CIPD - Unplanned Day 3 – Cris Beswick and Perry Timms do more poking and prodding of thoughts, creating discussions and getting ideas flowing @CIPD11 – ACE Interactive

CIPD Reward Conference 2012 – A review by John Beadle

Reward blog — Mon, 21 May 2012 08:22:00 GMT

By John Beadle, former VP Reward CIPD and Global Practice Leader, Performance and Reward at Rio Tinto PLC.

Being one of the seasoned delegates at these conferences, having chaired, presented and participated in our national reward conferences over the last few years, it was interesting to compare and contrast this year’s event to some of its predecessors.

The first thing that struck me was the attendance – which felt well down on previous years, driven in part by the inevitable absence of many of our colleagues from the public sector, who were sorely missed. Also the lack of sponsorship for the networking evening event, which for me is an important aspect of these affairs.

A general gloom of austerity hug over most of the first day – starting with a fairly depressive outlook for the UK economy from John Philpott, the CIPD’s Chief Economic Advisor (once dubbed by the Sun as ‘the gloomiest man in Britain’), closely followed by debates on ‘Reward in a Time of Austerity’, well chaired by Andrew Clark from John Lewis and a discussion on how to reduce talent attrition when resources are limited.

Those who did not feel the urge after all that to throw themselves off the top of the building were rewarded by what was, for me, one of the highlights of the conference, the discussion on social media and reward led by Samantha Gee from Innecto and the indomitable Helen Murlis. Here was thought leadership, a great glimpse of the future and the prizes that await the earlier adopters – it can even save our organisations money in the long run. This is what our conference is all about.

The gloom lifted completely by day 2, which started with a highly sparky discussion on executive pay (when is it not?), where Caroline Normund from BIS bravely joined a panel that included a representative from the consultants world , the media and practitioners to discuss the impact of the impending legislation and directives from the UK government. As usual, our Past President Vicky Wright kept a talented panel under control and focused on the critical issues.

The other session which hit the mark was the break out session discussing the challenges of managing an aging workforce, and how we will need to adapt our reward, pension and other benefit policies, which was both thought provoking and indicated to me how we are still not anticipating and preparing for the new demographics which are emerging around us.

My overall assessment – the theme of the conference was of its time, there were some very topical and thought leadership topics – social media, executive pay, and aging workforce – that hit the mark. I’d love more reward professionals, especially senior reward people, to support the event, and leave the more bread and butter topics for other places. I was also disappointed that there were no performance management topic given our decision to link performance and reward as a profession.

This should be the place where once a year the best reward professionals in the country gather to debate and discuss the thought leadership and critical issues of the day.

Were you there? What could you do next time to contribute?

Apprentice 2012 - Episode Nine: Poor quality fizz and not enough sparkle knocks cheesy Jenna off the throne

John McGurk — Thu, 17 May 2012 12:12:51 GMT

This was a marketing and pitching task and the teams were tweaked to tackle the task of putting the fizz into English wine. The brief was market undersold English sparling wine against Champagne's monopoly in fizz.

Bieberboy Nick was recruited into Phoenix with Tom and Adam with only Jade getting in the way of full on Bro-management. Tom is of course a wine expert and Mick a webspert, so Wricky the Wrester pitched it as a David v Goliath saying almost my team is rubbish except me of course.

Tom sailed close to his arrogant strength as a smart *** but it was an unwitting masterstroke to have Adam accompany him on his viticulture odyssey. Adam is a pretension pricker rather than a pretentious ...***. When he tells people about wine as with art he doesn't make them feel small. "The vanilla of the oaked casks" was as far as he got.

Adam focused on it tasting of apples. No "I am getting dark tan shoe polish and raspberry ice cream". Message to TV hire Adam as a wine expert as most of them are tedious toffs. Speaking of which Nick who did show his strength and his mettle web designing. With his mop top and posh confident voice just listen he is the lost lovechild of a certain Mayor. Jenna's Lancashire twang is altogether different though almost compulsory these days on the BBC.

She went for the most crushingly pointless advert a Beckhamesque wedding theme complete with throne. The other team with Adam as clink choreographer went for a dull dinner party theme full of photo fit hoxtonistas. No creative energy or thought was expended on the ads. Wricky urged quality cubed but didn't actually get involved.

Stephen the oily *** came up with the French name Grandeur which was better than "cert" or "***". The latter certainly would not go down well in the world's biggest luxury market. Gabby did design a nice logo and the website was ok. Tom's team built a great website but which did not follow the brief. Tom went for a neat ESW logo though they might as well have called it Clint as it had no name.

Anyway the audience of wine expert's judged that Jenna's advert was as flat as leftover babycham. Stephen could equally have walked and Sugar called him out. He will lead and if he doesn't win he'll be fired. Overall my money is still on Tom though Gabby came up off the rails.

Performer
Gabby is creative standout; big agencies will be looking.

Plodder
All of them except Gabby

Please Stop!
Adams choreography but I see a brill programme pitch where Adams Dance Moves

Now is the spring of our discontent…or is it? by Leigh Harrison – a FTSE 100 group reward director

Reward blog — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:38:57 GMT

Bob Dylan famously sung: “the times they are a-changin”… and it certainly feels that we’re on the cusp of major change here in the UK when it comes to boardroom pay and corporate governance.

I don’t believe that shareholders have suddenly woken up to the perceived “excesses” of directors’ remuneration. Companies making poor remuneration decisions and breaching corporate governance codes without a sound, defensible reason have always been pilloried publicly. Then, as now, reputations were damaged and some individuals have not recovered their professional careers.

However, in my view, the operating context is quite different today than it was several years ago; drawing from the economic climate, heightened press interest in pay issues and an apparent political agenda. After all, most people couldn’t tell you what a CEO’s job entails, let alone whether he or she deserves to be paid £x million a year. This now means that the road to corporate governance heaven is littered with more rocks and potholes than ever before.

So how can you, as reward professionals, help support your businesses during these changing times? Here are some tips for those of you with Remuneration Committee accountability:

Always provide your Remuneration Committee with the contextual information that will help it make effective decisions. It should know how the proposals you’re tabling compare to other employees, key competitors and previous awards. Your benchmark data should be drawn from appropriate comparator groups – we know most things can be proven with figures!
Ensure the Remuneration Committee understands how the decisions it makes affect other parts of the remuneration package.
Always write Remuneration Committee or board papers in a clear, concise way. Don’t lose sight of the fact that Non-Executive Directors are not full-time employees and it’s your job to help them join the dots together. If your Committee members are well-informed, it helps them ask the right questions and make better decisions.
Be on the front foot when engaging your Remuneration Committee. This means you need to brief your Remco Chairman and other key decision-makers in advance of each meeting. I work to the rule of “no surprises”.
Track how your incentive plans are performing during the year and update your Remuneration Committee accordingly. If there appears to be a disconnect between projected payouts and business performance, you are likely to have the time to do something about it.
Trust your judgement and take confidential soundings from your external advisors if in doubt – one of your roles is to hold a mirror up to the executive. Does the proposal feel fair, appropriate and defendable? Learn from the mistakes made by other companies.
Engage key investors and corporate governance bodies at the first opportunity if you’re aware that something may be implemented that could create an issue; however, do this in a planned way with your Remuneration Committee’s agreement.
Ensure your Press Office is fully briefed in advance of any remuneration-related announcements, and provide them with model answers to questions likely to be posed by journalists.

