Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts

15 January 2017

HR : Getting Human Resources Right ... 'Culture matters more than talent'


Dave Ulrich video: Culture matters more than talent

In our series of videos Dave Ulrich looks at what drives business performance and how HR can help

HR should increase its focus on culture, according to Dave Ulrich, Rensis Likert collegiate professor at Ross School of Business, University of Michigan.


“I think talent matters, but culture matters more”
he told HR magazine editor Katie Jacobs.

“The ‘war for talent’ has been a metaphor for 15 years,” he said. “We now have to have a victory through organisation. Wars are won through organisation, and you have victory by being in it together.”

In our exclusive series of videos Ulrich, who is considered the father of the business partner model and has consistently been voted one of the most influential thinkers in HR, looks at what drives business performance and how HR can help organisations succeed.

The series – kindly sponsored by MHR – will also include insights on managing multiple stakeholders, analytics, transforming HR, and speed teaching.

Watch the video series here


Part 1 : Dave Ulrich Insights on the future of the HR profession - Perspectives


Part 2 : Dave Ulrich Insights - HR Outcomes


COMMENTS
Ulrich's 'Talent Trifector' stated the talent was a combination of 'Competence', 'Commitment' and 'Contribution'. Culture can enhance/undermine people's commitment and help or hinder the contribution they can make. So for organisations that fail to create a suitable culture, just as "culture eats strategy for breakfast", culture will munch talent for lunch... SM

Source: http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/dave-ulrich-video-culture-matters-more-than-talent

 

14 January 2013

2013 What we have evolved to !?! Oh dear..... Opinion pieces


Bullying in the eye of the beholder


ARE you being bullied? If you have a job, attend university, have a hectic social life or do anything else that involves being put under pressure, you probably are.
But only because everything is defined as "bullying" these days. From being called out on your slackness to being hauled over the coals for your political views; what we used to call "being put on the spot", we now call "bullying".
The rise and rise of the B-word is testament to the touchiness of our therapeutic era and to the now widespread belief that people are pathetic bundles of sensitivity who will unravel at the merest hint of pressure.
The wild expansion of the definition of bullying was brought home to me over the holiday season by an article written by the ABC's Jonathan Holmes.
He was criticising The Australian's recent critical commentary about Margaret Simons, director of the Centre for Advanced Journalism at the University of Melbourne. The Australian's critique of Simons had crossed the line from legit journalism to "bullying", said Holmes. Tellingly, he described this paper as "one of the biggest bruisers in the playground". What was most striking about his piece was that it described Simons's own criticisms of The Australian, which have been myriad, as "judicious, cautious and fair", while The Australian's criticisms of her apparently add up to "bullying".
This sums up how eye-swivellingly subjective the term "bullying" has become. Bullying is now entirely in the eye of the beholder, with some words and ideas (the ones we disapprove of, basically) being branded with the B-word, while others are given a nod of approval.
This is an upfront attempt to delegitimise certain forms of media criticism, particularly those that emanate from popular newspapers and are aimed at respectable public figures.
More and more commentators, academics and even powerful politicians now depict themselves as victims of "bullying", by which they actually mean fierce criticism or public ridicule.
When Julia Gillard copped some flak from internet users (in the midst of the global praise she received) over her shallow, showboating speech on misogyny last year, one magazine said she had been "bullied online" - as if she were an everyday teenage girl being harassed by schoolmates rather than the most powerful woman in the southern hemisphere being critiqued for a very public speech.
Gillard's partner Tim Mathieson has lashed out at the "bullies" who ridicule poor Julia. Seemingly believing, like ABC's Holmes, that we're still all stuck in the playground, Mathieson said "the big boys" should stop "bullying women".
"Would they like being called nasty names?" he asked.
In a human rights lecture last year, academic Anne Summers compared the grief Gillard sometimes gets with "workplace bullying". On an issue like the carbon tax, it just isn't possible that the "level of vitriol" aimed at Gillard is because of the tax itself, said Summers - rather, it must be because of "the simple fact that she is a woman".
Here, even entirely legitimate political criticism over something like the carbon tax, which has made some people angry, can be slyly delegitimised through being depicted as playground-style bullying beastliness. This is a doubly patronising approach - it depicts the critics of Gillard as bullies (potentially freezing serious political debate in the process, with male MPs probably becoming increasingly fearful of appearing like ugly playground toughs), and it also depicts women as fragile creatures who might wilt or faint upon hearing a coarse or mocking critique.
In describing as "misogynistic bullying" what the rest of us simply look upon as heated political debate, feminists ironically rehabilitate the Victorian view of women as sensitive flowers who might need to be chaperoned when they tiptoe through parliament or venture on to the world wide web.
Where the B-word is often used as a means of shielding politicians from the vitriolic screeching of the madding crowd, it can also be used to chastise politicians who are considered too hard-headed.
So the claims that Tony Abbott "bullied" someone at university in the 1970s are now used to write off his entire political style in the here and now. One magazine describes him as a misogynistic "relic of the 1950s" whose "bullying has continued to the current day".
If Abbott makes a strongly worded speech, shooting down his enemies, it's bullying, apparently, akin to what he allegedly did at uni.
In Britain in 2010, then PM Gordon Brown became embroiled in something called "Bullygate" after it was revealed he frequently "clenched his fists" in the presence of his staff and "swore at senior advisers".
Unbelievably, some of Downing Street's staff phoned the National Bullying Helpline to complain about Brown. Did they think working at the heated heart of the British establishment, where key decisions are made, would be a cosy, stress-free experience with no swearing? If so - and I'm sorry if this is bullying - they are idiots.
The ideas of "workplace bullying" and "university bullying" are common currency today.
According to one British official report, workplace bullying can include everything from "arguments and rudeness" to "ignoring people, unacceptable criticisms, and overloading people with work".
In short, work itself - with all its tussles and pressure - is a kind of bullying. Which makes you wonder why we don't all just stay in bed instead, or perhaps literally go back to the playground, where we might be afforded some protection against life's stresses and debates by a caring teacher.
We are all worse off as a result of this bullymania. The bullying obsession is especially bad for politics, since it both helps to insulate already aloof politicians like Gillard from public ridicule while chastising other, more outspoken politicians for daring to appear strong-willed.
It threatens to make politics more dull, and to drain the zest and drive from media debate and from everyday life by branding all those who forcefully speak their minds as bullies.
In 2013, make it your resolution to never, no matter how beleaguered you feel, say, "I'm being bullied!" Those words should never cross the lips of anyone over the age of 10.

