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.
Posted by: Helen
on Feb 19, 2010 13:22
In numerous business meetings I have been to recently the issue of taking a graduate and turning them into a valuable (or even usable) employee has been right at the top of the agenda. Admittedly many of these discussions have been with Saudi and Qatari organisations however the same issue cropped up on our own doorstep just yesterday. And then in the London Evening Standard this week it reports that an estimated 33% of students don’t even know that Gordon Brown leads the Labour party, nor that David Cameron is leader of the Tory party.
Our stunning collection of student survey participants did though believe that Joanna Lumley would make a good prime minister (26%). Not sure though on what facts or information they have based their opinions…
And if they have no basic knowledge of crucial information about the country they live in, you have to wonder what other crucial knowledge they are lacking.
So how do we educate our young people to ensure that what they learn is not only designed to get them a nice certificate they can put in a nice frame, but is also designed to ensure that they are employable and valuable in the workplace?
Is this the responsibility of the education sector or the responsibility of the corporate world?
It might be that some of you think that it is neither the responsibility of the education sector nor the corporate world, but should instead be considered to be an individual responsibility, with students actively readying themselves for the world of work by reading, listening and learning about the world around them.
And if this is the case, how can we employers get the message across to students right at the start of their university careers that they must take the time during their degree courses to get a rounded education if they are to be truly employable and valuable when entering the world of work.
Posted by: Helen
on Feb 16, 2010 11:54
My last blog was about choosing your attitude at work and how choosing to work with a positive attitude can have such a huge impact on colleagues. But perhaps my message was confused, for within days of posting that blog we get someone calling anonymously complaining about the fact that whilst we have translated some parts of website into Arabic, we have not translated stuff into French, Spanish or German.
Actually, up until that point, we had been really pleased with ourselves for getting some of the content translated given that we are now trading in the Gulf and we felt that the translation would support those clients we are meeting for whom English is a second (or third) language. But our anonymous caller successfully took the wind out of our sails and gave us a great big slap around the face. Thanks. You just gave us a perfect example of the impact of those at work who do not consider how their attitude can affect others.
But my question today is:
If we are accused of being discriminatory by translating only into Arabic, how is our anonymous caller not discriminatory by insisting we should translate also into Spanish, French and German? Perhaps she felt Urdu and Italian speakers have no rights?
So to keep the peace, is it best to have simple web sites, simple benefit and salary structures for staff, simple employment processes so you minimise the opportunities to be accused of discrimination or, in the interests of advancement and progress, should we push the boundaries, but do so in the full knowledge that by complicating things we could well be exposing ourselves to claims of discrimination?
J-Blog
