Having a “difficult” discussion with an employee can make some managers quite anxious.  These include performance reviews, meetings with sick employees, grievance, redundancy consultation meetings and disciplinary investigation interviews etc.  How and where you hold the meetings will play a big part in how well they go. 

It never ceases to amaze me that some managers think that it is OK to hold a private and potentially emotional discussion in a coffee shop or motorway service station where others can overhear the meeting.  Similarly holding them in an open-plan office or allowing yourself to be interrupted by visitors or telephone calls is not conducive to a productive meeting.  Remember, if you have to hold such a meeting, the outcome could have a significant impact on the life of the employee and so they are likely to be more anxious than you are.  It is therefore important to consider their needs for privacy and your focused attention. 

Put yourself in their position.  Would you like to discuss your personal illnesses or family situation with others listening in?  Would you have the courage to reveal all the difficulties facing you so that you could ask for support from your employer to deal with a crisis? Would you want to discuss your potential redundancy package with colleagues listening in?  Would you feel that your manager was paying you his full attention if he answered phone calls or kept an eye on his BlackBerry?  Probably not.  So stop and think about the arrangements you make to hold such meetings before you invite the employee to meet you. 

If you have an employee performance issue, seek advice before talking your employee; it could save you a lot of time and money.  Consult your HR Advisor, or contact Cherington HR via www.cheringtonhr.com

Many employers don’t realise that all employees working for them for longer than one month are entitled to a written statement of their employment terms within 2 months of starting work.  However, it is common sense and good practice to let your prospective employees know what they’re signing up to before they start working for you.  Failure to produce such a statement within the required timeframe can lead to an Employment Tribunal penalty of up to £800 (£860 from February) if your employee complains  So it is in an employer’s interest to put one in place and it can save a lot of misunderstanding later!

However, there is much more to an employment relationship than just the “Written Statement of Particulars” and wise employers realise that we all need to understand where the boundaries are, and that a clear ‘contract’ of behaviour is good for staff and organisations alike. The tricky bit is finding ways of creating pragmatic working arrangements that allow a business to function without unnecessary rules and procedures. Each business will have its own ideas as to what is necessary and what isn’t.  However, there are some issues that are really important to make sure that you have guidelines and rules in place to protect the company.  For example, how do your employees know what you believe is acceptable usage of your computer system, particularly with regards to personal use?  Do you have a social media policy so that they know that you may not be happy with them complaining about you or your customers on their own Facebook pages?  Do they know that you don’t want them to call their relatives in Australia on your company mobile phones?  Are they borrowing company vehicles without permission?  Do they know that you don’t consider flip flops and shorts to be appropriate clothing to wear at work?

I have come across numerous situations where employers aren’t happy with the actions of their employees – but they hadn’t set out their expectations or boundaries in advance.  As a result the employees were oblivious to the fact that their behaviour was not acceptable and the employers found it difficult to broach the subject without feeling awkward about it.  Similarly there are procedures that you are required to make available to your employees such as those relating to grievance and disciplinary issues, so it makes sense to capture those in a handbook along with guidance on important topics such as bullying and harassment; what constitutes a domestic emergency; and your stance on gifts in relation to the Bribery Act etc.  If you craft your handbook to reflect the culture of your organisation you can’t go far wrong – but not having one before incidents occur can make an employer’s life much more difficult!

Some of my friends and relatives have been looking for new jobs over the last few months and I have to say that the responses that they’ve had from employers and some of the agencies have been less than impressive!  If they’re lucky they get a response – but so many applications just seem to disappear into the “ether” without even any acknowledgement or any contact details so that they can be followed up.  I think that this is shoddy relationship management at best and rude at worst.  In one case we still haven’t heard three weeks after an interview – surely they must have made a decision by now.

I appreciate that some posts may attract lots of applications, but it doesn’t take much to send an email or postcard to all candidates saying whether they’ve got to the next stage or not.  Remember that employers are also in business - and failure to communicate could alienate such candidates who are also potential future customers.  With today’s ability to spread the news fast through social media channels, this unhelpful approach could impact negatively on the company involved – whether the failure is their fault or that of their recruitment agency.

I don’t wish to tar all agencies with the same brush – there are indeed some excellent ones, but sometimes they seem to struggle with indecisive clients who don’t know what they want or change the brief part-way through the assignment.  Whatever the problem, it is important to keep the candidates informed so that they can plan appropriately.

