January 26, 2012
Last week I posted a blog expressing my disappointment about the way mental health is still viewed by some employers, and explaining that in light of increasing demands the importance of workplace support in this area is greater than ever. So I was heartened to hear that a government funded workplace mental health pilot has now become a national initiative and will be available for the next three years to support individuals with mental health conditions to retain employment. The new service was launched in December 2011 and is being delivered by Remploy. It is fully funded through Access to Work (a Jobcentre Plus scheme) and therefore comes at no cost to the individual or employer – welcome news in the climate of ongoing cut backs and austerity measures.
The emergence of services like this, alongside the continually increasing recognition of mental well-being as a business critical issue hopefully means we’ll soon see an improvement in the number of people with mental health conditions who report feeling well supported at work.
To find out more about this welcome new service, you can contact the team at Remploy on 0845 146 0520, email vocationalrehabilitation@remploy.co.uk or visit their website for more details.
Leave a Comment » | 
Uncategorized | Tagged: Access to Work, government, Jobcentre Plus, mental health, Remploy, scheme | 
Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
January 16, 2012
The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), has today released a report containing research which, they claim, shows that the leading indicator of happiness is wealth. The conclusion that the IEA, the free market think-tank, draws is that the government should forget their investment in, and promotion of, ‘general wellbeing’ and concentrate on boosting growing the UK economy.
At the heart of the argument is a disagreement with the so-called ‘Easterlin’ school of thought which holds that after a certain point our wealth no longer drives our happiness. Amongst other things, the new report contends that 20% more wealth has the same affect whether you earn $500 a year or $50,000 a year.
As a psychologist it’s not my place to enter into an argument about the economics that sit behind the assertions made by the two sides in this debate. I’m sure that it’s possible to use the data to construct arguments to support both positions. However, what concerns me about the new research is the implication that focusing on happiness, well-being and mental health is a waste of time…and that we should just get back to making money!
Research of this kind is based on pulling together macroscopic financial data from many countries and connecting it with very general ‘life satisfaction’ scores. It has its place, but it doesn’t necessarily tell the story about what is happening on the ground. Money is important to all of us – of course – but it is only one of the many things that influence how we feel and how happy we are with our lives. The data in any given year may nudge us in one direction or the other, but how can we forget recent examples of footballers grappling with depression and mental illness? Or the many stories of lottery winners who fail to find happiness? Or our own experiences of what really makes us happy on a day-to-day basis? How much evidence do we need before we accept that money alone is never enough to bring true happiness? For the vast majority of people it’s about finding the right blend of relationships, health, social support, achievement, community, family, love, work, money and a whole host of other things. In short, it’s about living a balanced life.
I don’t think this new finding should in any way put off David Cameron and the government in their attempts to measure and develop the happiness of the nation. The current effort is partly about encouraging those who have enough money, or are within touching distance of that ‘saturation point’, to consider more deeply what they want; to think about whether they need more money or whether it would benefit them and their community if they knew how to live a happy life, whatever their financial status.
Yes, in our economy wealthy people at the top need to continue to create wealth so there is a trickle-down effect – but if we leave it at that we are setting a dangerous precedent for the aspiring middle classes who will assume (as many do now) that the goal is to get rich, rather than to live a good life and contribute to the happiness of others. The current government’s efforts are as much a response to massive increases in mental ill-health, as they are to the sense that we are focusing on the wrong things. In this sense, I agree with the assertion that we can no longer afford to focus on growth at all costs and to the detriment of our health.
I do think, though, that the government is in for a tough fight in the face of challenges such as those issued by the IEA report. On the one hand the coalition is promoting happiness as an ultimate goal that will bring us a sustainable economy and better lives – ones that don’t rely unrealistically on credit and spending on things we don’t need. Yet, right now we are trapped inside an economy that is based on, and demands, growth. Every headline bemoans the lack of it and over Christmas we were again encouraged to get out there and spend to help the ailing high street. All that talk of ‘make do and mend’ that we heard a few years back has faded and we’ve been encouraged to revert to our former spending patterns. So the government has a dilemma: does it want us to genuinely change the goal of the whole enterprise to be about achieving happiness or does it want us to focus on growth? If the only way to get happy is growth then we are, as the new research would have it, back to square one!
