Latest posting
When I heard on the news that Iceland was going bust, I was quite surprised: their supermarkets always seem so busy and they have those excellent adverts featuring Kerry Katona. Imagine my shock, then, when I discovered that it was in fact the whole Scandinavian country that was going under, rather than the company of the same name.

Despite their economic woes, the Icelandic government have supported their own citizens by guaranteeing all domestic savings in their banks. But, disgracefully, they are refusing to do the same for the thousands of UK savers who have deposits in accounts such as Icesave. It’s fallen to our own chancellor to step in and guarantee this money on behalf of the UK taxpayer, even though our government has nothing to do with the transaction and we have our own banks to worry about.

As their country are shamelessly conning us out of a few million, can I be the first to suggest a boycott of everything Icelandic? Perhaps we should stop buying Bjork records or going on overpriced whale-watching holidays to Reykjavik where you pay £8 for a pint of beer. And we could keep the owner of West Ham hostage until they pay up.

Seriously, though, this episode says something about how governments look after their own when it comes to a crisis. Everything is more international these days, not only the financial system but also the labour market – millions of Brits live, work and hold assets abroad, and millions of foreign nationals do the same in the UK. But when it comes to the crunch, it seems that in many cases they won’t ever enjoy the same rights and protection as the citizens of a country. Which is why when the world economy hits the skids, migrant workers are expected to head back to their home countries, taking their money with them.

It’s a natural impulse in a crisis to be protectionist and nationalistic, but I’d like to think that in Britain we would take a different attitude to the Icelanders. We need to continue to welcome foreign investment and workers, and that means treating foreign money and labour as equal to our own. If foreigners withdrew all their money from the UK we really would be in trouble.

So let’s recognise that as an international community we are all in economic trouble, and not fall back on a narrow-minded nationalist mentality. Either that or invade Iceland – now there’s an idea!
Comments [0] Recent postings

Whatever happens in the Heyday case (see EU ruling delivers blow to age equality case and What does the advocate-general's opinion on the Heyday case mean?), it’s obvious that retirement ages will have to rise and eventually be abolished. The reason? The enormous size of the baby boomer generation to which I belong. I don’t mean we are getting larger (although middle age is certainly affecting our waist lines), but that there are just so many of us.

At every stage of life this has given my generation enormous buying power. When we were children, we had more toys than our parents had ever dreamed of. There was a boom in children’s books, from Enid Blyton to Puffins, and products like Lego and Barbie came onto the market. In adolescence, the word “teenager” came into common use as we consumed what our parents saw as outlandish fashions and pop music. As young adults we demanded equal opportunities, maternity rights, breast-feeding in public; we joined trade unions and took to the streets. The older generation bowed down before the onslaught and the younger generation simply took all the new stuff for granted.

Now, however, there are too many of us for the more youthful working population to support and our life expectancy is so enormous that the pathetic pensions we’ve built up will be stretched to breaking point. So there is no option but to carry on working, albeit mostly part-time and flexibly.

If society forces us into retirement and penury, all that spending power would be lost. Who will fill the supermarket aisles, the department stores, the DIY chains? There simply aren’t enough of the rest of you. Businesses will close for lack of custom. Current economic prospects are bad enough already.

So it is quite extraordinary that any government, especially one with a policy of ending age discrimination, should try to maintain any age limit at all. Let the baby-boomers continue to make their dynamic contribution - they may work until they drop but this means they will also spend until they drop.

Do you agree that the mandatory retirement age should be scrapped? Vote now in our online poll.

Comments [0]
‘Pick’ is a fine old word. As a verb it’s been around since at least the 14th century. Its original meaning was ‘to pluck the strings of an instrument’, and since then it’s lived a full and satisfying life as a verb meaning ‘to select’. It’s even turned into a noun, in some rare, specific and charming usages: ‘pick of the crop’ for example, which suggests ruddy-cheeked agricultural labourers relaxing after a hard day’s harvesting fruit in a painting by Constable.

