March 31, 2010
A school that is starting lessons an hour later than usual for a trial period has already reaped positive benefits for their pupils. Taught lessons at Monkseaton High School, in North Tyneside, now run from 10am to 3:40pm; although the school remains open for pupils between the hours of 8am and 5pm. The innovative idea was introduced in October and already the general absence rate has dropped by 8% and persistent absenteeism has fallen by 27%. It is still too early to tell whether the change has positively or negatively impacted exam results, but head teacher Paul Kelley is hopeful that grades will improve.
Mr Kelley cites medical evidence which shows naturally occurring variations in the sleeping patterns of teenagers that mean they benefit from starting the school day later. Other research also suggests that it is better to teach more difficult lessons in the afternoon rather than first thing in the morning, and so the school is also working with advisors to continue to design a school timetable that better suits adolescent learners.
I think this initiative has a number of merits. For one, I am sure that we can all appreciate that ‘double Maths’ first thing on a Monday would be a tough start to any week! But there’s a serious point here – by working with experts to better understand the needs of the pupils, the school has been pro-active about improving the effectiveness of teaching. The changes also help to address additional work-life balance issues – as, for example, pupils arriving later can avoid sitting in, and contributing to, rush hour traffic. In addition, the plans increase the level of control that pupils have over their study patterns, given that the school is open from 8am for the natural early-risers that want to begin their independent study at the more conventional time (or for those who rely on transport from parents who need to be at work by 9am).
As you might expect, not everyone is convinced by the idea. Some believe teenagers should be encouraged just to ‘cope’ with early mornings. After all, we did and so too do pupils from other countries – in fact, some countries begin lessons earlier so that afternoons are freed up for physical activities. There is a worry that perhaps we would be encouraging teenagers to have more late-nights and lazy mornings if all schools adopted the later start time. Plus, concerns have also been raised that these pupils will be ill-prepared for working life.
Personally I think that experimenting in this way is a good thing – why should we assume that school timetables have to mimic office hours? Children have different needs to adults and it’s far too easy to assume the current system works without listening to what they tell us they need. I think there is a need to trial different approaches to education in the same way we should be open to new innovations in the workplace. But don’t take my word for it – what are your thoughts on this groundbreaking new initiative? Should we adapt teenagers’ timetables in this way? Or should we stick with the conventional school hours?
4 Comments | 
Absenteeism, Motivation, Productivity, Uncategorized, Well-being | Tagged: absence, Absenteeism, adolescent, education, effectiveness, experiment, grades, innovation, Monseaton High School, office hours, Paul Kelley, pupils, school, school hours, sleep, sleeping patterns, teaching, teenagers, timetable, work-life balance | 
Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
March 25, 2010
The UK government budget, announced this week, earmarked substantial financial savings that need to be made in the public sector by reducing sickness absence in the coming year. The figure quoted for savings in the NHS alone was £555million. It’s true that in much of the public sector, particularly in some parts of the NHS, the uniformed services, education, central government and local government, that sickness absence rates are substantially higher than in the private sector. Direct costs are incurred in terms of the need to hire temporary staff (e.g. locums, supply teachers etc.) when people are off for any length of time. There are also indirect costs and productivity losses as a result of the disruption caused and the extra work that others have to take on.
There is no doubt that sickness absence can be managed more effectively, but we need to do this by getting to the bottom of why such a large number of staff are off sick. The single biggest source tends to be stress, followed by musculo-skeletal problems (most commonly back pain). Absence management processes are a good idea, but they only get you so far if underlying physical and psychological well-being is poor. Likewise, bringing in absence management companies to check up on employees who are absent is not necessarily the best way to go. It constitutes a blunt instrument which is likely to make things worse by forcing people back to work who may not be ready. Organisations that do this risk creating a culture of presenteeism, where people believe they must be seen to be at work in order to keep their jobs – even if they are not able to work productively.
It is far better to find out why people are off ill in such numbers. This can be done by undertaking anonymous well-being or stress audits and then comparing the results from teams or departments where the sickness absence is high with those where it is low. In this way you can identify the underlying causes of absence and then take concrete steps to address them.
A crude and punitive approach to absence management can do more damage than the absence itself! The savings that the government is aiming for are achievable, but only if primary causes are addressed in an integrated and co-ordinated manner.
1 Comment | Absenteeism, economy, employee engagement, Management, NHS, Productivity, Public Sector, Stress, Well-being | Tagged: absence management, Absenteeism, audits, £555million, back pain, budget, central government, costs, education, government, local government, losses, musculo-skeletal, NHS, presenteeism, Private Sector, Productivity, Public Sector, savings, Sickness Absence, Stress, temporary staff | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
March 22, 2010
How much does your job title mean to you? For some people it can be a very important, even ’make or break’, subject. We’ve all encountered colleagues who are very concerned that their job title accurately reflects their contribution in terms of their level of skill and their position within the hierarchy of the organisation. It’s certainly something I’ve been concerned about in the past, but does it really matter?