In reality, this points to an awkward transition period where we need old levels of growth to support the nation’s economy (which will, in turn, support our old habits!) while we try to make a shift to a new way of living and working based on different values. Maybe we need some signposts for how this will be achieved – this could be about moderating our growth targets slightly in favour of changing the way we do business – taking the hit now for the long-term strategic benefits this will bring. It will be a massive challenge, but no one ever said this would be easy and we now need to decide whether we’re up for it or not!
1 Comment | economy, Happiness, prime minister, Uncategorized | Tagged: David Cameron, economy, government, happiness, IEA, Institute of economic affairs, mental health, wealth, Well-being | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
September 21, 2011
In the September issue of HR Magazine, there is an article about the government’s proposal to tax welfare and EAP counselling at work, which has until now been tax-exempt. This decision was announced in the March report from the Office of Tax Simplification. Given the enormous pressures now facing people at work, from long hours, heavier workloads, job insecurity and more bottom-line and assertive management styles, this decision seems particularly untimely. I think the need for support is greater than ever, and the evidence shows that EAPs, and workplace counselling more generally, do help people deal with work-related issues. They can also be very valuable for helping people manage personal problems that impinge on work, overall reducing sickness absence and improving mental well-being.
That the government should be penalizing employers for providing some social support to hard-pressed employees is entirely counter-productive. And for all their benefits, companies should also be aware that EAPs alone are not enough, as they don’t deal directly with the structural problems at work like a bullying or long hours culture, an inflexible work environment or disengaged managers. So in fact the government should be incentivising companies to not only provide counselling, but to do more – well-being audits, resilience training and leadership development to name a few. If they really care about the GWB of the nation, getting well-being at work right is a vital component.
Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: audits, EAP's, Employee Assistant Programmes, government, GWB, HR Magazine, Leadership, Office of Tax Simplification, resilience, tax, training, workplace counselling | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
June 28, 2011
As someone who has worked as university lecturer in the public sector for most of my career, I can understand the great concern public servants are now expressing about their pay and pensions. And I can also understand that many who will be affected agreed to take lower pay for job security and better pensions, when they were first considering their career options. But for some (though not all), public sector pay has improved over the years, whilst job security and generous pension entitlements have remained.
Importantly, and realistically, three things have changed since those times which have affected the pensions landscape. First, jobs in the public sector are no longer safe, with downsizing in government departments in the order of 20-30%. Second, pension provision in the private sector has got much worse, with many no longer receiving final salary pensions. And third, we have been through a recession which has resulted in continuing lower growth forecasts. That’s in addition to the long term increase in life expectancy which puts more pressure on the pension pot.
From an equity point of view, the increases in public sector pay, at least at the top, together with the worsening of pensions in the private sector, have made many people in the private sector and in SMEs upset at the widening gulf between them. There is certainly an issue here, particularly at a time of real economic hardship and low growth. Unfortunately this is not a problem that will end soon, as the BRIC countries compete more aggressively and our economy’s recovery is likely to be at a snail’s pace for at least a decade!
The solution is not industrial action though, because that doesn’t solve problems, it only creates even more. We need a dialogue between employers and unions to move towards a long term resolution. Given the economic context , and the hardships being faced, I think a fair solution might be one in which people in the public sector no longer traded off lower wages for pensions (given that they have already lost their job security), but they were better paid with more realistic pensions. That some people in the public sector should be able to retire at 60 on a full pension, whilst others in the private sector may have to work on until 70, does not seem fair. We need to acknowledge the contribution that our teachers, nurses, government officials, etc provide to us all by paying them a fair and proper wage. For their part, they need to look at the reality of the government’s ability to sustain pensions in the future, given the demographic time-bomb. It is all about discussion and, dare I say it, compromise on both sides.