But in the last few weeks, ‘pick’ has undergone a hideous mutation, thanks to the global media coverage of US presidential hopeful John McCain’s ‘pick’ of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Suddenly every other sports commentator and travelling salesperson is talking about their daring ‘pick’ of steak at dinner or a yellow shirt for their presentation. Europe’s Ryder Cup captain, Nick Faldo, told the media: "I feel very good about those two picks." He wasn’t talking about a pair of implements normally used by builders, he was talking about his selection policy for this month’s tournament (which, incidentally, Faldo’s team lost).

It’s hideous and unnecessary. We have a rich and diverse vocabulary available to describe the process or recruitment and selection: why be seduced by one of the clunkiest and frankly rather confusing linguistic mutations to swim across the Atlantic in years? Let’s send it back whence it came – preferably along with its early adopters.
Comments [0]

Let’s put puerile personality politics aside. So what if, on any of his ill-advised attempts to smile, Gordon Brown looks like a slightly creepy ventriloquist’s dummy – with the public speaking skills to match. What really matters amid the David Miliband takeover rumours is if Brown is up to the job of steering us through this historic period of economic turbulence.

So would an HR director recruit him as prime minister on the basis of his past performance as chancellor? That, for me, is where things get complicated. A closer look at Brown’s behaviour during the Blair years reveals a catch-22 situation.

On the one hand, if we buy into his reputation as the “iron chancellor” – whose policies put an end to the boom and bust cycle with prolonged and sustained growth – we must surely also believe that someone so knowledgeable about the economy’s direction would have somehow foreseen this crisis. After all, commentators have been warning for at least two years about the dangers of ever-expanding property and personal debt bubbles – and that their explosions were imminent.

And even if – Northern Rock aside – you believe our present situation has been largely inspired by events in the US, surely someone with Brown’s supposed economic nous could have put in place policies to mitigate their effects?

On the other hand, believing that he didn’t see it coming undermines his former reputation and leaves you wondering if he really is the person to steer us through the tough times ahead.

Maybe no one, as Brown would argue, could have foretold just how profound and unprecedented the downturn would be when it hit. Or maybe he was happy to let the good times roll – and for Labour to take the credit while hoping the impending crunch would somehow disappear.

The undermining of Brown’s credibility as chancellor, and ultimately as prime minister, is a shame as he and his party have been responsible for progressive policies that have improved the working lives of many – for example, paternity rights and the national minimum wage. Unfortunately, none of this will matter when Britain next goes to the polls – because when it comes to general elections, it’s always the economy, stupid.

Comments [0]
I was disappointed by today’s announcement that Ruth Kelly is to leave the Cabinet. Not because I think she’s a fantastic minister (there are very few of those about at the moment), but I was sad to hear her reasons behind the decision. Stepping back to spend more time with her family sends out a message that it is not possible to combine motherhood with a senior government position. While I applaud her for lasting this long (combining taking care of four children under the age of 11 and such a high-profile position is no mean feat), her resignation says much about female career progression and the gender pay gap associated with it. If the government can’t put its own house in order and allow women the flexibility required to combine a top job and a family, what hope do other employers have? Undoubtedly, business needs more female role models and, unfortunately, women MPs have just lost a major one. For this reason, I can only hope that her family was the real reason behind her exit, and not any rift with the leadership or policy direction as some commentators have indicated. It would be a cruel blow to women’s rights otherwise.Comments [0]

Hello, and welcome to “Generation Y Watch”, our weekly (or most probably one-off, if my editor doesn’t like it) look at the latest Generation Y hyperboles to appear in the HR and business press.

This week’s comes courtesy of Ann Buik, an executive and workplace coach, trainer and facilitator, writing in the (otherwise excellent) Training and Development in Australia journal.

According to Buik, “…having grown up with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers and Pokemon, whose central characters offered or relied heavily on the influence of a coach/mentor, Generation Y responds much better to coaching and mentoring in the workplace”.

Oh, please, really? And I suppose Andy Pandy and Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men caused a generation of baby boomers to grow up needing to be controlled by an organisations “strings”, while also working much better in pairs?