Apprentice 2012 - Episode Eight: Pure Evil, Pure Ego and Laura Sells herself Short

John McGurk — Thu, 10 May 2012 13:26:35 GMT

This was the usual "out of the comfort zone" task involving art and artiness. Lord Sugar likes this one because he can see who sells whilst having a laugh at the ponciness of it all. Anyway Sterling under Adam went off to London and Bristol and searched for edgy daubs. Along the way Adam did his best to be arty by reflecting on what he saw.

Sugar loves sellers. Perhaps if Adam could be put in a time machine, lots of penniless artists would have been living it up rather than starving in garrets. Adam simply connected well with people who looked like they wanted to buy. Laura came up and put them off and Tom though probably able to engage them in a discussion about the artist was too smart-arsed even for the YBA's. (Young British Artists)

Tom blew it when he wound up the artist known as "Pure Evil" with some Pure Ego. When Tom went to see Renault though Adam wasn't there to say "you need that 'Je ne sai qois' " and at least they got a price which shows Tom's calculating efficiency. Unfortunately though Gabrielle's team connected with the gin giants Beefeater who also needed some edgy decor, she failed to elicit a price.

Tom was floundering when his preferred artist gave him the Evil's and showed an incredible lack of self awareness and I thought coldness to others I haven't previously seen in him. Tom's strategy after rejection by Pure Evil was to flounder and fume for a while and then to "throw the dice". The dice said "let's go for a massive James Jessup in lurid colours and flog it for five or ten grand".

Now if your chimney breast is the size of the ones at Battersea power station you could accommodate a Jessup but generally most people thought it was too big...

Like most of the stuff they picked up (aside from the Warhol-esque Pure Evil), most of the art looked, well artless. I have seen better being printed on t shirts in Croydon High Street but I know what I like. Anyway the reckoning came and Tom artfully dodged the bullet but he has blotted his copybook so to speak.

Jade just blustered and I think if she loses again she'll get the taxi. The loser was Laura as I think Sugar felt that flogging wedding dresses was a bit like flogging art which in many respects it is.

Anyway Laura whose proven sales record deserted her went off to make more women's big day and in a way that's a comforting thought.

Maybe if Tom had been fired he would have become a YBA himself and that's a scary thought he definitely does have the sneer for it.

Performers
Adam who was brilliantly clueless but effective where it mattered. Gabrielle who oozed customer engagement and helped to land the big deals. Maybe a future as an art agent for this creative architect who though yet to really impress, is the female front runner.

Plodders
Stephen just came up with the most ludicrous idea to mimic the Banksy vibe. Something likes ''let's hide the artist out the back". No! Let's not.

Please Stop
Nick who did little except speak in an estuary posh voice which I suppose is an essential skill in an art gallery setting.

A Separate Yorkshire? By Glen Jenkins, CIPD Reward Examiner

Reward blog — Wed, 09 May 2012 13:58:00 GMT

Even though Gordon Brown raised the issue of regional pay settlements in the public sector in 2003 to improve labour market flexibility, very little was done about it during his administration. The coalition government has, in principle at least, maintained this policy and seeks to regionalise pay in the public sector following the example of the private sector. This best practice approach seems reasonable given that it is much cheaper to live for example outside London rather than within and many agree that pay should be linked to the cost of living like London’s living wage. For example, the evidence suggests that public sector workers in Greater London should be paid 24 percent more than similar workers in Yorkshire and that if we were to move as many government jobs as possible to Yorkshire (and even better South Yorkshire) the government would save a fortune. The problem with this line of argument is that (1) it assumes people with the necessary skills and expertise would move from London to Yorkshire; (2) that they would take a fall in their standard of living in doing so and (3) that they would feel happy about it.

Another problem is that if you look at it from the point of view of jobs rather than regions, even in the private sector, whatever the region, pay is roughly the same for people of similar levels of experience and skill. Indeed, this is nothing to do with decisions in Whitehall and more a response to market equity in the various job markets. Differences in pay are far greater between industrial sectors than regions but we are not suggesting that pay in some sectors e.g. banking, should be brought down to the level of pay say in the retail sector. Other problems are that we are assuming that the private sector is itself highly competitive; that it is totally separate from the public sector; and to match public sector pay with the private sector could just as easily be resolved by increasing pay in Greater London rather than reducing it elsewhere.

This is also a policy that has the wrong focus. It is arguably not a weakness of the public sector pay policy but a weakness of successive governments’ regional development policies. Everyone realises that the UK economy is seriously unbalanced, with London and the south-east outstripping other regions. In short, the south east of England is overheated and a major symptom of this is the housing market which incidentally is one of the key influences on pay expectations particularly in London. Also, this weakness in regional policy has already created the North/South divide where health and life chances, let alone living standards, differ markedly.

Indeed, some have argued before me that although regional pay sounds good from an economic point of view from a political perspective it is probably political suicide for any government to introduce such policy in the present austerity climate. It is not only the response to austerity in the local government elections that is a worry but the North/South divide has already created a political vision of a separate Scotland. Would moving to a regional pay policy increase demands for a separate Yorkshire too?

Apprentice 2012 - Episode Seven: The only way is assets and you can't fake strategy

John McGurk — Thu, 03 May 2012 10:23:13 GMT

This week it was about buying wholesale and flogging at margin though this time the measure was total assets.

Jade stepped up to lead team Phoenix and very quickly showed that she was a total ass. She kicked and brayed in that Claire Short voice and chose a strategy which amounted to "buy random stuff and get Adam to flog it".

Team Sterling led by Bieber clone Nick were much sharper. Under the expert advice of beauty entrepreneur Jenna they bought loads of fake tan. The thing is they were selling in Essex and that's a product which as patrician fake tan non consumer Nick Hewer realised "sells rather well in Essex". It sells well in Croydon, Glasgow and I am sure Carrick Fergus, and as the owner of a painful and patchy real tan I can understand why. Maybe I wouldn't have a nose like Fergie if I didn't use real sun.

Anyway "smell what sells" was the watchword but Jade turned her nose up at the tan product which sold as she coats herself in real fake gold. Anyway, the other team flogged it merrily for a tenner. Stephen and Wricky were put in charge of buying and led the charge to soak up the remaining fake tan. Wricky wears fake tan and Stephen likes to fake captivating sales oratory. Trying to flog a mop he began, "Sometimes in your life you need to take a decision". Really?

Taking a decision is not something Jade likes to do but if she is to be challenged she needs more than Azar's edgy "where's your strategy?" approach. Anyway she didn't listen and should have gone when she failed to buy more toy cockroaches opting instead for hot water bottles and beard trimmers. An attempt to re-profile this product for the Essex beauty market came to naught.

Anyway the producers kept Jade and fired Azar. Now if Azar had put any of his well founded doubts into a solution instead of bleating about the S word he might have survived. As it was hopeless Jade stayed to mess up another day.

Performers:
Adam selling and showing off to a female. He could sell Roy Hodgson's literature collection to Harry Redknapp.

Plodders:
Laura who just stood in that glaikit way of fake posh cosmetic assistants in department stores.

Please stop:
Nick slouching around aimlessly waiting for teen girls to mob him and old biddies to ruffle his barnet. (Not Hewer!)