06 March 2010

DISCUSSION - When does robust behaviour turn into bullying?

Please note this may be considered a 'biased political piece' leaning towards Brown.

The row over claims that the chief of the civil service warned Gordon Brown over abusive treatment of staff has sparked a debate about bullying. Observer policy editor Anushka Asthana asks bloggers how big a problem it is.
An open an interesting discussion.


Link to the comments here

20 October 2008

LEGAL - Bullying and harassment at work - UK

The legal perspective - UK

Ruth Pott discusses harassment and bullying in the workplace.

In 2006, the Department of Trade and Industry (now the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) published the Fair Treatment at Work Survey following a survey of 4000 employees. The survey found that 3.8% of employees had experienced bullying or harassment at work in the previous 2 years, with women being nearly twice as likely to be bullied as men. Foreign workers and disabled workers fared worst of all with bullying rates of 5% and 10.6% respectively.

Harassment, in relation to employment law, has a legal definition, but bullying does not. Bullying is defined by ACAS as behaviour that is offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting, or an abuse or misuse of power through means intended to undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the individual. Harassment can include unwanted conduct affecting the dignity in the workplace. It may be related to age, sex, sexual orientation, race, disability, religion, nationality or any personal characteristic of the individual. The important issue is that the actions or comments are considered demeaning and unacceptable to the individual. However, behaviour that is considered bullying by one person may be considered firm management by another, or accepted as the “norm” or part of the workplace culture. Bullying and harassment can range from ignoring and excluding someone to extreme physical violence. It can be persistent behaviour over a period of time or a one-off incident. Such behaviour can include: spreading malicious rumours; insulting, ridiculing or demeaning someone; exclusion or victimisation; unfair treatment; overbearing supervision or other misuse of power or position; unwelcome sexual advances, such as touching, standing too close or displaying offensive materials; making threats or comments about job security without foundation; deliberately undermining a competent worker by overloading and persistent criticism; preventing individuals progressing by intentionally blocking promotion or training opportunities; or shouting at staff. Employers are responsible for taking reasonable steps to prevent such behaviour.