I’ve also seen some employers who are blinkered with regards to the possibility that someone may have transferable skills from another sector.  Such “in-breeding” means that they are limiting the pool from which they are selecting their next employees and ensuring that they miss out on the creative approaches that they could acquire from someone whose experience has been gained in other business sectors.  As an HR consultant, one of the strengths my clients welcome is that I am able to utilise experience gained from working with a multitude of clients to solve their problems with a variety of “cross-fertilised” solutions.  This is an asset not a hindrance and I think not to consider this aspect is to the detriment of the short-sighted employers who carry on doing what they’ve always done because they’ll get what they’ve always got!

So whether you are offering permanent roles, Saturday or temporary Christmas jobs, my message is that you should think twice about the public impression your company is creating if you don’t engage fully with the people who have expressed an interest in your organisation.

Oh – and if you need an excellent project/ programmes manager, get in touch as I know of one currently looking for a job!

See www.cheringtonhr.com/newsletters.php for more HR updates.

Are you confident that you know all you need to know about your employees and their backgrounds?  If not, are you prepared to take the risks?

The recent unfolding of scandal of the telephone hacking at the News of the World has hardly been out of the news recently.  It has had some high profile casualties and, I suspect, probably more revelations to come.  However, one of the most recent aspects is the degree of background checks that have (or have not) been undertaken on the individuals involved – whether they have been engaged as employees or consultants.

This is not unusual as I have seen clients who are having problems with the performance of an employee.  When I ask whether the issues were highlighted as potential problems during the employment process, I have often been greeted by the response, “Well he seemed like such a nice chap and we were in a bit of a hurry to fill the vacancy so I didn’t bother taking up references.”

 The odd “mistake” on a CV e.g. over the grade of Biology GCSE obtained or the dates of previous employment should be a warning signal that even if that these are not crucial for the post at hand, this could be symptomatic that the individual is lying about other aspects of their qualifications and experience.

Consider the levels of responsibility that go with the post.  If you are engaging someone to work on reception and this person has responsibility for the security of the building.  Are you sure that they are trustworthy when they’re locking up after everyone else has gone home?  Consider the amount of property and confidential information to which they would have access.  If you have an employee who deals with financial transactions for the company – are you confident that they can be trusted with the authority given to them for money transfers.  If you have an employee who gives advice to your clients, are you sure that they’re qualified to do so?  If not, does your indemnity insurance cover you for giving poor advice?

In my experience, the employees that I find causing such problems with regards to performance are often in business development and sales.  They are very good at an interview (after all they are supposed to be good at persuasion) but once appointed fail to deliver to the targets set and are very creative when it comes to the excuses!  Taking up of references from former employers should help you find out whether they actually have achieved the results they claim.  Using competency based interviews and psychometric testing would also help identify the personality traits that you need for the role.

The risks of getting it wrong can be huge in both financial and reputational terms. It also takes a lot more time and resources to resolve when it all goes wrong than it would have done to have done a bit of checking beforehand.  Simple things like asking to see the original qualification certificates, driving licence etc are not time consuming and some checking is required anyway as part of the “Right to work in the UK” process.  If the candidates come up with excuses (as is often the case for those about to be “found out”) then seek other routes – e.g. contacting the examination boards.  It is amazing how many people suddenly change their mind about applying for a post when they realise that their fraud is about to be uncovered.  It will save you a lot of trouble later on!

See www.cheringtonhr.com/newsletters.php for more HR updates.

A lot has been written recently about the comments made by backbench Conservative MP Philip Davies on the suggestion that disabled people could work for less than the minimum wage as it would help them get a job.

At £5.93 the current adult hourly minimum rate is not a large amount of money and to suggest that people with disabilities would be able to survive on less is somewhat challenging – particularly in the face of campaigns that suggest that the amount a worker needs to earn to provide their family with the essentials of life is higher than that.  The rate is set every year and is currently sitting at £7.20 per hour (£8.30 per hour for those living and working in London.)   Indeed living with a disability can be more costly depending on the restrictions the medical conditions impose, so it is very difficult to understand the sentiment that Philip Davies has expressed.

It is all very well to say that some people may not be able to do as much work – but what about the other inequality which is currently allowed by the Minimum Wage regulations?  The idea that someone who is 20 and doing the same job in the same way as someone who is 21 is being paid £1 less per hour doesn’t seem fair either.  This legal age discrimination gap equates to about £2k difference in wages over a year for someone working full time.  I can understand that if someone is genuinely not working to the same level because they have not finished their apprenticeship or qualifications, then a difference in pay rate may be justified.  Yet there are employers out there who use this legally allowed differential to exploit their workforce – so they would leap at the chance to do likewise with those who are disabled.