Leave a Comment » | economy, Private Sector, Public Sector, reward and recognition | Tagged: BRIC, career, demographic, downsizing, government, job security, lecturer, life expectancy, pensions, Private Sector, Public Sector, public servants, recovery, SMEs, university, wage | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
March 9, 2011
I’ve written about the value of community and ‘civic virtues’ before in my blog ‘Finding meaning in the community’ and since David Cameron recently ‘re-launched’ his Big Society campaign (amid much scepticism) it seems to be a good time to come back to this issue.
Many commentators have taken the opportunity to identify problems with the idea – focusing on the fact that it’s a cover-up for the severe cuts in public spending or that the idea is “unclear” or “incomprehensible.” The journalist Johann Hari, for example, has drawn attention to relevant research by sociologist Amitai Etzioni. Etzioni conducted an international study of ‘volunteerism’ which found that volunteering is highest where state funding is highest, and lowest where state funding is lowest. You may be wondering why this would be the case – the answer: volunteers need to be recruited and trained – you can’t just set them to work on complex tasks. When funding is available this becomes possible and when it’s not volunteering rates wane. Add to this that in difficult times workers are more likely to put time into working extra hours to earn more money or ensure they keep their job than give their time away as a volunteer.
‘Civic virtues,’ are thought to promote group and social harmony – so the idea of the Big Society is certainly aligned. The proposal may yet turn out to be a good one, but people are struggling to visualise the process we need to follow to get there and while the values at the heart of the society work in principle, they are proving hard to promote in practice. Several commentators have been debating whether we can ‘nudge’ these behaviours – the approach adopted by the Cabinet Office’s Behavioural Insight Team (e.g. http://blog.mindapples.org/2011/01/31/nudge-vs-bigsociety/) – however, it’s clear that such a fundamental shift in societal culture and values will take an awful lot of small ‘nudges’….or a few very, very big ones!
You won’t be surprised to hear that I subscribe to the values that sit behind the idea of the Big Society: individuals becoming more community focused, involved, free from constraints and responsible. It could have a very positive impact but we’re now getting to the point where we need a plan for how we’re going to implement this new way of being. This could be a huge challenge in a volatile political and economic environment – priorities are constantly shifting and there isn’t much money to make it happen. For me the big question is just how much do Mr Cameron and his government want it to work? What would they be willing to sacrifice to make it work? I’d love to hear what you think.
Leave a Comment » | Community, economy, prime minister | Tagged: Amitai Etzioni, Big Society, Cabinet Office, civic virtues, Community, culture, cuts, David Cameron, economic environment, government, Johann Hari, values, volunteerism, volunteers | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
February 2, 2011
It is fantastic to hear today’s announcement that the UK government is investing £400m in making talking therapies available on the NHS. This is wonderful news given that one in six people suffer from a common mental disorder such as depression, anxiety or stress. The emotional strain on those affected and their families can be enormous, and the costs to society in terms of treatment, lost productive value, sickness absence and so on, total nearly £100b per annum. So the funding certainly makes sense from both a fiscal and a moral stand point.
However, as well as making the resources available to treat people, we also need to get at the source of this 21st century epidemic. WHO has predicted that by 2030 ‘depression’ would be the number one burden of disease in the world. It’s therefore imperative that as well as treating mental illnesses, we explore the factors that underpin them, so that more preventative measures can be taken in the future.
Some of these sources have already been identified through the government’s Foresight project on Mental Capital and Wellbeing. Factors include debt, the breakup of the family and community, loss-related events in people’s lives, poor housing and other environmental issues, being bullied at work, lack of early identification of symptoms and many more. Whether it is in schools, communities or in the workplace, we need to tackle some of these issues at source if we are to stop the increasing tide of mental ill health in our society. We can make a difference if we are brave enough to find solutions to the reasons people become ill in the first place, and take action before it is too late.
Leave a Comment » | health, Stress | Tagged: anxiety, debt, Depression, epidemic, government, mental health, mental illness, NHS, Sickness Absence, Stress, talking therapies, treatment, UK, WHO | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
November 25, 2010
I was lucky enough to be present to watch the Prime Minister announce £2 million of funding for measuring well-being today – and it will probably come as no surprise that I am in favour of the idea! The PM argued strongly that GDP is no longer an adequate measure of progress (if it ever was!), and that we need a new way to track the success and well-being of the nation.
