August 12, 2010
This month’s CIPD Labour Market Outlook survey has revealed that 32% of HR professionals anticipate redundancies in their organisations over the next quarter. In the public sector this figure is 36%, with local government being hardest hit – 63% of those organisations expect to be cutting jobs.
There has been a drop in numbers of job losses in some recent months, but uncertainty over the extent of public sector reform has caused these figures to rise again. With the private sector also feeling the effects – because many jobs are linked to public sector cuts in terms of outsourcing, building projects, consultancies and the rest – there is a psychology of fear in the marketplace among HR professionals and recruiters. I can understand why they would project a worst case scenario prior to public sector reform, especially amid plans for a 25-40% cut in many government departments and local authorities. However there is a danger that the more we emphasise the negative, the more likely we will create a self-fulfilling prophecy!
As the private sector begins to come out of the recession with more confidence, those organisations will ultimately need more trained and skilled staff – gaps which could be filled by many who have been working in the public sector. The old stereotype of public sector workers being relatively unskilled and bureaucratic is just so out-of-date. Yes, jobs will go in the public sector but the best staff will have the competences and skills to find jobs in the private sector, or even start their own businesses.
There are plenty of talented people out there and we as a society need to help them to find work that further stimulates the economy – through the creation of new businesses, by supporting the expansion of SMEs or retraining to upgrade skills in a new growth area for UK industry. One thing’s for sure, ‘Doom and gloom’ is no recipe for success. As George Bernard Shaw wrote in Mrs. Warren’s Profession:
“People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don’t believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and if they can’t find them, make them”.
http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/0F1E51BB-8703-4A7E-9F67-037C63576E34/0/5302_LMO_report_Summer10.pdf
Leave a Comment » | 
economy, Private Sector, Public Sector, Uncategorized | Tagged: bureaucratic, CIPD, circumstances, Confidence, economy, expansion, George Bernard Shaw, government, growth, HR professionals, job losses, Labour Market Outlook, Private Sector, Public Sector, public sector reform, redundancies, SMEs, UK industry | 
Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
July 21, 2010
Today, the Academy of Social Sciences in conjunction with the British Society of Gerontology and Age UK, will be launching a booklet* highlighting a number of issues our society will face as a result of the increasingly ageing population in the UK and other nations. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) predicts that in twenty years there will be more than 15 million people over 65 – that’s 23% of the population. Rises among the ‘oldest old’ are even greater: in 1984 there were around 660,000 people in the UK aged 85 or older, by 2009 that had risen to 1.4 million, and is expected to rise to 3.5 million by 2034.
Issues such as the rising costs of social care and early onset dementia are, and will increasingly become, some of the most significant social challenges of our time. In the Foresight project on Mental Capital and Wellbeing**, it was predicted that as life expectancy increases the number of people living with dementia will double to 1.4 million by 2038, with associated costs trebling from their current rate of £17b to over £50b.
There are a number of questions surrounding this emerging social phenomenon which remain to be answered. For example, how do we prevent cognitive decline in the elderly? How long should people work for (given the pension crisis and the changing age of retirement)? How do we deal with social care of an ageing population? How do we support those that care for elderly and sick relatives? These are real and pressing concerns that we literally cannot afford to ignore and we have little time left to plan and prepare for how to deal with these issues.
That said, I think we can do it – we have a new government that is focusing like never before on cost and efficiency savings in society and the economy alike – this will include managing the cost of social care. If you add to that the work of the institutions mentioned above who will continue raising awareness, stimulating debate and identifying innovative solutions then I think we have a chance of getting a grip of this difficult social challenge.
*Making the Case for the Social Sciences, No. 2 AGEING, London: Academy of Social Sciences.
**Cooper, CL, Field, J., Goswami, U., Jenkins, R & Sahakian, B (2009). Mental Capital and Wellbeing. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: Academy of Social Sciences, Age UK, ageing population, British Society of Gerontology, cognitive decline, cost, dementia, efficiency, Foresight, Foresight Project on Mental Capital and Well-Being, government, life expectancy, mental capital and wellbeing, Office of National Statistics, oldest old, ONS, saving, social care, social challenge, UK | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
June 25, 2010
The emergency budget that we received this week was, of course, widely anticipated and covered by the media. In this sense, the inevitable cuts were expected and few people will have been surprised by how far the government have gone. Of course, the full impact of 25% cuts to all government departments, except for health and international aid, are yet to be experienced – so it’s largely theoretical right now! It will only be when these cuts hit that we will feel the real impact in the short- and medium-term.
