Posted by: Helen
on Mar 12, 2010 10:36
After the private sector taking a severe hammering in the last 18-24 months with pay freezes, redundancies, benefit reductions and other recession driven cost savings, it is now clearly the turn of the public sector.
The Tories have said that next year – if they get into government – all public sector salaries above £18K will be frozen.
And the Labour government has this week said it needs to save £3 billion in staff costs so this year will freeze the pay of top public sector workers including consultants, military chiefs and top civil servants.
I’m sure this will go down well with all those concerned, particularly as ministers have just awarded themselves a pay increase - but perhaps that’s because they don’t consider themselves to be ‘top public sector’ workers?
But MPs failure to demonstrate leadership aside, if salaries are frozen just at the point the media reports us coming out of recession, what can be done to maintain employee morale? A few ideas…
Actively encouraging job enhancement/enrichment (where that is possible)
Providing opportunities to enhance the CV of career driven staff eg sabbaticals, special projects, international travel etc
Focussing team leaders and supervisors for at least one year on prioritising activities to promote well being and employee engagement
Getting directors and senior managers to raise their profiles and maintain a very public profile amongst staff for the next year
Making maximum use of free or very low cost training activities to enhance knowledge and encourage continuous development
Increase welfare activities to ensure any staff seriously affected financially have the ability to seek support rather than suffer in silence prior to going off with stress
Q. If you could identify one director or manager in your organisation who is fantastic at motivating and engaging staff who would it be and, when did you last publicly praise them for it?
Posted by: Helen
on Mar 10, 2010 11:29
Following on from yesterday's blog about the government getting hot under the collar about the dearth of women on Boards of the top 100 UK companies, not surprisingly I have a few thoughts:
The government says that over half of all graduates are women therefore there should be more women on Boards of Directors. But how many exactly? What proportion of women should be on the boards of our top companies?
Perhaps our esteemed Prime Minister could tell us if we looking at one woman for every ten male directors, or two for every ten male directors or are we talking a 50:50 split for true diversity? And if you want it in blunt terms - are we talking token women or a really balanced board?
And is the Government saying that to have a degree is a more important requisite for being considered for a Board than say 25+ years experience? How relevant is it to look at the number of graduates when starting the debate? Surely someone somewhere must have done some research into the current number of women in senior management positions as they are the ones who would be promoted to boards, not graduates.
And to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons what answers do any of you have to the following questions…..
How many women really want the awful hours and frequently thankless job of being a director of a top 100 company ie how big exactly is the female candidate pool for these types of jobs?
How many women does the government want to forgo having a family in order to get the necessary experience for a top job so we can all have a cosy feeling about diversity – or does the government really think that women can have it all?
And finally, if we are to be really honest, what sort of pressure does it put on women to feel they ought to be aiming for the top jobs when we constantly hear that those jobs are just waiting for us? Are false expectations being set?
Posted by: Helen
on Mar 09, 2010 16:16
A short while ago in one blog, I got hot under the collar as a result of the government saying what bankers bonuses should - or should not - be paid this year. Whatever the reality about who is paid what and for what level of performance, what I care about is the harm I see being done by the government interfering in business just to get a bit of good publicity. And now the meddling continues...
Yesterday The Guardian reported Gordon Brown as saying that it was “completely unacceptable that some of our top 100 public companies have not a single woman on their boards” and suggested that firms need to start reporting on what they are doing to increase women in senior management positions and most worryingly, the message I heard was that this should become one further legal requirement for companies to adhere to.
Again, the issue of the number of women on senior boards aside, what right does the government have to meddle in business? They introduced the equal pay legislation in the 70’s but that hasn’t exactly achieved much so what do they think they will achieve this time? A simple publicity stunt would be my cynical view.
So ‘butt out’ of business is my message to government. But if they really want to do some good, how about instead of threats and accusations, focus on creating some really positive publicity for those businesses that do incredibly well, that promote staff, that engage staff, that develop staff, that have women on the Board and if they do this, I have no doubt at all, that those who flag behind will end up following the good examples set when they see the clear business benefits (e.g. publicity) of doing so. But more red tape – I hardly think that’s going to achieve much and what a waste of everyone’s time…
Posted by: Helen
on Feb 26, 2010 00:00
Over the years many of us have watched the iconic British Airways face employee battle after employee battle. But at what point do the employees of a company force their own business into meltdown? And if they do achieve this, when they walk away from the mess, what will they be saying to friends and family? I would be interested to know who they blame.
I know almost nothing about BA, its set up, its finances, its staffing arrangements, but what I do know is that as a potential passenger, it is a high risk strategy to book to fly with BA. With endless cabin crew threats, baggage handler disputes and now pilots arguing about something or other, can they really not see the harm they do to their own employer when passengers who would love to fly with them, are so hesitant to do so?
It defies belief that during a recession a group of professional adults can consider themselves so powerful that whatever they do, it will not affect their employment prospects. No individual, no company and no union is too big to be affected by a recession this hard.
But taking lessons from BA’s traumas, what training or development can other employers do to ensure that their staff:
do understand commercial reality
have a vague notion of the concept of passengers (or clients) = sales = business continuity
understand that pursuing their employment rights and interests has to be balanced with the rights and interests of the company, if all are to succeed.
And if you are one of the unfortunate employers being held to ransom by staff at the present time, in focussing on developing employees’ commercial awareness, this could well turnout to be the most important training programme you have ever put together in your life.
J-Blog
