Latest posting

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] Recent postings
A press release has just crash landed into my inbox. It very effectively encapsulates two of my biggest bugbears in contemporary HR thinking. The subject of the email, “Generation Y learns to lead”, admittedly had me wincing before I read it. The message proceeded to mention “the debate on how to manage Generation Y in the workplace”, and an event that assembled “pre-career leaders” to help hone their skills.

So much to discuss, so little time. Bugbear number one: I may be a little touchy about the need to bracket the latest generation of workers into a particular category, partly because I am technically within that category. But that aside, I don’t think any previous generation has come in for quite such a bilious bashing in the management press and conference circuit upon entering (or even before entering) the workplace. Words I’ve come across in articles, blogs, forums and conversations, include – illiterate, innumerate, lazy, short attention span, demanding, fickle, feckless, ill-mannered… I could go on. I’m glad I don’t have to.

If all these insults were true (leaving aside the question of ageism), then why would HR and management professionals be so worried about how to attract this group? The need to coin the phrase “Generation Y” speaks far more of the need to sensationalise and scaremonger than it does about changing demographics. But even the more rational descriptions of Generation Y differences tend to wither in the clear light of the working day: impatient to progress in their career; tendency to change jobs/employers more frequently; need constant feedback and reassurance from management; demand flexible working hours and more work-life balance; can’t be swayed by mere monetary incentives alone. I could go on. And I’d be glad to.

My argument is that, if you see these things as monstrous, then you have to at least to admit that they are monsters of your own creation. But hopefully, as a PM reader, you will recognise the positives of the attributes/demands, for they are the very same that modern HRM has been pushing for over the past couple of decades. At long last we have numerous organisations concentrating their efforts on good management, on fast-track career progression, on work-life balance and flexible working, on CSR, on employer brand. The latest generation to enter the workforce, naturally ignorant of what came before them, has simply adopted these modern working practices more speedily and is willing to challenge poor working practices more readily rather than settling for second best. Is this not a good thing? Please post a comment if you think it’s not – I’d love to hear the counter argument.

Oh, there was a second bugbear, wasn’t there? “Leadership” – it’s become such a catch-all phrase that the reference to “pre-career leaders” seemed a case in point. Surely leadership, in a form that is of relevance to business management, can only be identified once actually in a career? Or maybe that’s just hypocritical ageism on my part. What do you think?

In actual fact, the press release – when re-read more calmly – was commenting on an event that sounded interesting and worthwhile. Now, what was I doing? Oh yes, I’m off to make sure my manager likes my blog and praises me for it, then to demand that she lets me go home early or else I’ll quit…Comments [0]

Yes, I finally heard it – the solution to gender inequality in the workplace! I argued it myself not so long ago with some younger female friends of mine and, after being sharply shot down, I presumed I was on my own on this one – their reaction was that it was male chauvinism going even further, trying to get more perks for men who already enjoy the most anyway.

I first brought it up after reading an article by Rosie Boycott, the long-serving feminist activist – she described the dilemma of running a small business (a farm in her case) and living in fear of half of her workforce, namely a thirtysomething called Sarah, falling pregnant. A year’s paid maternity leave would effectively bankrupt Boycott’s business. Yet it was a right that she had spent much of her life defending.

Attending a Wainwright Trust event earlier this week, a panel discussion on equality legislation and workplace discrimination, the final question from a woman at the front was the same one I’d posed to my female friends.

I didn’t write her wording down verbatim, but essentially it was: “Is it not the case that gender pay inequality, and so employers’ perceptions, will remain the same as long as there is such a stark difference between maternity and paternity leave? I’d like to see the day where an employer holds the same concerns over employing a young man as a young woman in this respect. As long as the man does not take equal responsibility in raising children in the first years of their life, inequalities will exist.” Were I not the journo scribbling away at the back, I would have cried out a hallelujah!

This answer to gender inequality, not to mention pay inequality, seems simple, while also being socially and legally complex. But if a man were to have the same paternity leave rights as a woman, would things not steadily even out? Two job candidates or promotion prospects, one male, one female, would no longer raise gender-specific concerns in the manager or HR professional – they would both carry the same risk.