Apprentice 2012 - Episode Six: Tartan up the favourites to win hearts and minds

John McGurk — Thu, 03 May 2012 10:20:00 GMT

This was an innovation challenge. Make a new sort of mobile fast food and flog it at a profit. A lot can be done with fast food. It could for example, be fast and as a football fan I'd like to see it priced so that buying burgers doesn't tally with the cost my season ticket.

Anyway Adam's team innovated on meatballs going for the quality offal angle. The quality truly was awful. Adam who knows a marrow margin when he sees one bought cheap pork combined it with cheap pasta and sold it to Rangers fans as they walked to Tynecastle. Haven't they suffered enough? I asked losing the league to Celtic by a country mile, a points deduction and banned from Europe. Now they faced the replacement of their pre match pie by a rank ragu.

Katy was chief architect of this strategy coldly calculating that drunken Scottish plebs would buy anything in Styrofoam. Scotland is pretty rankled at the moment; an alarmist Economist edition for example almost implied that we'd be only be left with enough oil to grease our chips and be left fighting each other for scraps of kelp if the nation voted for independence. Not that I am advocating that but I'm sorry, the same metro smugness was in evidence here.

The other team actually had a Scot Laura and went down the quality route. They went for a scotpot with haggis and neeps which will sell all day at Grass market, a tourist spot so infamous that they almost lay Scottish Cheddar in traps to lure coach parties. Just incase the Scottish theme was lost on the tourists they dressed up in tartan and recreated the tartan revue shows of the 70's (I just about remember). Two of the girls reminded me of Fran and Anna, a hogmanay staple.

Adams approach was to hog the money as the gloop cost 47p to make and retailed I think at under six quid As Lord sugar quipped "They don't pay that for a striker up there!".

The good food won and Katy went. My view is that she was hoisted by her own football scarf and she brought Fulham fans into disrepute as rich metro west-enders who pay through the nose for fan food. As if! She really lost against Adam because Sugar loves a trader and Katy who in truth was a bit smug has one of those jobs product development/research which he doesn't quite get. Bye Kate and if I see you at the cottage I might sputter out some footie food economics in between mouthfuls of Adamburger.

Performers:
Tom cool decision maker who knows how to bring people in and when to subtly shut the up. May need to up volume a wee bit though.

Plodders:
Nick: I know his hair could be spotted over the lifting mists of Arthur's seat but where was his contribution.

Please stop:
Stephen who wanted to ramp the price of the rank ragu up to eight quid. Respect to you oh Mr PPP

Roy Hodgson: Character Trumps Charisma

John McGurk — Wed, 02 May 2012 09:59:00 GMT

England fans might not be over the moon but at the end of the day character trumps charisma.

I am often asked to talk about leadership. As an avid fan of football I sometimes use examples from the great game but in business the increasing tension is between quiet leaders and charismatic ones.

The appointment of Roy Hodgson as England manager illustrates this well.

Harry Redknapp was the fans and pundits choice and the appointment of Hodgson has been greeted with derision by some and cynical sang froid by others. I believe that even the underperforming players who observed twitter silence at the news in contrast with their post Capello tweetstorm in favour of affable 'arry will change their minds.

As a Fulham season ticket holder, an investor if you like, I followed Roy to the Europa final where we overachieved and then some. Roy managed the team with character. He was avuncular rather than affable, methodical rather than mercurial. He managed expectations but he also set them high.

Quiet leaders like AG laffley of Proctor and Gamble and Sir Terry Leahy former Tesco CEO energise the effort of others, transmit confidence and calm and keep people focused on the big picture. Hodgson did that at Fulham and West Brom. He cultivated talent and coached players whose confidence he restored.

I well remember being at Eastland's when we came back from the dead to survive relegation. He did the same at West Brom. At Liverpool he failed because he wasn't Dagleish and the expectations of Liverpool fans have always been sky high.

Hodgson will bring intellect humility and quiet confidence to the role. Many will miss the colourful energy of Redknapp and will talk about 'Dull old Roy'. But he will certainly challenge players to lift their game he will be impatient with complacency from all quarters and he will align the set up to ensure delivery.

At the end of the day if England want to seriously progress in world football and they need this quiet calculating leader.

Chimpanzees and TUPE

Carolyn (Cas) Carrington Chartered FCIPD — Tue, 01 May 2012 13:13:12 GMT

A few days ago I was sitting transfixed watching a group of chimpanzees swinging through the trees without a care in the world and playing monkey-tag! And before you start wondering if I have abandoned the CIPD Law on Tour, I am still on the three (and a bit) week tour, but we were in Edinburgh last week and the conference room looked out onto the Zoo!

Happily the delegates were far too interested in John Fenton's session on TUPE to notice. Yes any of you doubters out there - TUPE doesn't have to be boring and can be interesting and entertaining, especially with the Government's Call for Evidence signalling a real possibility of significant and timely reform! If the feedback from the delegates about the difficulties with the 2006 Regulations is anything to go by, the results of the Call for Evidence will be a resounding call for change.

Well, the first two weeks of the touring workshops are over (Leeds, Nottingham, Stansted, London, Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, breathe) and I have to report that not only has there been huge interest in the tour but the delegates are all thoroughly enjoying the workshops.

When we're away on tour I'm always looking out for breaking news on any outstanding issues and as Mr Justice Underhill's fundamental review of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure was due to be published around the end of April I was hoping it would be released today, to give me time to read through and include it in the workshops this week. Alas, as I'm writing this at 19.00 on Monday the 30^th April, that's clearly not to be but it might be released this week in time for me to scan and scrabble something together, for this week's delegates. As the fundamental review is addressing, among other things, the ability to strike out claims with no reasonable prospect of success at an earlier stage than at present, and the possibility of making the submission of a 'statement of loss' compulsory when lodging a claim, this is something that readers will want to look out for.

One of the not so surprising aspects of the first two weeks of the tour was the number of delegates who expressed concern about whistle blowing claims based on breaches of the employee's own contract. Readers will know that this is the loophole that the Government has made very loud noises about wanting to plug. The law has for many years now been interpreted by the tribunals and courts to allow these type of claims and as such does not reflect the spirit of the Public Interest Disclosure Act's intention to protect workers who blow the whistle on their employer's wrongdoing in the public interest (not the employee's private interest). We haven't any further information at present about the Government's intentions but readers should keep their eyes peeled for any news.

Marco Marenda was co-tutoring with me on the first week, and is back with me this week. We're starting in Wales tomorrow, then Oxford, London and Southampton on Friday. With the additional London date on the 14^th May.

Well it's Tuesday tomorrow, so it must be Cardiff...

Why Have You Recruited This Deranged Fop?

Bingleby — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:14:00 GMT

‘What the hell have you done?’

Comms Director Gabriel Silk lounged languidly in the chair before Sally Gulliver’s desk. He shook his head in wry disbelief.

‘What d’you mean?’

‘Why Have You Recruited This Deranged Fop for our CEO? The guy’s a couple of press releases short of a full Comms strategy.’

Sally frowned, although whether at the vivacity of the metaphor or the implied accusation is not recorded.