To follow the suggestion made by Philip Davies would take us back to Victorian times and the way Dickens’ character Ebenezer Scrooge treats the likes of Bob Cratchit and his crippled son Tiny Tim.  I am however, heartened by the number of people who have spoken out against the ideas that Davies put forward.  However, will they go as far as advocating raising the Minimum Wage to the Living Wage rate?

See www.cheringtonhr.com/newsletters.php for more HR updates.

I have clients in a very wide variety of sectors, with the common thread being that they all employ staff.  I find it fascinating to see how these differing backgrounds affect the way that they tackle people management issues.  Some work by issuing orders which they expect their employees to follow to the letter, and others like to consult more with their employees.

I understand that in some circumstances there are rules that have to be obeyed, for example to comply with health and safety legislation, but I always believe that if a problem is discussed with an individual or their representatives you are likely to get a better understanding of why the rules (or guidelines) are in place and that they are therefore more likely to follow them.  They might not agree with the decision that has been made, but at least they know the reasons why and may find it easier to comply as a result.  My observations suggest that genuine consultation also tends to produce solutions that the employees are likely to adhere to, because they will have been instrumental in developing the arrangements.  Ownership of what they consider to be a fair solution will make it more difficult for them to break the system that they had a hand in developing.

In my experience, if a new set of rules or arrangements are imposed that employees don’t like, they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to work out how to get round them, rather than less effort it would take to comply.  Isn’t it worth trying to tap into that effort and passion and redirecting it into taking your business forward?  For that reason I always try to encourage clients to ensure that employees understand the background to an issue rather than simply impose a new policy or procedure.  However, if they’re used to just being given instructions, they might be a little suspicious and first and it might take them a while to get used to the idea, but will give long-lasting benefits to the business.

If you want to introduce changes to your business and would like help with this see www.cheringtonhr.com

I have recently been asked to review, update or design new appraisal systems for clients.  However, one of the sticking points is often the name.  It appears that “Appraisal” has connotations of being a meeting where managers tell their subordinates about all the things they have done wrong in the past year and employee dread what they perceive to be a ritual “telling off.”

Others seem to get bogged down with the system and the forms.  But clearly this isn’t the right mindset as an appraisal discussion should be a two-way discussion about what has happened over the last reporting period.  It should be designed to be a process to give the employees feedback and help them raise their confidence to do an even better job.  It should help identify areas for development and career progression that will contribute to the success of the organisation.

Training both managers and their staff is quite important in generating a worthwhile discussion that is more than a box-ticking exercise.  Managers need to know how to encourage employees to be less defensive and to participate in the process.  Likewise, employees need to understand that this is a partnership; that to get the most out of the discussion they need to take an active part.

For a classic example of how not to carry out a performance review, see David Brent’s appraisal discussion with an accountant at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9LLZJFBWdc

Whether you call your appraisals, performance reviews, development planning meetings or 1:1 review discussions, they all need to take stock of what the employee has been doing so far and how to take that performance forward for the coming review period and to find out whether there are any longer term plans that need to be accommodated.  This is especially important now that employers can no longer expect their staff to retire at a set date.

The school holidays have now started and there are 4 bank holidays coming up in the next couple of weeks so I started thinking about annual leave and how we use it.  When you run your own business it is difficult to “switch off” and not think about work for a few days.  Indeed when I take the odd day off I find it difficult to stop looking at the BlackBerry or respond to messages that could wait until the next day – even though I can divert the phones.  It is only when I take a week or two off and arrange for cover that I start to relax (and even then it takes a few days for work to take a back seat!)

The blurring between home and work lives is one of the consequences of the technological age and I have found that it is important to try to separate the two or there is an increased likelihood that clients’ expectations of availability are raised inappropriately.

On occasions I have come across employees who are unable to stop work as they keep their work phones on even when away on holiday.  The whole point of a break is to allow employees to “recharge their batteries” both mentally and physically and return refreshed.  People often say, “A change is as good as a rest,” and I think that whether you use your annual leave for some DIY, gardening or other hobby or to go away, it is that change of activity that is important, to ensure that when you come back, you have regained your enthusiasm and the creativity needed to do your job.   You will be more effective as a result.  Remember that the Working Time Regulations are there for health and safety reasons!

