help solves differences and conflict in the business arena. 

Although painful and maybe embarrassing for the parties involved, encouraging the settlement of disputes through dialogue without the presence of an individual in a white wig has been proven to be an acceptable route to follow. 

The number of organisations choosing to use mediation to help solve employment disputes has been rising steadily over the last few years. Countries like New Zealand have had a statutory employment mediation process since the late 1980′s and are now well versed in handling disputes in this way. But, does mediation in the field of employment really add value or is it just another fad being used in the HR world? 

The changing landscape

The field of employment is doing very well at adding to the legislative arena of the UK’s judiciary. For example we have recently had the introduction of bullying and harassment legislation, anti discrimination legislation, sexual orientation and religious beliefs legislation and the need to follow formal disciplinary grievance and disciplinary process to name just a few. It is becoming more and more difficult for HR generalists to keep abreast of UK employment law and as a result organisations need to retain in-house lawyers, specialist employment teams or outsource employment law issues to third parties. One of the reasons for doing this is that organisations realise – mainly through the proactive role played by the media – the costly implications of making wrong decisions or failing to follow correct procedural process. At the same time, employees are only too aware of the power they can yield over their employers and are often only too willing to use, or at least threaten, to use this power to potentially bring harm to their employers. 

The business case

Research has shown that a huge cost is associated with handling disciplinary or grievance issues. The recent CIPD Managing conflict at work survey report highlights that:

• On average there are 30 formal disciplinary cases and 9 grievance cases per year per employer
• In total, internal staff spend an average of 10.5 days managing disciplinary and grievance cases
• Where employers train in mediation skills they are more likely to have fewer disciplinary and grievance cases

It is probably unlikely that Chief Executives welcome any lowering of productivity levels at a time when shareholder value and shareholder return are very high on the corporate list of objectives and measures for success. Of course, where the organisation has done an exemplary job in following correct procedure, and is therefore convinced that it has every right to defend itself as a commercial business treating people fairly, it has every right to take tough decisions where required in order to help it maximise shareholder value. 

Where organisations cannot be so bold, exploring mediation may be a pragmatic cost effective solution to help all concerned move on. 

Although perhaps the most obvious need for employment mediation is to prevent the pain and distress of an employment tribunal or court process, practitioners have been using the skills associated with mediation in the field of employment in other areas such as helping organisation change and dealing with conflict. 

Individuals who are in the world of work in the 21st century would do well to recognise that the only thing likely to be constant with the organisation they are associated with is change. With change being an integral part of the organisational backdrop, using a process to help oil the wheels for any change can only be good news. We have seen only too often the effect of what happens when change is handled badly. One of the latest methods of expressing discontent is for employees to voice their concerns, or vent their anger, through employee ‘Blog’ websites. Although freedom of expression and employee feedback should be welcomed, this is probably not the forum in which it should be aired. 

One of the strengths of using mediation to help the process of change is that it can be used with key individuals to help prevent derailment of any kind. 

Organisations are likely to have key individuals who are able to either help or hinder the process of change by the attitude they display toward the change agenda. This may be particularly more acute when they themselves are personally impacted by the change. Key individuals can be (but are not exclusively) senior individuals who are likely to carry much weight through the organisation. Other individuals, who are akin to a disposition of being difficult, or have an issue that could prove difficult to handle but are not necessarily senior, may fit this category. 

Getting key individuals on your side can pay huge dividends. Key individuals can play a major role in holding up the change process and preventing a new vision or way of working being established. If other employees become aware of dissatisfaction with a key individual it could have a devastating and rippling effect on psychological contracts and future commitment amongst those an organisation may want to retain and keep engaged.

Case study

As an Ex HR director in the private sector myself, I have experienced first hand the added value that mediation can bring in an organisational change context. The organisation needed to change from being a parent company with two subsidiaries to one business. This involved the disposal, through MBO, of one subsidiary and equity dilution of the other, relinquishing the burden of day-to-day management and statutory reporting. We also significantly reduced the number of employees in the remaining core business.
As mediator, some key parts of my role are to:

• Establish a trusted relationship with the parties
• Work towards win-win solutions
• Help the parties work towards acceptable solutions
• Reality check and explore possible alternatives to settlement

This process quickly highlighted key individuals for whom a traditional discussion would have no doubt protracted the course of action. This included things such as agreeing compromise agreements with senior individuals and agreeing settlement terms with employees on long term absence who were holding up the due diligence process. We also used the skills of mediation to reach agreements with employees who were entitled to rather generous TUPE terms and conditions from a previous joint venture we had negotiated with a public sector employer. This aspect also included union representation. 

Through using this approach, the business was able to effect change in a relatively short period of time. There were also added employee relations benefits such as; 

• reducing conflict
• preserving relationships and
• establishing common thinking amongst the remaining senior team
• saving money

A rewarding measure of the success of managing the transition when a senior employee looked me in the eye shook my hand and thanked me for the way the process had been handled. He moved on with his ‘integrity intact’ 

On the point of saving money, the HR function was able to demonstrate how it saved the business a considerable six-figure sum from using this approach. 

Summary

The business case for employment mediation is sound. The potential for it to add real value also appears to be evident. The challenge for organisations is to ensure that this emerging area does not become an obscure set of skills only retained by individuals within the HR function, but a pragmatic method that line managers can also use to ensure that organisations remain effective. 

If an organisations’ competitive advantage lies within its people, one would envisage that it would be beneficial investing in the development of mediation skill sets. 