‘Yesterday,’ Gabriel; Silk continued, in tones between offended incredulity and amusement, ‘Our new CEO, whom you have recruited, burst into my office like a tornado in corduroys, and without so much as a ‘Good morning Gabriel, how’s that frothy latte going down today,’ he demanded to know what my strategy was for communicating dessert innovations to mothers of children under five?! And do you know what,’ Here Gabriel Silk paused, as if savouring a new form of semolina, ‘Do you know what, he wasn’t wearing any socks!’

Sally Gulliver sighed. In my more psychological moments I have considered whether Gabriel Silk’s flamboyance is merely a perverse expression of his innate conservatism, but then again I am merely a plant, and would never pretend to understand humans.

‘Mark Temple is going to turn this Company round. You watch. Socks or no socks.’

‘The guy’s as mad as a pocket of frogs!’

‘It’s true he has his own distinctive style,’ returned Sally carefully, ‘but I bet you in twelve months’ time he’ll have upped profits by 10%.’

‘Bet me what?’

‘If I’m wrong, I’ll write up the Exec Team minutes for a whole year.’

Gabriel Silk’s jaw dropped like a poorly-judged hint. ‘Really?’

‘Really.’

‘Crumbs. In that case, you’re on…’

In two weeks’ time: Who Are Our Customers, Anyway?

@BinglebyinHR

Bingleby was confiding in Richard Goff

Paying for performance - defining your terms and managing unintended consequences. By Katharine Turner, CIPD VP Reward

Reward blog — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:36:53 GMT

The Prime Minister has discovered performance management.

According to Christopher Hope at the Daily Telegraph, the Cabinet Office is developing an ‘app’ for the PM which will allow him to evaluate and rate the performance of his ministers.

Meanwhile Tim Harford has just tweeted a Harvard Business Review blog by Daniel Markovitz on the folly of stretch goals.

Stretch goals, he says, sap intrinsic motivation and financial incentives crowd out intrinsic motivators such as learning and development. He cites the 1990s story of the Sears sales quota for the auto repairs team. The quota encouraged employees to overcharge for work and perform unnecessary repairs.

In short, stretch goals can encourage unethical behaviour and excessive risk taking and we would do better to focus not so much on the outcomes, but rather on improving the process by which those outcomes are achieved.

The search for how best to measure performance and then how to link that performance to pay lies at the heart of the great debate on executive pay at the moment.

The presumption tends to be that linking pay to performance is, as Sellars and Yateman, authors of ‘1066 and All That’ would have put it, a ‘good thing’.

Many argue that performance-related pay is better than the alternative which might be paying for service or ‘just showing up’. (Perhaps that is what salary is for.)

The idea that performance-related pay is always a bad thing is as wrong-headed as the view that it is always a good thing. Like many other matters in life and in business, there are trade-offs to be made. The desire for a simple approach to pay is at odds with true pay for performance.

The emergence of performance-related pay for senior executives in the UK started thirty years ago. Annual bonuses and (then) tax-effective share-based pay burgeoned in the 1980s and the precept that incentives encourage better performance has played a key role in pushing up levels of pay. Just as the risks have increased so has pay potential. Part of the objective was to create incentives to managers to behave like entrepreneurs.

The economic crisis and the end of a long run of bull markets has now called into question the efficacy of paying for performance and of highly-leveraged pay for meeting tough goals. Shareholders said they wanted earnings growth from the banks. They got it throughout the noughties - until 2008 that is. Others say: we wanted share prices to go up and over ten years they have stagnated.

There are few absolute truths in the world. It may be wise to steer clear of being too ‘absolutist’ and the view that certain things are always right (what some might call ‘best practice’) and that others are always wrong.

The PM will need to decide on his evaluation criteria for his ministers and on what he means by ‘performance’. In an ‘omni-shambolic’ world, survival may be as good as it gets.

HRD 2012 - Learn and Bring it Back

HRD 2012 — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:48:00 GMT

I love the song “Bring it back” by Moloko. It’s a very simple line and its memorable because you don’t hear that phrase very often in song.

#HRD12 is looming and it’s an opportunity for L&TD professionals to “bring it back”. We will release our L&TD Survey 2012 in conjunction with our partner Cornerstone on Demand. From that we have identified several issues about the way in which L&TD people diagnose learning needs.

We think we use too many old methods and I’ll be talking about that at the HRD Interactive Zone at 16.15. Join me!

On that theme, neuroscientist Dr Itiel Dror is delivering a session at the conference on how we can use insight from brain science to power up the old learning organ. Organisations are of course just as important as individuals at HRD and we have a whole range of OD type activities.

Nigel Jeremy form M&S and Bernadette Bruton of Virgin Money (formerly Northern Rock) will be talking about how you make OD happen in action. E-learning is increasingly critical. I’ll be banging on about it at 15.30 on day one and I will also have the pleasure of chairing a session with Bernie Green of KFC/Yum and Craig McCoy of BUPA developing online learning tools.

There is loads more on everything a learning focused L&TD practitioner needs. And of course there is a whole lot more I will be featuring in this blog over the next week.

That’s the value of HRD 'bringing learning back' to to our organisations with two focused days of development. Go on, bring it back!

To find out more, attend my sessions on the HRD exhibition floor at 15:30 and 16:15 (Olympia, 25-26 April 2012).

To attend the HRD conference, go to cipd.co.uk/hrd to see the full agenda and purchase tickets.

By John McGurk

Apprentice 2012 - Episode Five: Phoenix’s retro-cheek leads to Duane being fitted up

John McGurk — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:03:00 GMT

Innovation requires a little bit of time so that you can incubate ideas and get insights. It means sometimes trying to think outside the boundaries but both teams really were so inside the box on this task that they could have been cuboid.

Phoenix was under the management of the ingratiating Stephen, who actually markets health clubs, so it was only right he took this up. Anyway the bottom line is that both ideas were skimpier than a 'size 0' model's leotard, and the only burn they felt were the stares of bemused buyers. Anyway, there was the usual falling out and bickering and Laura, who should in my view have gone last week, fronted up the wooden video which made celebrities' fitness vids look as though they directed by Martin Scorsese. In the end Phoenix though did have a sense of fun and they messed around to 70's torch songs in too short-shorts (well the men did). Adam the greengrocer became Adam the choreographer.

Wricky the Wrestler used his considerable Kinetic (fitness) intelligence to suggest combining street dance and martial arts. I thought that had been done and it was called Kim Jong Il’s funeral march.

Phoenix won because they were spared the spacehopper dilemma which sounds like a new problem in particle physics, but is actually a maths and fibs problem. Stephen made up the price £2.00 for spacehoppers (they cost a tenner plus) and £1.00 for hula hoops (Ok the crisps will cost you that but it’s a fiver for two cheap ones) and 50p for skipping ropes. (£5). So despite integrating all this extra equipment, the super salesman and health club professional made the prices up. That’s really amateurish and he should have been fired instead.

Admittedly Tom did question this but he wasn’t very assertive. Laura and Duane bickered like kids over a hula hoop and Nicholas tried to stir it up subtly, succeeding in keeping him and his hair out of the boardroom. This lead to the great innovation effect of serendipity when one of the buyers said "this won’t work for adults but it will work for kids”. So they placed an order for just shy of thirteen grand. Anyway Duane was verbally arm locked in Wricky’s blame hold but the gloss has come off the wrestler. Meanwhile my fellow Scott Lamentable Laura kept herself in” the process” by raising her voice a pitch and saying "I am an entrepreneur and you have not seen the best of me”.