That said, the quicker we, the public, understand and can anticipate the implications of the cuts, the better for us psychologically – and for the large number of people working in the various government departments and public sector bodies. Pain of this sort has been experienced before in our recent history – during the various World Wars, during the depression, during the major industrial relations disputes of the 70s – but it has been a long time since ordinary people have experienced such a major jolt to their way of life. This will fundamentally affect our feelings of job and financial security, as well as our levels of happiness.
The good news, if there is any, is that the coalition government is also trying to find ways to stimulate the private sector. The hope is that it may be capable of taking on some of the fallout from the public sector provided that the switch from growing one to growing the other can happen fast enough. This is laudable but there will still be palpable stress, worry and insecurity in all reaches of society, particularly for those who are the most vulnerable.
There is a lot of uncertainty about this week (and not just in relation to England’s fate in the World Cup!). Not knowing what the future holds and whether the government has got it right can seem frightening. However, we’ve lived with uncertainty for the last two years and maybe when we come out on the other side of this we’ll understand what is really important in our society. I’m thinking about our families, our relationships and the communities we left on the shelf in the search for the almighty buck!
1 Comment | Community, economy, election, NHS, Private Sector, Public Sector, Stress, Well-being | Tagged: 25%, budget, coalition, communities, cuts, Depression, emergency budget, England, families, government, government departments, happiness, health, industrial, international aid, medium-term, Private Sector, Public Sector, relationships, security, short-term, Stress, uncertainty, World Cup, World Wars, worry | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
June 9, 2010
We have had a number of political storms over the past month; the BP oil leak, the BA strike, David Laws’ resignation, the Pru & AIA merger and then the Israeli blockade on ships going to Gaza. In these, and most political situations (with a small p), we get the inevitable anger; accusations, and defensive posturing in response and then counter-aggressive responses – with the vicious circle continuing on and on until another media storm grabs our attention.
I suspect that when such stories hit the headlines people who have been accused of making mistakes have a strong need to defend themselves – this is often their first reaction and takes precedence over acknowledging their errors of judgement or culpability for making the wrong or inappropriate decision. On the other hand, there definitely do seem to be some people/groups who feel the need to establish blame; to name and shame and to point the finger at the culprit. But let’s face facts, in these times where a coalition government is making difficult decisions that will affect every citizen it’s time for industrial relations to move to the next stage – a less adversarial stage that involves more adult behaviour. This means working together and, like the Conservative party, making previously unimaginable concessions – rather than harbouring class allegiances. As the emergency budget is likely to shout at us – it’s time to get real!
In politics, in business, and indeed, in most walks of life people make mistakes. Even when decisions are made with the best intentions things don’t always go to plan. It would be much more healthy and stand us in much better stead if we were able to admit this without feeling there is going to be major retribution. In business and politics, we need to create a really open culture where people can take calculated risks, knowing that if they fail the proverbial sky will not fall on their heads. We’ve heard David Cameron and Nick Clegg promise this change in politics – the signs are promising but it’s too early to tell whether this will really happen. Nevertheless, in the world of business we must start to aspire to these values and follow suit. A climate of accountability is an antidote to a blame culture – if we combine that with open, honest communications and supportive behaviour we can expect to enter a new era of working life in the UK.
Leave a Comment » | citizenship, Community, economy, prime minister | Tagged: accountability, AIA, BA, blame, blame culture, BP, business, citizen, class, coalition, Conservative party, culpability, David Cameron, David Law, defend, emergency budget, Gaza, government, headlines, honest communications, industrial relations, intentions, Israeli blockade, judgement, media storm, mistakes, name and shame, Nick Clegg, oil leak, open culture, political, Pru, resignation, retribution, risk, strike, UK, values | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
May 14, 2010
We have had a momentous change in government over the last 48 hours, with the Conservatives and Lib-Dems forming a consensus that they can lead together. The body language between David Cameron and Nick Clegg could not have been more positive, as both leaders confirmed this is going to be a five year coalition government, with collective Cabinet responsibility. We’ll see whether this is how things turn out, but after decades of combative politics we now have a chance of experiencing collaborative government and new behaviour that inevitably goes with it.
Yes, this was partly driven by the result of the election – but also by political leaders realising that the economic situation we find ourselves in requires consensus and movement towards common objectives for the greater good. It is a tribute to both leaders that they have seen this and that the rhetoric of ‘it’s in the national interest’ has been actualised. The Conservatives could have agreed to form a minority government in an effort to win another election in a year or 18 months; but they did not. They took the brave and courageous decision to work in partnership for the good of the country, even though it is likely to cause them political problems with some of their backbenchers down the line.