Well, it seems that this may not be a fad after all, but a real opportunity for organisations to consider against areas such as marketing, loss prevention, sales and logistics as being a business to focus on to enhance the top or bottom line.

by Clive Lewis, former HR Director and CEDR accredited mediator
Originally published in November 2004
How can mediation help smooth the way for organisational change to take place? Where the only thing that is constant in the 21st century is change, it helps when this happens smoothly. For organisations to remain competitive and maximise profitability it is inevitable that a degree of change will be required, often on a substantial level. Of course the asset impacted most when change needs to take place is usually human resources. 

As HR director of a technology organisation going through a substantial change programme I have recently experienced the value that mediation can bring to the change arena. 

The context was that the parent company wished to dispose of its two subsidiaries and reduce fixed costs to allow for one organisation with one purpose. As part of the process the organisation needed to exit a number of its senior individuals.

The CEO and I held initial discussions with affected individuals and I was asked to ‘work through the detail’. A traditional discussion would not have worked as it would have potentially protracted the process and been too inflexible. Mediated discussions took away immediate and potential issues and provided a cost effective solution.

Why mediate?

With an increasing number of cases hitting the media spotlight, organisations can save time, money and quite often their reputation by engaging mediation skills early on in the organisation change process. Often, senior HR professionals are not as involved as they should be in the planning stages of a major change programme. This is probably because people issues are not considered a priority during this stage. However, if handled incorrectly, the people issues are likely the most costly and time-consuming aspects to try and recover from. Unfortunately the tangible benefits of utilising mediation to smooth the way for organisation change are often most visible when things have not gone well. The media is littered with such examples. Executives will often only realise the true value mediated solutions could have brought when they are on the wrong side of the fence. They then have to repair the damage that would not have experienced, if mediation skills had been properly deployed.

Most organisations have key individuals who are able to either help or hinder the process of change by the attitude they display toward the change agenda. This is particularly the case when they themselves are personally impacted by the change. Key individuals can be leaders (but are not exclusively) or senior individuals who are likely to carry much weight through the organisation and often, the balance of calm or progress is at their fingertips. Other individuals, who are akin to a disposition of being difficult, or have an issue that could prove difficult to handle but are not necessarily senior, may fit this category. 

Getting key individuals on your side and dealing with all people fairly and professionally during change can pay huge dividends. Key individuals can play a major role in holding up the change process and preventing a new vision or way of working being established. If junior or middle ranking employees become aware of dissatisfaction engendered by a key individual it could have a devastating impact on the future commitment of employees an organisation may want to retain and keep engaged.

As it became clear that certain key individuals would be exiting the organisation (in this instance a number of directors), mediation skills played a vital role in ensuring a smooth course of change took place. Much of the mediator’s role is to:

• Encourage a trusted relationship with the parties
• Encourage win-win negotiations
• Assist the parties to work to acceptable solutions
• ‘Reality check’ possible solutions and alternatives to settlement

Based on the above, a number of ‘mediated discussions’ were held. These started with the individual ranked as the most influential. All stakeholders recognised the requirement for change, which was a great starting point. The concluding position was that compromise agreements were reached, incorporating of course, the appropriate legal representation. In most cases, termination packages were comfortably into six figures and any future employment dispute against the company was effectively safeguarded against. 

But it became clear that it was not only senior individuals who should be classed and treated as key. One example of this was where there were two employees on long-term sick leave. The status of these employees meant that the due diligence process for one of the subsidiary disposals was being held up. The company had to act quickly in a pragmatic way to bring an acceptable resolution to both parties. The arrangements included home visits in the presence of nominated representatives to discuss possible solutions. ‘Settlements’ were reached within a surprisingly short timescale. 

Another example involved reaching settlements with individuals who benefited from generous TUPE arrangements, resulting from a joint venture with a former government department. Even with active union involvement, mediation brought an agreeable and practical solution, keeping the commercial needs of the business as top priority.

These examples illustrated the use of mediation as a genuine value-added, cost effective tool that could be used to help the organisation achieve its objectives whilst not needing to worry about revisiting any issue in future months – such as preparing for tribunals or facing legal claims. 

In these instances, mediation was used as a method of helping a number of people leave the business. This is not, of course, always the outcome one would desire or use mediation for. The principles of mediation can be used to assist people issues in other ways such as:

• Managing conflict
• Preserving positive working relationships
• Engaging key employees to collectively work towards business priorities
• Increasing effective working at ‘top level’
• Merger and acquisition process

A mediation approach goes a long way towards preserving good relationships between employee and employer. For example, many of the discussions referred to were held in a non-threatening environment i.e. away from the workplace. This encouraged affected individuals to be less defensive than perhaps they could have been within a work setting. The outcome for these conversations was ultimately going to lead to departure. However, the personal attention and flexibility of approach individuals received meant that dignity was preserved and goodwill was retained. A measure of this was some of the expressions of gratitude received for the ‘way it was handled’ after a satisfactory conclusion had been reached.

Benefits

The financial benefits of using mediation skills to assist organisational change can be substantial. Of course, benefits can also be measured indirectly in ways such as management time, employee goodwill and company reputation. 

Employment tribunal awards of six and seven figure compensation sums are now common. A lawyer from a leading investment bank was recently awarded £1m after her case was taken to employment tribunal. With new changes in employment legislation ever more likely, the number of cases of fallout and dissatisfaction are likely to proliferate. Unfortunately for employers, the media does a superior job at broadcasting such cases. Human resources directors and other heads of functions are increasingly required to provide justification of costs. It appears that there could be a major role for effective dispute resolution (in particular mediation skills) to add value in the workplace and have a positive impact on the bottom line. 

In summary

Mediation should not be considered as a soft option or easy way out, but a sensible and practical solution that can help oil the wheels of what organisations are now accepting is part of every day activity – managing change! Such change is not always viewed as positive or is indeed welcome by all, but engaging individuals and establishing dialogue to reach solutions can overcome blockages and resistance on a sustainable basis.