Or, in a more positive light, the “risk” would rather become the “norm” and simply be a fact of modern business. Fathers of young children would return to work with the same disadvantages of missing time out of their career, and so the playing field would be even.

But again, if it were the norm, and no longer simply an issue of discrimination against females being “swept under the carpet” (as Harriet Harman recently put it), then it’s a safe bet that business would swiftly come up with a solution to career disadvantage incurred by workers with young children.

Comments [2]

So, I met Ray Anderson, founder of US flooring company Interface and environmental hero, Will Ray Anderson have the answers?. The plush green grounds of Ashridge Business School in the Hertfordshire countryside seemed an apt setting for an environmental chinwag.

While watching him address an ensemble of MDs, CEOs and academics, I learnt a few new things about the man and his company. One of the leading lights of the US environmental lobby, he co-chaired Bill Clinton’s council for sustainable development. In his advisory and mentor capacity, he has met the Chinese government’s number two, a Murdoch or two, and has recently worked with the CEO of Wal-Mart to begin introducing environmental best practice in a business that boasts 60,000 suppliers. And, unusually for a CEO of a multinational company that recorded a turnover of $100 billion-plus (£51.3 billion) last year, he seemed to like journalists.

I caught up with him over lunch to pitch my questions to him – although he doesn’t claim to have all the answers. “When I set out on this journey in 1994 there was no rule book to follow – we had to discover what to do ourselves,” he said. For Anderson, the learning process is a fundamental part of ensuring the workforce becomes engaged. Ideas from the factory floor, he argued, were often more innovative and insightful than those coming from the top. However, that doesn’t mean he wants companies to make mistakes by starting from scratch (that’s why his company have teamed up with Ashridge Consultancy to help businesses on the road to sustainability).

But the suggestion that environmental good practice is a luxury businesses can only afford in times of prosperity is one he firmly disagrees with. “I’m a radical industrialist – I’m as profit minded as anybody. Is there a trade-off between productivity and the environment? No way – our products and profits are better than they’ve ever been.” With the ever-burgeoning price of oil, the fact that his business has reduced its use of fossil fuels by around 60 per cent and total energy consumption by 45 per cent, appeals to the bottom line more than anything else: “Wall Street loves it!” said Anderson. Wal-Mart offers a good example. Altruism need not have anything to do with it – saving the environment also saves money.

As for employee engagement, Anderson believes he has the most engaged workforce going. He gave instances of visiting companies who, on unattended strolls through his factories, had experienced such examples of engagement with values that they immediately changed their own policies. When his sector hit tough times post 9/11, it was the solidity of employee loyalty forged by the environmental mission and values that saw Interface succeed where other competitors collapsed.

Rather than identifying a pervading sense of pessimism for green issues in the current climate, he told me that when he graduated from one of America’s top technical colleges in 1956, he didn’t “remember the word ‘environment’ ever being mentioned throughout my studies”. Now, the word is everywhere and taught throughout business schools. And Anderson is spreading the word that business can do well by doing good.

Comments [0]

In my previous post I questioned whether employers would drop the green agenda as the credit crunch loomed large. Someone who may be able to offer some insight is the man that Time magazine named Hero of the Environment: Ray Anderson, founder of US flooring company Interface.

The more avid PM readers among you may remember the name, which we covered last year in the PM article Tread softly. Interface has been paving (or carpeting, as the case may be) the way in sustainable, environmentally friendly business practices long before it became fashionable. Anderson, who built his empire from a single factory in Georgia to a giant multinational company, has made it his mission to re-educate business (Ray Anderson on YouTube).

Now, with the US in the throes of an economic downturn, it will be interesting to find out how Anderson has sustained momentum. Have the nation’s more conservative business leaders gone back to ignoring environmental good practice in order to save a buck or two? And what lessons have he and the US learnt in the past year that could help UK businesses keep their green initiatives on course as we enter tougher times? I will try to find out when I meet him today at the launch of a partnership programme between his company and Ashridge Business School.

Comments [0]

In the world of politics, the “green” issue seems to be on (solid, not melting) ice at the moment. David Cameron, rather than ensuring he’s seen riding Huskies in the Arctic, or riding his bike through the back streets of Westminster, is rather attacking the government’s green taxes as “stealth taxes”, and demanding reduced rates in fuel tax. It seems that the government is set to do so. But where does this leave the green agenda in the business world?