Now, what can business learn from this? Why can’t BA, the rail industry, the Royal Mail, and many other management teams, as well as trade unions, behave in a similar way? Rather than engaging in the “same ol’’ industrial relations battles of a bygone era, organisations need to focus on working towards common goals that will benefit both employers and employees. Does the country need, at this time of economic crisis, a return to 1970s class warfare and the ‘them and us’ mentality?! If political leaders with fundamentally different values can come to some kind of collaborative arrangement for the common good, business (and the public sector) can do the same! Ironically this kind of behaviour started in the private sector, but I think it sometimes gets forgotten – we called it ‘co-opetition’. Nick and Dave have given us a timely reminder that, now more than ever, businesses need to work together for mutual benefit and for the good of their staff.
1 Comment | economy, election, Leadership, Management, prime minister, Private Sector, Public Sector | Tagged: 1970s, BA, backbenchers, business, Cabinet, class warfare, co-opetition, collaborative, combative, Conservatives, David Cameron, economic, election, government, Lib-Dems, management teams, national interest, Nick Clegg, partnership, political leaders, politics, Public Sector, rail, Royal Mail | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
May 10, 2010
This is a very stressful time for both David Cameron and Nick Clegg, as they attempt to juggle the multiple demands on them both to come to some understanding about how they are going to work together to govern. Over the last month, they have not had much sleep, have been travelling and away from their families constantly – now they are expected to come up with a coherent plan for government!
Admittedly, they are not alone in this process – they both have advisors and support from senior civil servants. But ultimately they have to make the tough decisions, with the added stress of disappointing a number of their respective followers and party colleagues no matter which decision they reach. It has to be stressful trying to juggle the concerns of the ordinary citizens, the economy, the markets, their party activists, the media and the wider financial community. This is not an easy balancing act for either, and we should all understand the intolerable pressures they are under. If the first few days are a sign of things to come it shouldn’t come as a surprise when, two years from now, we look at a PM or senior politician and say “hasn’t he aged”!
These high expectations are a reality for most people in senior roles in society. These people are expected to perfom as supermen/women – who we assume (given that they are paid handsomely!) should be able to deliver all that we and the wider community expect of them. We should all remember that they are only human, they also have families and important relationships outside of work. They have no more hours in the day than the rest of us, and sometimes events and situations will intervene and prevent them from achieving their goals.
The lively debates of the election have engendered strong emotional reactions to all three leaders, but a little bit of tolerance would not go astray right now. Leaders will not always deliver all that we want – it’s impossible to please everyone – but if they are committed, successful on the things that matter and give it their all, we should all lend them our support.
Leave a Comment » | economy, election, Leadership, Personal Resilience, pressure, prime minister, Stress, Uncategorized | Tagged: achieving goals, balancing act, citizens, civil servants, Community, David Cameron, debates, decisions, demands, economy, elections, emotional, families, financial community, govern, government, high expectations, leaders, markets, media, Nick Clegg, party activists, PM, politician, pressure, senior roles, sleep, society, successful, support, tolerance | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
May 6, 2010
So election day finally came! The talking is done – the nation processed it all and each individual has cast his or her vote (or not!).
How must the party leaders have been feeling on the day? It must have been like going back to school at exam time for them – did they put enough work in over the last month? Will they get the result they’ve been striving for and move on to the next stage in their careers? But just like at the end of a school test – ‘time’s up’ and there’s nothing any of them can do to change the result now.
Like many students who ‘cram’ all night before an exam because they’re determined to succeed, all of the candidates have been putting in the hours leading up to election day. While work-life balance is always important I think this kind of intensity is ok in special circumstances – it’s a once in a lifetime moment for all of them and they have to make every second count. The key, though, is respite – the research shows that the best results come from short bursts of intense effort followed by a period of rest and recovery.
Of course, at least one of them will be able to get as much respite as they want or need after today. By stark contrast another will become Prime Minister and may find rest and relaxation very hard to come by in the coming years!
David Cameron, for example, has almost certainly had no more than a couple of hours sleep over the last two nights – and certainly won’t be getting any more tonight. Maybe we should consider having a 24 hour cooling off period after results are announced so all candidates can recover and process the results before the post-mortems and trying to form a government begin in earnest? It’s been an intense election this time round – but the next stage is governing the country and we need the winner(s) to be on good form for that!!
1 Comment | health, Personal Resilience, pressure, Stress, Uncategorized, Well-being | Tagged: candidates, cooling off period, David Cameron, election, exam, government, nation, once in a lifetime, party leaders, Prime Minister, respite, school, sleep, students, winner | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
April 28, 2010
Starting with a review that has already begun, the government is giving consideration to abandoning the national default retirement age (NDRA). This would mean that employers will no longer be able to set a mandatory retirement age of 65 and above, or refuse to employ someone who is within six months of that age.
Retirement age is a complicated issue, with important links to pension reform and the impacts of an ageing population. It is also is set to become an even hotter topic as the ‘baby boom’ generation starts to reach retirement age. To me, it makes no sense to decide whether or not someone should be allowed to carry on working based solely on their age. Some people at 65 are more than capable of continuing in a demanding job, others may be less able. Some older workers will almost certainly be much more capable than others in their 40s!