I think that the nature of job titles has been changing for some time now. You would probably expect this to happen because job titles have tended to become more complex as the type of work people do becomes increasingly specialised. Fewer people now do jobs that can be adequately summarised in a single word. Having said that, in some cases we have started to see jobs that were traditionally easy to describe being subjected to a kind of ‘job title inflation’, whereby the receptionist becomes something like the ‘Welcoming Agent and Telephone Intermediary’. Such titles almost seem like an attempt by the employer to validate certain jobs and jobholders and there are risks inherent in this approach.
Attitudes to these kinds of changes are as varied as the new job titles themselves. Some believe it to be necessary and useful for creating role clarity (and value). Others think it’s the complete opposite, clouding people’s understanding of what is expected of them and making things more opaque and complicated for the customer. A change in job title that reflects an increase in responsibility would be seen as positive by many. However, a more cynical view is that, in certain circumstances, getting a more impressive job title is used as a handy alternative to a ‘true’ promotion by employers who are unwilling to increase salaries. Ask yourself which you would rather have!
But while some of this may seem trivial, the underlying importance of perceived fairness in the workplace should not be ignored. It’s something which has a proven impact on the psychological well-being and commitment of employees. So while the subject can verge on the ridiculous when job titles are applied for the sake of it, if an employee sees it as important then line managers must take the matter seriously. But don’t forget your customers – if it doesn’t make sense to them it’s probably not the right choice, however good it makes your employee feel!
If this issue has affected you as an employee or line manager, please do let me know!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8537055.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8570244.stm
3 Comments | employee engagement, job satisfaction, Management, reward and recognition, Uncategorized, Well-being | Tagged: clarity, commitment, customers, employees, employers, fairness, job title inflation, job titles, line manager, promotion, specialised, Well-being | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
March 17, 2010
I wrote recently about how it might make us feel happier to re-evaluate the balance between our work and home lives, as well as the importance we place on material possessions. Following this I came across an article published in The Observer which looks at some related issues and draws an important conclusion: our pursuit of unsustainable, material growth is not making us happier. The article questions the value we place on the goal of growing GDP – something which has in recent times been termed a “false god” by Adair Turner, chief executive of the Financial Services Authority. He points out that growth is not only bad for the environment, but that improvements in standards of living do not directly translate to improvements in human welfare or happiness.
The “Happy Planet Index” (HPI) produced by the New Economics Foundation (Nef) uses data on the well-being and environmental aspects of human activity, plus economic growth, to measure whether countries achieve sustainable, happy lives for their citizens. According to this measure we in the UK are down in 74th place. More strikingly the overall conclusion that Nef draws is that economies which are growing quickly, such as China and India, were not only more environmentally friendly 20 years ago, but were also happier than they are today.
In the world of Psychology, Ed Diener and his team have really led the way in researching this area so it’s good to see others beginning to listen and come to the same important conclusions – i.e. that it’s time to rethink our economic priorities. Diener’s research (e.g. 2004) has shown that although economic output has risen steeply over the past decades, there has been no rise in life satisfaction over that same period, and that there has been a substantial increase in the incidence of depression and distrust. Once an economy is developed and strong enough so that basic needs for survival are met, differences in well-being are less frequently about income, and more to do with the quality of social relationships and enjoyment at work. There is also support for this view from the influential David Blanchflower – Professor of Economics and Happiness at Dartmouth College in the US and member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee.
I’ll be interested to see where all this takes us. As The Observer article says, it’s won’t be an easy or quick solution to promote such a paradigm shift, but I think it’s absolutely necessary. The policy director at Nef states plainly, “you can’t have infinite growth in a world of finite resources.” This makes perfect logical sense, so why is this the very thing that we seek and promote? Let me know what you think!
http://diener.socialpsychology.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/10/economic-growth-feel-good-factor
2 Comments | citizenship, Community, economy, job satisfaction, Motivation, Productivity, Well-being | Tagged: Adair Turner, Bank of England, China, citizens, Dartmouth College, David Blanchflower, economic growth, Ed Diener, Financial Services Authority, GDP, growth, happiness, Happy Planet Index, HPI, India, material, Monetary Policy Committee, Nef, New Economics Foundation, priorities, relationships, research, standards of living, sustainable, The Observer, UK, US, welfare, work-life balance | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
March 11, 2010
As a lifelong academic who has worked with literally thousands of students over the years I am huge advocate of university education. However, while it is a great way to learn new skills and prepare for a future career, more recently I have been concerned about students’ motives for applying and also their prospects once they qualify.
Recent findings have shown a record number of applications for British Universities this year. The Government’s conclusion is that this highlights the importance of a degree in these challenging times, and that students are taking steps to ensure a successful career. However it may be that some students don’t have such well-calculated intentions in mind. Another likely motivation for signing up to three years of university is fear of unemployment. This means that a higher proportion of school leavers, including those who are less suited to university and might be better to look for a job immediately, are simply choosing to attend university as an alternative to the braving the job market during the ‘scary’ recession.
The problem is that this solution may be a very short-term fix- one that will not be without consequences in terms of storing up problems for the future. We need only look at the current crop of university graduates to see that a degree does not always guarantee a job. In fact, whilst the number of university applicants is at an all time high, the number of vacancies for graduates is set to decrease this year, for the first time in the last five years. It’s tough out there!