Duane to be honest, trained all his fire on Wricky rather gallantly leaving Laura out of his sights. The endgame was Duane who had to submit to the firing finger and made the most gracious and confident exit ever. The best hope for sanity is that Tom gets a tad more assertive and goes head to head with Wricky.

Performer:
Ashaq was pure gold with his miserable fun retro chic look.

Plodders:
Jenna escaped the blade because she did next to nothing as did Nick, Jane and Katy.

Please stop:
Adam’s rubbish choreography: (ogling fit women whilst windmilling his arms) Louis Spence must have taken a contract out on him by now.

Apprentice 2012 - Episode Four: Left Holding the Junk and coming up against a Brick Lane led to Jane’s Downfall

John McGurk — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:49:00 GMT

This was a buy and sell task where the teams were asked to buy and sell junk. Tom's approach was to buy selectively and present minimally. He took a tight rein on the cash and resisted Adam the greengrocers attempted strategy coup to pile it high and sell it cheap. Laura’s team went for an upcycling approach. That means they bought volume tat and tarted it up with designs and fabrics. Eventually the hipsters of Hoxton went for the more polished vintage items of team Phoenix.

One issue was that Gabrielle went postal on the material front and seemed obsessed with covering chairs in union jacks. So not 2012! Anyway Tom's minimalist cool triumphed over the cluttered chaos of Laura’s team. You could see the late thirty something blokes in their sculpted goatees and over-zipped cargo pants discounting the crass rubbish which sterling threw together, and drooling at Phoenix’s offerings. That genius satire of emerging East End hipness and hollowness Nathan Barley would surely have featured the daft chair legged retro suitcases as indeed would Harry Enfield’s "Saw you coming" shop.

Anyway what I didn't see coming was Jane’s removal from what has come to known in Kafkaesque fashion as "the process" I have spotted Jane’s potential and her Achilles heel of being a bit too sure of herself. But Sugar effectively removed her from “the process” on the basis she didn't sell enough and she’d been in the boardroom most weeks. Last week he sacked an entrepreneurial kitchen installer who was out of his depth. Jane a confident assertive established businesswoman was despatched in my view because Sugar can't really handle people without entrepreneurial rough edges. Accusing her of not selling was a bit unfair when she was out drumming up business outside among the Hoxton hordes.

Bridal entrepreneur (wedding shop owner), Laura was abysmal in her management of the task but maybe a weakness for young gauche people spared her the axe. Anyway my bet for Sugars cash injection is Tom he excelled himself both in strategy selection, team management and in dealing with difficult cussed Adam. Not once did he shout or even raise his voice. This young quiet leader is a good example to others inside and outside “the process”.

My second favourite is Duane who seems full of ideas and sticks his head up above the parapet. That said he has his weaknesses too.

I am sold.

Performers

Tom cool as poker player with a nicely chilled Montrachet 56 at the table as he bet on less is more.

Plodders

Gabrielle with her attempt to be the new Linda Barker. It’s a business partner not a designer he wants and who remembers her anyway?

Please Stop!

Jenna’s high drone factor blame-shifting voice when called to account.

Being values driven is being commercial. By Tony Hatton-Gore, Reward and HR Consulting

Reward blog — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:07:33 GMT

One of the themes of a recent discussion about recognition was that it is the message and how it is delivered that makes the difference, not necessarily the value of any associated reward. (This was at an event for reward directors, hosted by Frazer Jones, with speakers Michael Rose and Jane Gibbon.)

I think we need to take care in considering what we want to encourage, not only in recognition schemes but also in broader reward communication. This puts the spotlight on defining organisational values and the capacity of companies to communicate them to employees; to encourage and recognise the recognition of behaviours aligned with the values. There is a lot of evidence that people want to be associated with something bigger than themselves, to make a difference and to be treated with fairness and integrity.

Being values driven is about being commercial, not about being fluffy. The values support the business strategy, the related behaviours deliver the objectives, and achievement of business goals generates success. Investment in defining and communicating values and facilitating recognition by managers and others can deliver returns to the business.

Engagement is also commercial. If you focus on what you stand for and actively promote affiliation with your values then you potentially build commitment to the future of the business at relatively low cost and deliver return on the investment in reward.

Organisation values can be a market differentiator provided we make them clear (e.g. defining the business oriented behaviours associated with the sometimes abstract language of corporate mission statements) and live by them (e.g. by recognising the people who display them).

Attraction and retention are not just about the money; even more so when budgets are tight and pay rises are small.

Apprentice 2012 - Episode Three: Don’t make a pickle of production and have the sauce to sell

John McGurk — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:53:58 GMT

Anyone who remembers the brilliant film The Graduate will recall that the advice given to young buck Dustin Hoffman by the older men is to “get into plastics”. Lord Sugar told this lot to "corner condiments".

He explained that that this was a £13 million per day market and that there is serious brass in the old branston. Anyway the teams. Katy shifted into the boys camp, Phoenix and Duane and Nick moved into team Sterling with the remaining girls. The first thing to say is that designing, producing, packaging and pitching new pickle in a crowded market is a big challenge. The skills are considerable and at last the show give some idea of what’s needed and these products don’t just pour themselves out of a big computer. Let’s put aside the fact that they got foreign words wrong and put some dull pictures on their product but this was really about the ability to make a product to the spec needed, and get it to market. The first issue is that the Phoenix under Katie’s management chose good old table ketchup but made it slightly hotter with a more Italian feel. Phoenix decided to go more exotic within a pineapple and chilli relish. Jane was on the Phoenix team and sat trucullently tough most of the task because she really wanted to be PM. Duane got the vote I think because people felt that Jane didn’t cover herself in glory with the previous week’s task.

Anyway Phoenix got their product to market although originally their test batch which they just in time decided to taste, was hot and stickly enough to be paint the space shuttle. Another production pinch point was the wasting of an entire batch. The fact that Ricky the Shark used to be a biochemist before going of to be an apex predator in recruitment means that he knows about acidity and Ph so he was able to get the stuff to taste Ok. The problem is that lowered output from waste means increased unit costs. Here I think Katy made a good decision. It’s easier to fleece ambling shoppers for the full whack than cemetery faced professional trade buyers, and that’s more or less what they did. I must confess that condiment buying wouldn’t be top of my list at Westfield but then I would probably have guessed they were off the show and cut them some slack.

Cutting slack isn’t Jane’s style. Despite the fact that Duane lead the team well and got their pineapple piccalilli to market in sufficient quantities to win by a country mile. Jane’s support was grudging. Here’s a tip, Jane grace under pressure. If you can’t show grace in victory as you clearly didn’t expect others to notice and gang up on you. I think Jane needs to lift her game in terms of her style and approach or she could get a knife in the back.

Katy was queen bee waiting for the slavering drones to come back to the hive and please her. She didn’t really offer much direction and when the chutney hit the fan she was fairly clueless. She sent hapless sweaty Michael to bag the sales trades. Michael was dead in the water ever since Sugar saw him sweat at the start. Yet, he let himself down despite running what I have checked is a fairly successful business. His negotiation techniques were so weak and obstinate at the same time I even wanted Ashaq “the puppeteer” to take over. Unfortunately he didn’t because he’s all gouth. He had no real help from his friends and Katy played Blonde Assassin back at HQ. Anyway Michael Copp “Copped” it and he probably was out of his depth with so many sharks, blonde assassins and whales around. Like the sauce it’s hotting up. Front runners Rick and Jane.