One issue that removing the compulsory retirement age raises is the possibility that organisations will need to find ways of dealing with older people who are feeling the effects of their age and underperforming – but wish to carry on working. One obvious solution is to “performance manage” them out of the organisation. I expect that may be necessary in a very small number of cases, but generally can’t help feeling that employers should work collaboratively with their older workers and find ways of working that maximise the benefit to the organisation and enable people to ease their way into full-time retirement.
After all, we have known for some time that a sharp transition from work to non-work can be very damaging and leave people feeling lost in their retirement. My feeling is that flexibility about duties, working hours and eventual retirement age on the part of employers and employees will pay off for everyone in the long run. It provides a platform to get the best of older employees for the organisation, but also to work with them to find the best route into retirement.
Until the results of the review are released (and possibly beyond that time, depending on the outcome) we will have to hope that employers are able to exercise common sense, discretion and fairness when it comes to dealing with retirement age workers.
1 Comment | Management, Productivity, Recruitment and Selection, Well-being | Tagged: ageing population, baby boom, flexibility, government, NDRA, performance manage, retirement age, underperforming | 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
February 18, 2010
Starting in April this year the traditional ‘sick note’ is to be replaced by a new system which will see GPs completing a ‘fit note’ instead. Under the new arrangement GPs must decide whether a patient is ‘not fit for work’ or ‘fit for some work’. If the GP selects the latter, they must then choose from a list of four actions to assist with the return to the workplace: phased return, amended duties, altered hours or workplace adaptations. The change was a recommendation made in Dame Carol Black’s report ‘Working for a Healthier Tomorrow’ – based on research showing that a return to work is beneficial to both employer, employee and also the wider economy. But the big question is whether this particular approach is likely to be successful?
The key to the success or failure of the new ‘fit note’ scheme is the quality and effectiveness of a tripartite relationship – between the GP, the employee and the employer. Each has a responsibility and a part to play in making the new system work. Pressure points will occur when GPs fail to understand what’s possible in the workplace; when employers fail to be sufficiently supportive or flexible with returning staff; and if employees don’t really want to return to work and end up ‘playing’ the system. However, if all play their parts positively the new system has the right ethos and components to make a big difference. My hunch is that GPs are the ones who will need the most support because this way of seeing patients and their jobs will be completely new to them and many will be set in their ways after years of issuing sick notes on request.
However, it’s good to see that the government has thought about this aspect of the new system and is taking action to help GPs make the right judgements. The ‘options’ on the new form are a good idea because they will cause GPs to think actively about the advice they dispense regarding return to work. The ‘fit note’ represents a major paradigm shift in terms how we think about illness and work – any process that encourages the ‘operators’ of the system to consider and discuss a range of options for the patient and employer is a positive thing. The absence of an option for ‘occupational assessment’ is also to be welcomed as it places the emphasis firmly on getting people back to work, rather than further diagnosis that could prolong absence. More diagnostic tests may still be required, but they are not seen as a substitute for re-engagement with work – in this sense, the goal of the system is clear.
So the new scheme carries much promise, but in the end two factors that have always been key in absence management will be critical if this culture change is to be successful: trust and communication. All staff need to know the organisation’s expectations regarding attendance and return to work – and this includes the consequences of failing to meet them, plus the support that is available. It’s no good amending your policy, announcing the change and expecting staff and managers to work the rest out for themselves. You will have a head start if a culture of trust already exists to support the change – if not, it’s almost certainly an underlying area that needs development.
Finally, don’t forget the strategic angle. Absence management processes are important, but they are no substitute for creating a business culture that is characterised by high levels of well-being and employee engagement. Over the long-term this is your insurance policy against high levels of absenteeism because if staff are happy and committed they will do their best to perform for the business and are unlikely to betray the trust you invest in them. When your staff actually want to return to work because they enjoy it absence management becomes a whole lot easier.
This post is adapted from a contribution that my university spin-off company, Robertson Cooper made to a People Management article on the subject: http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/articles/2010/02/employers-wary-of-new-fit-notes.htm
1 Comment | Absenteeism, Attendance, citizenship, employee engagement, Engagement, health, Management, Motivation, Private Sector, Public Sector, reward and recognition, Well-being | Tagged: absence management, Absenteeism, Attendance, Attendance management, carol black report, Dame Carol Black, employee engagement, Engagement, Fit notes, government, HR, improving well-being, Personal Resilience, Productivity, return to work, Robertson Cooper, sick notes, Sickness Absence, staff, staff retention, support, workforce sustainability, working for a healthier tomorrow | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