I also welcome the news because it signals a move towards different priorities. Obviously, in a time of job losses and spending cuts we all appreciate the importance of a reliable income, but that doesn’t mean our entire focus should be around increasing our material wealth. Indeed, research has shown that rising incomes over the last 50 years have not produced any corresponding increase in happiness. That means now is the time to develop a new mindset that breaks the erroneous link between money and happiness; we have to challenge ourselves to change this thinking habit. For example, what price would you pay to have 50% better working relationships in a 50% happier workplace? If someone offered you the prize of a significantly more enjoyable working life or a 5% pay increase which would you take? Economic stability of course remains a priority, but after a reasonable standard of living is secured, it’s important that we take a broader view of the other things that can enrich the quality of our lives.
This change in priorities is reflected in other initiatives that are building momentum in this area. One example is the launch of the Movement for Happiness, championed by my friend and colleague Lord Layard. It’s a movement with global aspirations to encourage a different approach to life and work, one that ultimately increases happiness and reduces misery in the world.
While there has been mention of ‘happiness indexes’ from government before, I’m hopeful that this time we’ll see the ideas come to fruition, giving the issue the attention it deserves and influencing future policy-making – but more importantly driving future action and investment.
I’m under no illusion that there will be those who find it difficult to see the benefits of this development – particularly those in households and businesses that are struggling financially. I empathise with them and there’s no doubt that things are difficult right now, but we’re in a ‘can’t see the wood for the trees’ situation – if we can lift our heads and get this right now it will create positive change for generations to come.
I’d love to hear your thoughts and comments – please post below or alternatively send me a message on Twitter
http://www.movementforhappiness.org/
Lord Layard addressed the Business Well-Being Network Conference this year – you can see coverage and footage at http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/11/22/56975/business-well-being-network-annual-conference-addresses-employee-engagement.html
Leave a Comment » | economy, Well-being | Tagged: economic stability, economy, GDP, government, happiness, happiness indexes, Lord Layard, money, Movement for happiness, UK Well-being survey, Well-being | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
November 19, 2010
We all know we are in desperate economic times that require reining back our expenses, whether as individuals or businesses. The same thing of course applies to government as well, and there is plenty of scope for reflecting on ‘value for money’ options in the public sector, as well as in the private sector. Sometimes, however, we can make what look like short-term cost savings that unwittingly end up costing us more in the medium or long term.
Organisations in the public and private sectors can reduce their labour costs substantially, but may find in certain circumstances that this can lead to excessive workloads on the remaining staff. As a result, stress-related sickness absence levels rise, quality is compromised, productivity worsens and customer/client care neglected. One example was highlighted this week in a study by Cross Country Trains, which showed that nearly 50% of employers have abandoned first class travel on trains. On the surface this will deliver an obvious cost savings, but of the 1000+ business travellers surveyed 60% said that because of overcrowding, lack of tables to work on and noise they did not work while travelling in standard class. For professionals such as lawyers, accountants, small business leaders, senior executives and many more, their valuable billable hours are being lost and the business opportunity costs can really mount up. In addition, this can add hours on to their day when back in the office, thereby adversely affecting their home life and potentially creating a series of negative knock-on effects.
Whether you are considering the downsizing of staff, cutting out coffee and biscuits at meetings, getting business people to fly long-haul in tourist class or cancelling the Christmas party, it is vital to look past the basic cost saving and consider the full implications of the decision. There may be short term gains, but long term losses!
For more information on the impact of travel procurement policy you can download the ICARUS report ‘Frequent Traveller Well-Being: Its Impact on the Individual and the Organisation’ here: http://www.robertsoncooper.com/news/Traveller_wellbeing.aspx
Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: accountants, Christmas party, Cross Country Trains, downsizing, economic, expenses, first class, government, ICARUS, labour costs, lawyers, opportunity cost, Private Sector, Productivity, Public Sector, senior executives, Sickness Absence, travel, value for money | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
September 20, 2010
Last week we heard of the phenomenal success of one of our leading retailers, The John Lewis Partnership, with sales and profits in all their activities substantially up. It is wonderful that one of the few organisations in the UK that is owned by its employees, has done so well in such a difficult trading environment. This is a ray of hope against the backdrop of tension that’s beginning to emerge in government and trade union relations over the cuts in the public sector.