PM and the CIPD’s HR Goes Green campaign found numerous examples of HR-led projects that not only engaged employees through green CSR initiatives, but also found ways to reduce costs in the process. But as with “stealth taxes”, green initiatives could similarly suffer from negativity as the credit crunch kicks in.

Is the green agenda taking a back seat to more pressing budgetary priorities? Or, conversely, can it be embraced as a cheap way to ensure engagement and morale in tough economic times? It will be interesting to see…

Comments [0]

The world of HR can be a fairly intimate one. People tend to know each other, at least by the six degrees of separation rule. Within specific sectors, HR directors may meet in forums, know what their peers are up to, and may manage a team comprised of some previous members of their competitors teams (it’s the same in HR journalism too, by the way).

At some of the larger HR conferences though, the sheer mass of people can make the profession seem somewhat anonymous, and the eye tends to desperately scan the room for a familiar face we can rush over to to reminisce about, well, about last year’s conference usually…

On a trip to Northern Ireland last week though, I was pleasantly struck by just how close the connections were. Whoever I met in the HR profession knew, often very closely, the next person I was going to meet, or knew their wife, or used to work for them some time ago: “Oh Ken, sure I know Ken, we worked together in…”. No matter what industry, public or private sector, even across business and politics, everyone had an anecdote about the other. And rather than seeming claustrophobic, it seemed an extremely useful and healthy atmosphere in which to do business.

A lot is made of connections and networks within large global organisations, and the value of one colleague knowing the person on the other end of the phone when they ring up with a problem or a query. On a different scale, I had the impression that the HR and business community in Northern Ireland worked in this way too, and are the better for it.

Comments [0]

As a man, it’s hard to comment on women’s issues. And as a twentysomething man, it’s even harder to comment on the work and family issues that face women in senior roles. But a few recent stories about women and work highlighted at conferences and in the news have struck me recently.

For example, the ongoing gender pay gap discussed at the Women in London’s Economy conference in February; the case of newsreader and expectant mother Natasha Kaplinsky; and a story about a 50-something professional women who dropped out of the rat race to become a receptionist.

While seated at the London Mayor’s conference "Women in London’s Economy" in February, the irony didn’t escape me that it was middle-aged, male Ken Livingstone on the podium bemoaning the lack of women in the capital’s senior jobs. But he delivered an important event that raised some depressing statistics (albeit to little media coverage), many of which have remained unchanged over the past few years. For example, the gender pay gap in London currently stands at 23 per cent.

Then, a few weeks later, came "The Kaplinsky Case". Here was a female newsreader who has become Britain’s best-paid TV news anchor after switching from the BBC to Channel 5. But just over a month into the job, she revealed that she was three months’ pregnant and all hell broke lose. The majority of voiced opinions were critical of Kaplinsky: "She acted unprofessionally"; "She should have told her new bosses." Most of the criticism, however, seemed to miss one point. If it were a Mr Kaplinsky in the same situation the story would not have even made the news. "Your wife is pregnant? Congratulations!" He would have continued to work, and as a highly paid TV star no doubt would have been expected to take minimal paternity leave.

It seems that while fatherhood is not viewed in the same light as motherhood, these issues will always remain. Were the hypothetical male newsreader allowed and, indeed, expected to take 12 months off after the birth of his child (not simply two weeks), then the playing field would be as level as the Wembley turf.

Lastly, while listening to the radio I heard mention of a Financial Times article, "Happiness is finding your inner receptionist" – a light-hearted piece about a 50-something woman, who was a business high-flyer but started to hanker for a different life. This turned out to be opting out of corporate competitiveness and applying for a job as a receptionist. She loved the relative lack of stress, hours and commitment compared with her previous job. But this was happening arguably at the same time her male contemporaries were breaking through to the boardroom.

So where does all this leave next year’s reports of gender pay gaps and numbers of female CEOs? In much the same state, I imagine.

Related articles:
London mayor pushes equality law debate

External links: (open in new window)
Happiness is finding your inner receptionist

Comments [0]