Buik, clearly warming to her theme, continues: “With coaching, Generation Y employees can learn how to listen actively, to clearly articulate their point of view, ask questions, deal with conflict, use non-verbal communication and develop transferable and lifelong people skills.” Well, thank the lord for coaching interventions – how would these poor fools be able to cope, or even cross the street, without them?

“Some”, declares Buik, “don’t even know how to say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’”! Actually, that bit is true. My peers and I tend to just say “Cowabunga.”

Comments [1]

Given the CIPD has been holding its annual conference and exhibition in Harrogate for 60 years, the fact that this is my third time here is hardly a triumph. But for me, and I’m sure many others, the place has become almost synonymous with HR and all that comes with attending a CIPD conference.

While I have seen some great speakers and witnessed industry-leading debate in the conference halls, the event extends well beyond these walls. I’m sure Carrington’s nightclub, the many Indian restaurants and the Holiday Inn bar will leave long-lasting memories among much of the HR profession (and with a few journalists too!).

And of course there’s Betty’s. Whose trip to Harrogate is complete without a trip to the world-renowned tea rooms? Even if delegates don’t have time for the full works at breakfast or tea time (and judging by the queues they usually do), few suitcases are complete without some tasty treats to take home.

But it’s now time to say goodbye to Harrogate and all that comes with this lovely Yorkshire town, and hello to Manchester in 2009. A new venue will undoubtedly bring excitement and fresh discoveries, but watch out Manchester – HR is on its way en masse!

Comments [0]
The importance of good leadership has come into the political spotlight more than ever over recent months. In times of uncertainty we look to our leaders for encouragement and guidance, but instead we have been presented with tales of infighting and plots to takeover. The polls even indicate that bringing back Tony Blair is the only way to increase Labour’s popularity and I’m sure the attractiveness of David Miliband is partly down to his similarities in style to the former PM. But is this a case of the public simply harking back to the good times (economically, at least, let’s not forgot about the divisive nature of the war in Iraq and the near meltdown of the party towards the end of Blair’s tenure) or is there a genuine recognition that right now we need a strong leader more than ever before?

My insight into the leadership styles of both Blair and Brown is somewhat limited, but recent events reminded me of something Alistair Campbell said at this year’s CIPD HRD conference. The former director of communications and strategy for Blair called his old boss one of the most impressive leaders of modern times. He said he was a natural communicator who trusted his staff to get on with their jobs. Compare this to the anecdotes about Brown being a control freak, as well as his lacklustre way of communicating. It therefore comes as little surprise that the nation –– and his own team – lack confidence in their PM in difficult times. David Cameron, like Blair, comes across as a natural communicator and the pair definitely have a charismatic edge that Brown lacks. (You can vote in our latest online poll about this very subject!) It will therefore be interesting to watch the outcome of the party conferences which take place later this month. The People Management news desk will be attending them so look out for articles in the magazine and online.

Leadership is also currently a massive issue on the other side of the Atlantic, as Americans prepare to decide on their next president. What I find most interesting is the importance both parties have placed on their choice of vice president. Was John Prescott or Harriet Harman ever the deciding factor in our elections? Sarah Palin on the other hand might well be. Is this because, as many of the commentators have so kindly put it – she is just one 72-year old’s heartbeat away from becoming president – or is it because she’s a woman and the American’s are ready for change?

A vote for Democrat Obama clearly spells change too – but is this all simply change for change’s sake? I urge the Americans to look beyond race and gender to their genuine leadership qualities. There’s no denying the next few years are going to be tough on an economic level and we don’t know what other new challenges the future holds. The role of the leader to support, guide and inspire their people has therefore never been more important.

After almost eight years with George Bush in charge, I genuinely feel the American people deserve change for the better. But I hope that their first black president or female vice president is voted in for the right reasons.Comments [0]

Yesterday, many people across the nation – from die-hard football fans to bemused stock market analysts – were, like me, caught up in the drama of football’s “transfer window”. What a crazy – if hugely entertaining – way to conduct recruitment.

