Beecroft – Who is Under Performing?

OK there’s a lot being written about the Beecroft Report at the moment and I’ve hesitated to write anything at all. However, there’s an important aspect to this story which just doesn’t seem to be coming out loudly. Who is underperforming? 

Current perspective 

The Telegraph’s story yesterday included a headline saying : 

“The majority of employers back controversial proposals to allow “no-fault dismissals” for under-performing workers, a survey has revealed.” 

The story then reveals it’s not the majority of employers – it’s the 1,100 respondents to an IoD survey where 76% backed the proposals. The director-general of the Institute of Directors, Simon Walker, is quoted as saying : 

“Our members prefer Beecroft’s ideas on unfair dismissal to the watered-down model being promoted as an alternative, so the Government should not waver”. “Beecroft’s changes to dismissal procedures would reduce regulatory burdens and encourage businesses to recruit more people — anything less would have a considerably weaker effect.” 

I’m not going to assume what the UK business community do or don’t feel about the Beecroft report. Plenty of others are already doing this. However, the positioning of the promoted benefit to business overlooks a fundamental part of good business. 

This is not really about business growth is it?

If you are planning to grow your company through recruiting more people then your focus is on growth not the regulatory burdens of removing staff at some theoretical point in the future when they have failed to perform. So “the story” here to a large extent doesn’t really deal with the dynamics of successful businesses enjoying growth. 

The issue is then more one of how you can replace under-performing staff in businesses regardless of their economic success. The process of staff replacement may on occasion be business enhancing… it could involve recruitment… but the net effect is not necessarily greater employment or business growth, in the short term or possibly ever. 

Are the headline grabbing stories persuading us to think of the Beecroft report as a way to business growth? Possibly… regardless, this not about business growth in successful businesses is it? 

This is about underperformance. By whom? 

There are a multitude of reasons why staff may under perform. However, if you can’t deal effectively with someone who is underperforming with current legislation etc. then what does it actually say about you as a business or as a manager? 

In my experience, it’s those who can thrive through adversity who are successful. 

If you can’t effectively deal with under-performance in your business today, then can you actually nurture great performance through people at all? 

Could revised legislative changes help perpetuate underperformance of managers who are not able address performance through developmental conversations? 

The Irony of Beecroft

Have you seen the reported explanation from Adrian Beecroft of what/who influenced his thinking… 

“It is actually a human resources director whom Mr Beecroft was once forced to dismiss, an experience that made the venture capitalist determined to reform the system. “We had an HR man who was very good at the technical stuff, but hopeless with people so we dismissed him, having thought we’d gone through the process,” Mr Beecroft explains. The company then placed an advert for a replacement who was “good with people”. “And he sued us for discrimination on the grounds that everybody knows that people who are good with people means we want a woman. We went to the lawyers and said this is ridiculous and they said we’d have to pay and so we paid him.” The £150,000 payoff that Mr Beecroft’s firm had to make to the under-performing employee was, he says, a typical experience for entrepreneurs and small business owners. Many people simply do not bother to hire because of the problems it can cause, he claims.” 

What is not said by Mr Beecroft is how his firm managed:

• the hiring decision/process. 
• the performance management process. 

Then what is said but won’t be addressed by his recommendations… 

• the bone of contention being an issue of discrimination.

In Adrian Beecroft's own words… “Some employee protections, such as those preventing discrimination or dangerous working conditions, must be maintained.”

It’s easy to read this and think red-tape & legislation led to an extortionate payout of £150k… the reality is that perceived or actual discrimination led them to settle out of court as the lawyers must have perceived there was a risk of being found wanting in a tribunal. 

Ironic isn't it? What does this say about his firms ability to lead and manage people let alone manage their performance?

Recommended Further Blog Reading 

Flip Chart Fairy Tales

XpertHR

HR - Saviour of the Universe

It feels like nearly every week I see a blog post, discussion or tweet about how HR are going to be the saviours of the working world... how HR will revolutionise & humanise the workplace... how HR are going to save the universe...

Similarly, there's a constant stream of conversation about HR becoming more strategic & commercially focused; gaining a seat at the table...

Perhaps they are laudable aspirations but sometimes it just feels a bit like a Flash Gordon plot...  Ming the Merciless is going to destroy us but Gordon will be our saviour!

Maybe it's a generational thing but surely corny 80's fantasy film plots and Queen songs weren't this influential?!?

Role Model Reality

Every great HR professional I work with just gets stuck in and makes the difference. There's no running around after the "shiny-shiny". There's no quantum leap to their blue sky thinking.

They earn their respect and place in the organisation through their actions and their quality of thinking.

Sometimes they are innovators.  Sometimes early adopters. Being an aspirational thought leader is not as important as being a good leader.  