Performers

Duane looks hardworking and full of ideas if a little bit self obsessed.

Plodders

Where was Gabrielle? Despite wanting to be PM she went AWOL behind a hairnet.

Please stop

The rubbish Dolmio puppet Italian accents and honestly Stephen bellissimo is more “beautiful” with correct spelling.

Apprentice 2012 - Episode Two: Bin here Before, Bromanagement breakdown and Dumped by the Numbers

John McGurk — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:42:00 GMT

This was about innovation and design. The boys re-imagined the coffee percolator as an eco food compactor. That's what innovation experts call the “adjacent possible”. Ashaq leading the boys' team however was impossible. He ignored the simple but probably 'pound-shop friendly' scourer glove designed by Adam the Greengrocer and made a ridiculous choice on pitching personnel. Not the inventor Duane, who can put himself across, but unconvincing sales head Stephen - who acts like a timeshare tout who’s been to charm school. Here we started to see some toxic teamwork and the first fractures in the “bromanagement” approach I identified in series 6. That is put men in a team and they get all high fives while they are winning, but as soon as it looks like they are losing the bravado turns into a blame game. Ricky was assertive, Adam was good but to the point of sounding like a broken record as his scourer glove was dumped for the bin. Duane really shone when Stephen the salesman and Ashaq allowed him to.

The girls, well they got fixated on a splash mat for the bath as Laura and Jane got all cooey. Someone should have stepped on that - probably Katy - and she tried to, but she did not push. The market research showed that the tap cosy/pillow was a winner. The focus groups hated the “splish spash”. Unfortunately Katy though bright is fairly diffident. She lets things wash over her and Jane even when unconvinced, steamrollers through her point of view even if it is in a quietly assertive Irish lilt. Her view of a focus group is to listen to it and then focus on exactly what she wants.

Perhaps the biggest howler of the series ever (excepting the tomato costing debacle in series 2) was the mistake on margin. If a retailer could make 2.5 times the cost of producing anything you'd probably be looking at a rival to the iPad not a piece of perspex with some rubber ducks on it. The excruciating failure to calculate this correctly was their downfall. It made them look amatureurish and bumbling. The boys won (team Phoenix) with their re-invention of their "bin here before" concept. The girls (Sterling) lost it. Well and truly.

Jane should have taken some of the rap, though was too strong a candidate to fire. Jenna was as comfortable with numbers as Kenny Dalglish delivering the keynote at a Diversity Conference. She took on the task anyway and probably deserved some credit for stepping up. Katy escaped on the basis that Jane's taking her in to the boardroom would have looked political and vindictive so Maria, loud but lightweight and literally falling asleep, was put out of her misery.

Who's in front? For me Jane showed a lot of drive and I think she'll shine when tested but attitude is her problem. Ricky seems ebullient, clever and confident and the type Sugar likes but might wilt under fire. Katy seems like a strong candidate too. Nick the Bieberclone is also unlikely to be a flop and Duane if he irons out his flaws could be a contender. I will narrow it down to two by week 4. Who’s your bet?

Performers

Jane’s steely determination - plough on regardless girl!

Ricky wresting the limelight away

Plodders

Jenna with numbers but also everyone else who failed to challenge her!

Please stop

Stephen saying "that's a great question" in response to any bleeding question whatsoever!

Apprentice 2012 - Episode One: Blank Goods. Blank Looks and Billyana pays the Price

John McGurk — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:36:00 GMT

I was working in the UAE and floored with a virus for episode 1 and thanks to the underappreciated wonder of catch up TV I can get back on track.

Episode one was full of the usual chaos. Buy blank goods brand and flog. To be fair the value add involved some labour and skill and the contestants will at least appreciate skill. Even in this instant digital age it still takes skill to screen print a London bus so that it doesn't look like a supersized ketchup stain. The girls will appreciate the graft in stencilling the names of a yummy family under pressure in a busy market.

That’s one of my hopes that whatever they do they will appreciate the skill in doing it. Episode 1 is for puff and bluster and mistakes. How Billyanna estimable, ambitious but overconfident stole defeat from the jaws of victory and how the hirsute sales guy Stephen started to annoy me already with his desperately chummy pitching. The boys got away with it with their inept screen printing though they tried to pass of shoddy goods, but even accounting for that their simple though uninspired t-shirts and bags brought in more cash than the women could muster even with their hard faced Zoo child mobbing and terror targeting of bijou outlets in Muswell Hill. I think Bilyanna might have gone to LBS and therefore thought she knew her way around Regents park and environs but she was like a minicab without a Satnav reassuring everyone 'it’s just round the corner, honest'.

The bottom line is that Bilyanna walked perhaps because as a risk analyst she seemed as exuberantly unconcerned about the risks as it’s possible to be unless your motive it to let everyone fail. Despite an attempt to pluck the grizzled Sugar heartstrings with her sympathy Stradivarius she failed. Her immigrant born in a communist tower block and head girl back-story had Sugar reaching for his firing finger not his hanky. Katy survived the swing of the axe and that may be very important.

Performers

Until they got found out the boys with their shoddy tote bag sale.

Plodders

Gabrielle’s attempt to set off a brainstorm..”Lets have some ideas”....silence...tumbleweed. they forgot her and had some ideas.

General *** ideas for products (A London Bus, a teddy bear, a tote bag)

Please Stop

Nick with his Bieberswoon factor wooing love struck girls.

Corporate pay disclosure: The breakfast cereal debate. By Ian Davidson, Compensation and Benefits Specialist.

Reward blog — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:55:08 GMT

I was in my local Sainsbury’s doing some food shopping. Conscious of health advice I thought I would look at the label on my breakfast cereal. The label listed the contents as: Wholegrain Wheat, Malted Barley Extract, Sugar, Salt, Niacin, Iron, Riboflavin, Thiamine, Folic Acid

Included in the informative label were the “typical average value per serving” and the “Guideline Daily Amount”. All excellent information – but what did it actually mean? Should I be comparing my chosen cereal with others to ensure good value with the right level of vitamins and minerals? Should I perhaps compare my breakfast cereal with porridge, similar, but not quite the same?

A similar issue occurs over disclosure in corporate pay. Compensation Committees and shareholders are bombarded with guidelines on what should be their “exposé” on executive pay. In the US there is a corporate filing called the Compensation Analysis and Discussion (CD&A) which is a mandatory pay disclosure requirement. If we look at the recent filing by Apple Inc. at we see the following disclosures for senior executives: Base salaries, Annual performance based cash bonuses, Performance criteria, Performance Goals, Pay out structure, Long term equity awards, Stock awards, Option awards, Changes in pension value, Estimated future pay outs under non-equity awards, Estimated future pay outs under Equity incentive awards, Other stock and option awards, Fair value of stock and option awards (and good luck with your Black-Scholes calculations).

And while Apple Inc. does not use the following for their executives they could also report on: Employment agreements, Severance arrangements, Cash payments in connection with a change in control of the Company, Tax reimbursements, Supplemental executive retirement benefits, Change of control benefits, Prerequisites.