In addition, graduates face the new risk of being exploited by potential employers. School and university leavers feel forced into taking jobs for little or no pay in an attempt to gain experience and avoid CV gaps. These internships can be a vital stepping stone into full employment, but they can also mean workers setting out in their careers are left vulnerable to employers who see an opportunity to save costs.
The common theme driving these actions is fear. Job security is one of the key factors that determine people’s well-being – it can affect both those already in roles and those searching for employment. Young people in particular need to be given the right advice at this very important time in their lives – in this sense well-being at work actually starts pre-employment. This is something that schools and universities have a duty to provide – but those leaving the education system must also take responsibility here. It is also important that they stay resilient and don’t panic – entering the workforce at a time of recession can be a daunting task, but opportunities will be out there for those with talent and self-confidence. The important thing is to let your goals determine your choices – for some this will mean university and for some others it will mean work. Either way don’t let fear decide for you!
1 Comment | Motivation, Personal Resilience, Recruitment and Selection | Tagged: career, education, experience, fear, graduates, internships, job market, Motivation, recession, students, unemployment, university | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
March 8, 2010
The January issue of The Psychologist magazine took social inclusion as its theme. The term social inclusion refers to action that can be taken to address the problem of social exclusion – a complex process that has a negative impact on people’s quality of life, as well as the equity and cohesion of society as a whole. With one of my recent posts about how the snow made us all more community-spirited in mind, it meant that when I picked up my issue of the Psychologist this collection of articles from different disciplines of psychology resonated.
For those of you who don’t know much about this area, here’s some background. Some of the key resources that enable people to actively engage with society include money, education, work, physical health and mental health. So it’s not surprising that one of the primary causes of social exclusion is unemployment!
Research into unemployment has consistently demonstrated how it can exclude people from mainstream society. On the positive side, there is also evidence that work confers a beneficial impact in terms of recovery time following illness or injury, and that the beneficial impact of work extends to children – such that those who have a parent in work end up having improved life chances. Some of the most recent findings show that work influences the prosperity of communities, enabling greater social cohesion and reduced risk of antisocial behaviour. As such, it is clear that employers have a critical role to play in promoting social inclusion.
In this context, employers have a responsibility to promote a healthy workplace that increases the chances of people remaining in and at work. The Government’s recent Foresight report into Mental Capital, on which I was Lead Scientist, plus the Health and Safety Executive guidelines and Dame Carol Black’s report all emphasise this role for employers. You don’t have to start a crusade for social inclusion – it’s just important that every organisation does its bit to ensure that employees have the best chance of being, and wanting to be, at work. That happens when they feel good about what they are doing and understand why they are doing it.
Of course, not all of us have the power to implement big changes on an organisation-wide basis. However, we all have a role to play – even if it’s something as simple as ensuring that we are doing enough at an individual level to support the people you sit next to. As someone once said, every little helps….
Leave a Comment » | Community | Tagged: cohesion, communities, Dame Carol Black, education, equity, Foresight Report, HSE, illness, injury, Mental Capital, mental health, money, physical health, prosperity, quality of life, recovery, social exclusion, social inclusion, The Psychologist, unemployment, work | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
March 2, 2010
There’s an interesting ‘movement’ afoot in our schools here in the UK – a ‘movement’ which I broadly welcome. In collaboration with psychologists from the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, a school in Kent has recently taken part in a trial which gives pupils weekly courses in ‘mindfulness’. Mindfulness, with origins in Eastern spiritual traditions such as Buddhism, now has a growing body of research supporting its use to improve psychological well-being. Indeed, The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has even recommended that lessons in mindfulness are offered on the NHS to patients suffering from depression.
In collaboration with the Oxford Mindfulness Centre and the Well-Being Institute at Cambridge, several schools are taking part in the roll-out of the pilot programme. A key outcome of the course is to teach skills of attention and concentration – skills which, if learned at a young age, can stay with people throughout their lives and help with the management of pressure.
Other elements of the course content wouldn’t be out of place on a staff development programme and, as per previous posts, there is a certainly an established need for building resilience in many organisations. Other aspects of the course cover recognising when we are ruminating on issues, slowing down and savouring activities, recognising unhelpful thoughts and beliefs, plus encouraging self-reflection and self-knowledge.
It will be interesting to see how well the trial is evaluated and if it’s positive this is something I hope will be rolled out more widely. It’s not the kind of approach we’re used to hearing about in the education system – but it’s refreshing to hear that schools are open to these new ways of thinking.
See the following links for more information:
Cambridge Wellbeing Institute: http://www.cambridgewellbeing.org/action_children.html
Oxford Mindfulness Centre: http://www.oxfordmindfulness.org
4 Comments | NHS, Personal Resilience, pressure, Stress, Well-being | Tagged: attention, buddhism, Cambridge, concentration, education, Kent, Mindfulness, National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, NHS, NICE, Oxford, Oxford Mindfulness Centre, pilot, resilience, schools, self-knowledge, self-reflection, Well-Being Institute | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