I’m the sort of person who isn’t very good at relaxing; I always need to be doing something or I get bored or agitated – but to keep working at the same thing all the time without a break can mean that you are more likely to make mistakes.  Life does seem to be a lot faster these days but running a marathon at a sprint pace means you’re not likely to get to the end (or run a victory lap) in any fit state!

I’m looking forward to these bank holidays as I know that the vast majority of my clients are also off on those days and so work is unlikely to start piling up in my absence.  Make sure you make the most of them to recharge your batteries!

Over the last few weeks I have dealt with many situations regarding the performance of several employees in a variety of different companies.  Each case has had a slightly different complexion, but most of them revolved around the individual not knowing (or acknowledging) that their performance was not acceptable to their line manager or their colleagues.  In several of these cases the employees’ line managers have not given clear instructions or feedback to the employees and so the situations have got worse.  Some of the line managers have not felt comfortable communicating with their employees and just “crossed their fingers” and hoped that the situation would improve.  But without any intervention, that usually means that things get worse! 

Unfortunately when I’ve looked back at the employees’ records, I have often found that there had been problems during their probationary periods – some of which were extended, but eventually granted.  But the warning bells did not seem to alarm the managers at the time (or it was going to be someone else’s problem) and no action was taken to ensure that the employees knew what was acceptable.  Ignoring bad behaviour is taken as tacit approval; it makes it more difficult to correct later when you get the response, “Well you know I’ve done it before and you didn’t see anything wrong in it then.” 

My experience tells me that to ignore these warning signals at an early stage of employment usually leads to a great deal of management time and cost later on in terms of “performance management” and disciplinary processes.  http://bit.ly/ee2kxr.

There are always exceptions to this – for example when someone is seriously ill for a large part of their first few months with a new employer – but you can always extend the probationary period to make allowances for this, so that they get an opportunity to show what they can do.  However, when you have an employee who is frequently not at work when they should be (and you can prove it with fuel card receipts!) or an employee who is aggressive and rude to other members of staff, or who is not following reasonable instructions, you should not just ignore it.

Tackling the issues early on (particularly when dealing with an employee that you find overbearing or aggressive) can be quite stressful.  But if you make sure of your facts and tackle the issues objectively (rather than accuse the individual personally e.g. “the records show that you have not been working the hours we are paying you for,” as opposed to, “You’re lazy!”) you will find it not as difficult as you would if you left the issue to fester.  Just make sure you keep records of all the conversations and actions taken including review meetings, should you need to progress the matter further.

Many of the grievance and disciplinary investigations that I carry out involve allegations of bullying and not surprisingly the complaints are framed from an emotional perspective.  As a consequence it can be difficult to point out exactly what actions are being complained of.  These can range from being ignored: “My manager didn’t ask how my birthday went at the weekend” – at one extreme through the – “Let’s sort this out in the car park!” threat, to being followed after work and being subjected to physical violence.  Clearly it is easier to spot the physical attacks, although working out whether they are work related, or just a domestic dispute can sometimes be more difficult.

The most complex cases revolve around relationships between managers or supervisors and their subordinates.  I’ve seen many cases where employees are promoted for their technical skills, only to find that they have a team to manage – but have not been given any training on how to manage them.  They see the staff management aspect as a nuisance getting in the way of their “real job.”  There doesn’t seem to be any comprehension that managing their staff is part of their responsibilities, along with whatever financial and project management duties feature in their job descriptions.

Their first source of information on how to manage tends to reflect the way they’ve been managed by their line managers.  If they have been subjected to aggressive management by their superiors, they may simply think it is OK to apply this style to their own team irrespective of whether this is appropriate or not.  In this situation a culture of bullying will become endemic in a company.  Managers need to understand that there are many different styles of management that they can use depending on the motivation of their individual staff members and that the “carrot” works better on some people than the “stick.”  Training for all staff – managers and employees is required in these circumstances to educate them on appropriate management styles and acceptable behaviours.

Conversely there are some employees who use an allegation of bullying as an automatic response to a reasonable attempt by their manager to deal with poor performance.  This inevitably complicates matters as with a definition of bullying being, “offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means intended to humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient, “ it can be rather subjective.  The key here for managers is to make sure that any actions they take occur within the company’s disciplinary procedures; are based on factual, objective evidence; are witnessed; and records kept as evidence to avoid such actions being used against them.

Employers can be held responsible for the bullying that goes on in their organisations http://bit.ly/eJ3hgN so need to make sure that they take action before it costs them dearly - particularly if it transpires that in fact the complaint relates to harassment and discrimination on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics in the new Equality Act (race, gender, age etc.)