I could go on….. (See this for a fuller discussion on disclosure regulations). Like my breakfast cereal contents, it is all exciting stuff – but what does it mean?

Who cares?
The disclosure requirements in the US and the UK were conceived to help stakeholders judge if pay is “fair” and not “excessive” (No definition of “fair” or “excessive”, like an elephant, you are supposed to know it when you see it). The Association of British Insures guidelines state that ABI members seek to ensure that: “remuneration practices and policies of companies they invest in are aligned with shareholder interests and promote sustainable value creation.” No one would argue with those good intentions.

How many institutional shareholders – who hold the majority of shares in the US and the UK, have the time or expertise to undertake the analysis that I would have to make with my breakfast cereal? Is the remuneration good value for shareholders? How does it compare with other similar (or dissimilar) organizations? Multiply that by 140, the average numbers of stocks held by US mutual funds, and you have a complete supermarket of breakfast cereal content to deconstruct.
Increasingly institutional shareholders are leaving it to shareholder advocacy groups such as Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) in the USA and the ABI in the UK to flag up deviations from what they consider best practice.

Unintended consequences
The reliance on these groups leads to a number of unintended consequences:

A “tick-box” mentality to disclosure
Compensation Committees being frightened into designing their pay plans to fit the guidelines rather than be fit for purpose for their organisation for fear of a shareholder advocacy group recommending a “no” vote on their “say on pay” vote or similar.
Executives not wanting to be promoted to senior executive positions because of the disclosure and the restrictions on the nature of their pay structure.
Greater homogeneity between organisational compensation approaches and levels of remuneration.
Senior executives seeing their pay becoming much more contingent on factors outside their control – such as share price movement (for absolute and relative TSR measures for example); what behaviours will this generate?
Conflict of interests by advocacy groups who also offer corporate services
Compensation advisors becoming more expensive, as risk adverse as Compensation Committees and giving similar advice as all their competitors to maintain compliance.
Even greater labour market distortions at executive level.
A mismatch between the time horizons of the remuneration structure and the different return horizon of investors.
Shareholders being placed in the position of micromanaging reward policy.

Investors (and particularly political pressure groups) using a no vote on remuneration to “punish” company directors on or draw attention to, issues unrelated to reward.

Actual consequences – to date
The US has one of the most stringent pay disclosure regimes, yet it has the highest executive pay in the world and, arguably, the greatest inequality between employees.

The excellent KPMG guide to Directors remuneration points out that there has been a fall of 18.6% between 2010 and 2011 in the number of remuneration report shareholder resolutions with a greater than 20% oppose vote in the UK FTSE All share. Thus, it is unclear if greater pay disclosure is a panacea against corporate excess or simply a kneejerk political response to public concerns – much fury signifying nothing.

Afterthought
I go on buying my breakfast cereal because I like it; I guess institutional shareholders are going to do much the same thing with the companies they choose to take as investments – regardless of the remuneration disclosures.

Leadership As Strong As Chilli Peppers

Bingleby — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:27:00 GMT

‘Okay, so I get what you tried to do before. Sounds quite interesting actually, maybe there’s still room for that. For now, though, we drastically need to redefine leadership in this organisation. As you clearly know…’

We were in Mark Temple’s office.

‘So I get all that, and I get you get it too, although I don’t quite get why you’ve brought a pot plant to this meeting…’

Sally Gulliver shrugged. ‘He gets lonely.’ Which was true, I did.

Mark Temple stared. And then laughed, a great booming laugh that made my tendrils shake. ‘Well, I suppose I’m the last person to question a little eccentricity.’ Given that Mr Temple was sporting diasporas of marmalade on his jacket collar (suggesting a certain lack of detail in his breakfast strategy) and a pair of glasses held together by an elastoplast, personally I thought his admission demonstrated commendable self-awareness.

‘I want leadership in this organisation to have a distinctive taste. Strong, unmistakeable. And I want our leaders to ask brilliant questions, to shake things up a bit, to spice the culture up a bit, to up the pace a bit! I want leadership as strong as chilli peppers!’

‘That all sounds great, Mark, but where do we want to be leading people? Where do we want the organisation to go?’

Mark Temple grinned. ‘Well, that’s the biscuit base in the banoffee pie of our strategy, isn’t it? Today, at least, the four-point plan I have tattooed on the inside of my head is…’ He punched four bullet points into the air:

- Become genuinely global, not just in name only
- Encourage and develop a genuinely engaged group of colleagues
- Become genuinely innovative with products and markets
- Murder all fat on the cost base.’

Sally nodded, her eyes sparkling. ‘Okay; sounds good. Interested you use the word ‘genuine’ a lot.’

‘Yep. This organisation needs to be the same outside as in, treating its people and its consumers with a whole lot more respect, and a whole lot more curiosity.’

Sally Gulliver was cheering inside: I could almost hear it.

Next week: Why Have You Recruited This Deranged Fop?

@BinglebyinHR

Bingleby was confiding in Richard Goff

Steady State to Ready State by John McGurk

HRD 2012 — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:18:55 GMT

As we approach our HRD conference 2012, the L&TD function is undergoing transition.

We all know the script from training to learning from learning and development to learning organisation. One of the key issues is how we develop our impact as L&TD professionals.

As our Next Generation and Business Savvy research suggests HR generally needs to become more insight led. It's even more crucial that L&TD is led by new insights. Our L&TD Survey 2012 shows that there is still something of a reliance on what myself and Professor Eugene Saddler-Smith term "steady state" thinking. The way we analyse and identify learning needs and capabilities within our organisations hasn't changed that much over decades.

Yet you won't need reminding the pace of change in that time has zipped along. There has been a wealth of new research in a whole range of areas. So, myself and Eugene we will outline in a presentation at HRD2012 the need for us to become more "ready state". That is we need to rely less on our old tried and trusted models and look more for insight from areas like cognitive and neuroscience, economics, psychology, anthropology, all of which are fuelling a new wave of insight.

Many L&TD professionals already get this, however at CIPD we want to help everyone access this new insight.

We will share our ideas on how we plan to do this. Please join us at the HRD Conference and Exhibition, 25-26 April 2012 at Olympia in London. For more information or to book your place at the conference go to www.cipd.co.uk/hrd

So It Begins! - Law on Tour, Spring 2012

Carolyn (Cas) Carrington Chartered FCIPD — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:01:00 GMT

It's nearly time to pack our bags and set off again on the CIPD six-monthly Law on Tour workshops.

12 venues in 3 weeks is a whistle stop tour but we're raring to go (although I must confess that mostly I only know what day of the week it is by the name of the place we're in!). Anyway, today is a good day because the workshop documentation is ready to go to the printers and it's rammed to the gunnels with loads of 'must know' information, together with some great case studies for the delegates to get to grips with the law in practice. If you're a Law on Tour regular you'll know that the workshops feature highly topical issues, speaking of which, what could be more topical than the raft of workplace dispute resolution reforms that the Government will implement in the very near future?

I have to say that getting up close and personal to the reforms whilst preparing that part of the tour has made me question the viability of some of the proposed changes. For example, the Government's suggested system of 'protected conversations' enabling employers to have 'without prejudice discussions' with employees without the need for there to be a current dispute between them. It might help employers initiate compensated dismissals, without fearing unfair constructive dismissal claims, but I wonder what it will do for employee morale if employees can be approached about dismissal even before they have been told of any shortcomings?