The John Lewis ‘partnership’ approach is about employee ownership, senior managers engaging their employees in decision making and keeping staff fully and honestly informed about the business itself. These ‘best practice’ approaches seem to point the way to a different way of doing business, one that could provide a model for how more businesses can find success in the ‘new economic world’. Working in this way does not guarantee that everything will be rosy for everyone all of the time, but there are various advantages to managing an organisation as a true partnership during difficult times. When people feel some sense of ownership in their work and are fully involved in decision making they are much more likely to support management decisions – even if they have negative consequences for them in the short-term. If they understand why certain decisions are necessary for the long-term good of the partnership and those in it they are more likely to participate in difficult change processes and contribute to solving organisational problems. The bottom-line is that if underlying employee engagement is strong and stable it becomes easier to make both the popular and unpopular decisions that are required to adapt to new business environments.
The John Lewis Partnership is a relatively unusual model and there probably aren’t many organisations would be willing and/or able to transform their organisational constitutions, structures and processes to match it. However, there certainly are ways to provide employees with opportunities to have more of a vested interest in the fortunes of the business and to encourage a sense of pride in it . Involvement breeds engagement and engagement breeds success. Of course, our government itself is now a partnership and we have, as a nation, agreed to give it a chance at sorting the country’s economic woes. Indeed, we have already seen the coalition involving and consulting the public about where the spending cuts should be made. Maybe it’s time for us all to take a closer look at partnership working, to take a leaf out of John Lewis’ book and begin to think about where we can create them within and between our own organisations. If we do so we may find similar success!
Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: best practice, change, coaliton, consultation, decision making, employee engagement, employee ownership, government, involvement, John Lewis, Management, new economic world, partnership, Public Sector, success, tension, trade union, UK | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
August 17, 2010
We have seen in recent years that governments of all persuasions have reached out to bring in people from opposing political parties or organisations who do not have a natural affinity to their own. Over the last few weeks, the Coalition government has recruited Frank Field, Alan Milburn and John Hutton – all of whom have been leading Labour politicians; indeed, two of them have sat around the Cabinet table in senior roles. They are all acknowledged by many as having contributed enormously, in their respective areas of expertise, to government policy and practice, and should help to pursue some of the ‘Big Society’ aspirations highlighted by David Cameron.
Although the idea of including ‘all the talents’ has had mixed reviews, under a coalition arrangement it is more likely to work, since policy compromise is a prerequisite if the current government is to survive and flourish at all. We don’t know if it will succeed yet, but they seem to be trying in the right spirit and, unlike when Gordon Brown talked about a government of all the talents, we now have the right political context.
It reminds me of the phrase ‘co-opetition’ that entered business rhetoric a few years back. It clearly implies that people on different sides can (and should) co-operate to create better outcomes. In American politics they call this ‘bi-partisan’ behaviour. It’s logical – different perspectives and robust challenge in the right context always leads to better decisions. However, beware because in the wrong context (e.g. the paranoia of the Cold War) it can be disastrous (e.g. the famous group think episode of the Cuban Missile Crisis that nearly led to the Third World War).
What I’d really like to see is the spirit of openness and co-operation spreading to business, because working together in new ways could be key to dragging ourselves out of the economic mire. We saw BAA settling their pay dispute this week without the need for damaging industrial action and maybe that’s a good sign. But we need much more – new ways of thinking don’t stop at the doors of Westminster – we all have role to play whether we’re citizens, business leaders or employees.
Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: Alan Milburn, American politics, aspirations, BAA, bi-partisan, Big Society, business, business leaders, Cabinet, Challenge, citizens, co-opetition, coalition, cold war, context, Cuban Missile Crisis, David Cameron, employees, Frank Field, Gordon Brown, government, government policy, industrial action, John Hutton, Labour, perspectives, political parties, politicians, talents, Westminster | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