The implications

Bullying and harassment are unacceptable on moral grounds and may, if ignored or handled incorrectly, create serious problems for a business, as well as lead to employment tribunal or other civil claims and large awards in compensation. Bullying and harassment can also result in poor performance, low staff morale, poor employee relations, loss of respect for management, an increase in absence, higher staff turnover and damage to business reputation.

The potential legal implications of harassment in the workplace can be: unlawful discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, marital status, gender reassignment, disability, religion/belief, sexual orientation or age; or a breach of contract, ie a breach of one of the implied terms of any employment contract, such as the duty to provide a safe working environment or to maintain trust and confidence in the employer. An employer is liable for the actions of its employees unless reasonable steps have been taken to prevent bullying or harassment. Employers could also be held liable for harassment if they fail to prevent a third party, eg a customer, repeatedly harassing an employee. Action can potentially be taken against an employer after the employee has left.

Making a complaint

People being bullied or harassed often appear to overreact to something that seems relatively trivial, but this may be the “last straw” following a series of incidents. There is often fear of retribution if a complaint is made, or a belief that such behaviour is being condoned by the employer and is an acceptable part of the workplace culture. Colleagues may be reluctant to come forward as witnesses, as they too may fear the consequences and that they may be subject to bullying themselves. If a line manager is involved in bullying, it can take a lot of courage for someone to make a complaint.

It is not possible to make a direct complaint to an employment tribunal about bullying. However, victims have a much wider range of remedies available to them than ever before as much discrimination legislation now includes protection from harassment. Legislation includes the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which includes civil and criminal harassment, and the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974, which provides psychological protection as well as health and safety protection. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 offer protection and redress from bullying. Employers have a “duty of care” to all their employees and it is possible for constructive dismissal claims to be made if the mutual trust and confidence between employer and employee has broken down due to bullying and harassment. Employees may be able to bring complaints under laws covering discrimination. Additionally, failure to deal with such complaints properly could lead to stress at work, which could be a health and safety issue as well as grounds for constructive dismissal.

Employer’s bullying policy

Employers should have a policy on bullying and harassment so that employees know how they can deal with a problem or complaint. A policy should include: examples of unacceptable behaviour; what the employer will do to prevent such behaviour; how an individual can raise such an issue; and what the employer will do if there are complaints of such behaviour. The employer should state that it will undertake to keep matters confidential and have a grievance procedure for complaints and a disciplinary procedure for those found to have been behaving inappropriately.

If a complaint is received, it must be dealt with promptly, confidentially and thoroughly. The grievance procedure will normally be used, so the individual concerned will have the right to be accompanied when discussing the situation. Employees need to be confident their complaint will be taken seriously. If it is not necessary to use a grievance procedure, the situation may be dealt with informally. A quiet word advising someone that their behaviour is causing offence or is unwelcome may be all that is required. Where an informal resolution is not possible, the employer may decide that the matter is a disciplinary issue that needs to be dealt with formally at the appropriate level. As with any disciplinary problem it is important to follow a fair procedure. In the case of a complaint of bullying or harassment there must be fairness to both the complainant and the person accused. Depending upon the circumstances it may be appropriate to consider training, counselling or mediation with an independent third party for the individual whose behaviour has been found to be unacceptable.

If the complaint involves serious misconduct it may be appropriate to consider suspending the alleged perpetrator. Written warnings or dismissal may be appropriate if serious harassment or bullying is proven. Employers need to be aware that unfounded allegations can be made for malicious reasons, which in turn can develop into “witch hunts”. These need full and thorough investigation too, and should be dealt with under the disciplinary procedure. If the subject of the complaint is the individual’s line manager, the employer should get another or more senior manager or director to investigate. Where claims of bullying and harassment have been made and investigated, and action(s) taken where appropriate, it can be difficult to rebuild working relationships and move forward. Consideration may need to be given to using external parties to mediate.

source