Also, in my view, the Government are being wildly optimistic about financial savings that might be made from fewer claims resulting from the increase to 2 years' service to claim 'ordinary' unfair dismiss. Many other claims can be made following dismissal without the requisite unfair dismissal service so it's hard to see that it will make any significant difference.

With fewer claims supposedly set to finance an increase in ACAS conciliation services, the jury is really still out for me! By the way, if anyone has recently spoken to an ACAS officer you will know that they already appear to be stretched to the limit, so it will be interesting to see how well they cope with the 'early conciliation' rules requiring mandatory short form claim submission to ACAS. On the plus side, I do think that the 'Call for Evidence' on whether the ACAS CoP on Disciplinary and Grievance procedures is helpful enough for employers is long overdue.

As regulars of the tour will know, my view is the Code could be so much more helpful on issues that employers find the most difficult to deal with. For example - what to do when an employee is signed off with stress and can't meet with you following a gross misconduct allegation when you need to investigate and/or call them to a hearing? Readers will know that the wording of the Code is very unhelpful in this respect and the only way ahead at present is frustrating and time consuming, and holds huge risks whether you forge ahead or significantly delay proceedings.

So much to discuss about the Law on Tour, but so little space, so if you want to know more about the tour click here. I will be blogging during the tour on how it's going and the views of delegates, so if you want to be part of the debate, comment below or tweet @CIPD and use #lawontour!

The Terms they are a Changin’. By Colin Miller, Kent County Council

Reward blog — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:59:30 GMT

So what’s it to be? Another year of below inflation pay awards or will you be one of the lucky many who will benefit from a ‘zero percent increase’ as it is sometimes euphemistically referred to?

Many organisations will be trying to find a way to finance the costs of pay, employee benefits, terms and conditions as it is important that employees still feel recognised. Even giving something small is likely to be seen as a positive gesture especially during this time of austerity. If, however, that costs £X how can Y be cut to pay for it? The point which makes this answer clearer, I suspect, is what is the long term impact of a particular cut?

Advocating a broader, mid to long term approach is what I’m getting at. It is relatively obvious where short term cuts can fill long term gaps but in order to make the right decisions the cumulative impacts of cuts and withdrawal of Ts&Cs need to be considered. I suspect many of us don’t take, or indeed don’t have the time to take, the long term perspective.

The next question is how to assess this. Its up to you how this works best in your organisation but asking employees could be a good place to start.

Changes now, next year or the year after will affect different people in different ways but hopefully you will want to offer / keep offering a viable and coherent employment package which works for employees as well as the employer.

Some points which could help:-

A clear, simple, consistent, joined up approach is likely to help
Minimise the risks such as employee disengagement or pay challenge to the employer
Be clear on whether savings are cashable or not
Engage with employees and or trade unions where possible – they might even have some good ideas you hadn’t thought of!

A Pot of Shrimps Could Lead People Better Than That Lot

Bingleby — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 11:51:00 GMT

‘Sally, good morning,’ I grumbled, as she arrived in the office on Monday morning, a laughably expensive coffee in some form of small plastic bucket in her hands. ‘Where is Harry Aske today?’

I suppose we had all got used to the charismatic headhunter being around while we recruited a new CEO for Global Blancmange. ‘Off to hunt more heads,’ said Sally, rather glumly, I thought. ‘Anyhoo, off to my first Exec Team meeting with the new CEO. See you later, Bingleby.’

Time passed like a joke forever denied a punchline. I pulled a succession of faces at the snarky Caladium in the FD’s office opposite. It made a succession of obscene gestures back.

Finally the door burst open and Sally came back in again, followed by gangly, bespectacled Mark Temple, the new CEO. ‘Holy Moly, a pot of shrimps could lead people better than that lot.’

Sally sighed. ‘I couldn’t agree more.’

Mark Temple stopped. ‘Well, isn’t it HR’s responsibility, and yours in particular, to address that?’

There was a short silence which I suspected Mark temple took as shock or bafflement on Sally’s part but which, given all her work on that point, was in fact resentment.

‘I expect you to lead on people strategies, Sally. We need you to improve us. And as quickly as possible.’

He closed the door firmly behind him.

‘Oh,’ said Sally, deflated, flumping into her chair like a balloon abruptly deprived of air.

‘Do not be downhearted,’ I declared. ‘He is merely moving, as he must, from the faintly vulnerable position of the recruitee to the leadership position of the CEO. In any case,’ I added, ‘He gave you the responsibility. He has expectations of you on a crucial business point. He never said he didn’t think you could do it.’

‘But he implied I hadn’t,’ wailed Sally. ‘When in truth I almost got sacked over the leadership stuff I was driving!’

‘But he will not know of that, unless you inform him. One thing, though…’

‘Hmm…?’

‘Explain briefly about what you attempted to do, just so he knows. But cast it all in the light of what you are going to do now. Remember, new CEOs are almost allergic to history; they have no interest in what came before them at all.’

> New CEOs are almost allergic to history

Sally Gulliver nodded. ‘We brought in a new broom on purpose…’

‘… so help him to sweep in all the right places. And make sure he understands that you are sweeping too.’

Next Friday: Leadership As Strong As Chilli Peppers

@BinglebyinHR

Bingleby was confiding in Richard Goff

Are you ready for 2012? By Charles Cotton, CIPD Reward and Performance Adviser

Reward blog — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:09:00 GMT

Is the way that you reward and recognise the achievements of your staff resilient and agile enough to deal with the challenges and opportunities of 2012? We have the Queen’s diamond jubilee celebrations the focal point of which is around 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th of June. We have the Olympic Games in the UK, which start on the 27th July 2012 and run until 12th August 2012 and we have the Paralympic Games, which begin on 29th August 2012 and close on 9th September 2012. Finally, from October 2012 onwards, every employer (starting with the biggest organisations) will have to automatically enrol into a workplace pension, workers who are not already in a qualifying workplace pension scheme; are aged 22 or over; are under State Pension age; earn more than a minimum amount a year (£7,475.00 in 2011-12); and work or usually work in the UK.

All these developments are an opportunity for HR and reward professionals to go back to basics and ask what skills, behaviours, values, attitudes and achievements their organisation needs from its employees and how they will reward and recognise these in a way that are valued and appreciated by existing and potential employees. It is also an opportunity to examine the resilience of their reward and recognition programmes, will they buckle and fail under the stresses and strains thrown up by the various risks () posed by 2012? In addition, there is also the chance for those in reward and people management to assess the nimbleness of their reward programmes to take advantage of the opportunities presented by 2012 as well as creating opportunities from the changes.

While you are 2012-profing you reward systems, also look to what opportunities and threats 2013 may present. One of the most significant developments next year is that between April and October, HMRC will roll out its Real Time Information (RTI) system to employers. This will be the biggest shake up to the operation of Pay As You Earn (PAYE) since it was first set up in 1944. Under RTI, employers will give tax and national insurance details before, or at the same time, as they pay their employees, rather than at the end of the financial year. To help give you and your organisation a heads up, the CIPD’s reward forum will be looking at Real Time Information (RTI) on the 23 March.

Of course, employers should also take the opportunity presented by 2012 to look at the other aspects of their people management programmes, but reward is a good place to start.