For those that don’t know, the football clubs in the English Premiership can only sign new players within a select period of time, known as the transfer window (the same systems applies for most other national football associations). It begins on the 1 July and closes on the 31 August (it was 1 September this year as the 31 Aug fell on a Sunday). Then there’s a second one, which arguably exists for the purposes of clubs who realized they had hired duds in the previous window, or need some quick cash by selling off their star player, between the 1 and 31 January. But, for reasons unknown to most, everyone seems to leave their buying and selling till the very last minute, holding their breath and squeezing through the window before it shuts.

If you missed yesterday’s frenzied action, the biggest news was that Manchester City sold itself in the morning – new owners came in from a phenomenally rich Abu Dhabi consortium – and by the evening had broken the British transfer record by buying one of the world’s best young players, Robinho, out from under the chequebook of Roman Abramovich’s Chelsea (who now comparatively seems like the ‘old money’ aristocracy). And Sir Alex Ferguson finally got his man by signing the Spurs striker Dimitar Berbatov, using tactics that would make even the most aggressive City headhunter blush.

Imagine if you only had a month in which to recruit and to sack all the staff necessary for your next year’s financial success? Say it was BP’s CEO, heading for Shell, who then got snapped up by Texaco who ran in at the last minute and thrust a more lucrative contract under his/her descending pen? In a way, it might make things easier – get it all out of the way, feel safe and secure in the knowledge that your staff ain’t going anywhere, and you can plan the coming months knowing they’ll be no surprises. Although, I can’t help but feel sorry for the Abu Dhabian who now needs to get their head around the Tupe regulations.

Comments [0]

It seems the recent article on apprenticeships stuck a chord (or a nerve) with some readers. It’s always good to get feedback on one’s articles. Whether you agree with the responses or not, debate is a healthy thing.

Learning from the past? aimed to take the temperature of the modern (with a lower-case ‘m’) apprenticeship. Some references to its centuries-old existence aside, this was not a definitive history of the apprenticeship – rather it intended to focus on where we are now, and where will we be, in light of the wider skills concerns we currently face.

One reader rightly wrote in to highlight the influence that the Carr Report (1958) and the Industrial Training Act (1964) had on the apprenticeship framework we see today (alas, I had to leave out such background in order to fit in the numerous contemporary issues that abound).

Another reader, proposing the argument that apprenticeships are far removed from those of the past (a point also raised in the article, anecdotally, by John Lucas of the British Chambers of Commerce), wrote: “Historically, particularly before the industrial revolution, an apprenticeship serviced to fit a young person into society, give them a job for life, a feeling of belonging and a sense of responsibility”. One would be hard pushed to argue with that. However, these qualities still remain an integral part of an apprenticeship. They did not die with the steam engine, rather they adapted to changing times and (to stretch this “take the train” metaphor) became quicker, more expensive and relatively unloved.

It’s the negative views of modern apprenticeships, and such beliefs that traditional positives are extinct, that need changing. The same reader asked how employee loyalty could be expected when “there is a good chance an employee will be given a short-term contract and little or no retirement provision?” The simple answer is that, in offering an apprenticeship, rather than some internal induction scheme and a few days’ training (or worse, no formal training at all), the employer is actively and obviously investing in that person. Put even more simply, that employer cares about that individual more than the others do. And so follows loyalty – at least, according to the HR staff I talked to. Perhaps not the very same “employer for life” loyalty often harked back to with misty-eyed nostalgia; but people follow portfolio careers far more than they used to. If you employ someone for ten years or more, you’ve done extremely well on the employee engagement or “loyalty” stakes – and investing in apprenticeships improves your chances of being such an employer.

The modern apprenticeship, as the article discussed, continues to have its problems. But while the issue of national skills shortages is, on a macro scale, hard to fathom, it is a problem we have right here, right now, in the twenty-first century. And it’s the apprenticeship that offers a viable solution to a significant part, if not all, of the problem.

Comments [0]