They are trusted advisors and role models.  When they can't make a difference, they move on. They have purpose.

That's my experience; my reality.  What's yours?

The Blessed Effect

In the spirit of being lighthearted but serious this post has to be concluded with a very short clip of the quite wonderful Brian Blessed.  Perhaps HR could sometimes do with a bit more of him instead!

The Pseudo-Intellectual Blog-Bomb of Ignorance

Do you know what really bugs me?  Bloggers who don't participate in the debate or discussion they started. 

It's like they've lobbed a pseudo-intellectual blog-bomb into the ether then scurry away to hide in their blog-bunker.  Jumping onto the zeitgeist bandwagon the sycophantic plebeians of social media swarm around their blog like it was the greatest thing since god knows what.  Unwittingly feeding the behaviour and encouraging more blog-bombing.  WTF?

Perhaps it's ignorance... Perhaps if we don't tell them engagement is an interesting dance between people they won't ever know?  That their beautifully crafted bouquet of a blog is in fact a Pseudo-Intellectual Blog-Bomb of Ignorance.

Perhaps standing up and defending what you have to say is hard work...  Perhaps being brave enough to listen and change your views doesn't come easy...

Guess what?  IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE EASY.  It's called authenticity.  It's called integrity.  It's where you'll find respect.

Perhaps the audience get something from this reverse monologue...  I don't.  Would you write a message or talk to a book?  No!  Then why would you engage in a monologue with a blog post?  I'd much rather have a meaningful conversation or debate with people who can do more than just vomit into a blog and suck up the adoration of the star-struck.

It's my personal opinion of course but I'm happy to look at it through your eyes and learn something new.

Oh and if you're reading this thinking it's just David having a bit of a rant, I'm not.  I'm initiating a dialogue with you and I'd love to hear what you have to say.  You know where to find me!

The sound of someone not looking in the mirror

Did you hear about the Goldman Sachs ex-employee Greg Smith?  If you didn't then you obviously weren't on Twitter or the newsfeeds yesterday...

It's funny how a sensationalist story of bad behaviours in part of a global banking institution can overwhelm the newsfeeds.  To the extent that in all this hulabaloo many probably missed that there had been a 6.8 earthquake in Japan... 

What makes the soundbites of an ex-employee of a bank more important than potential further catastrophe in Japan?  I'm sure that along with many journalists we could all think of some good reason... but when I look at my kids it's not bankers ethics that I need to be worrying about is it?

I have a theory.  Gossip and warmongering aside, could the reason be that much of the world wants to pick at the ethics of bankers as a way of not looking at their own?

I'm not taking a moral high ground here, but wasn't the noise on Twitter yesterday just the sound of thousands not looking in the mirror at themselves?

Just a theory....

The one where the "Boot" was on the other foot – Part 4 "The Art of Giving"

Last week I was invited to join a demonstration day with TrainersKitbag (@trainerskitbag) and in this week’s series of blogs I’ve talked about my reflections from the day.  In today’s final blog I’d like to share my reflections regarding Generosity.

Part 4 “The Art of Giving”

By Christopher Smart, via Wikimedia Commons

I’m sure none of us are strangers to giving or even being generous.  It’s part of being human… sending gifts on birthdays... helping out with a bit of DIY… taking time to listen to a friend’s problems.  For most of us it’s what we do with our friends & families and it’s rewarding.  We often don’t think about it being an act of generosity.

Even when we look to give our time or money to strangers, say through voluntary support or charitable donations, we still tend not to talk about our acts as being generous.

The meaning of generosity

Perhaps take a moment to reflect on the meaning of gen·er·os·i·ty :

• Liberality in giving or willingness to give one’s money, time, etc.
• Nobility of thought or behavior; magnanimity.
• Free from pettiness in character & mind
• Amplitude; abundance; plentiful

I’d forgotten the word's Latin origins.  It derives from generōsus, which means "of noble birth".  Originally, being generous was literally a way of complying to nobility.  Over time this origin has been lost but the sentiment hasn’t.  Generosity as an act of giving is still seen by many as an act of humanity.

The generosity of strangers

The nature of the Trainers Kit Bag “Property Trading Game” game requires you to perform tasks.  Sometimes these involve asking strangers for information or help.  Throughout our day we were struck by just how spontaneously people would help us with what were sometimes quite bizarre requests…

• The gentleman on Pall Mall whom we asked for a business card.  He’d have happily given one to us but he’d just given a man who had had his car clamped £20 for a train fare and had given him his last business card so he could post the money back.  His view was that he wanted to help and he may never see that £20 pound again but that wasn’t really the point.  You had to trust in human nature.  A very genuine and lovely person.
• The armed policeman dashing out for his lunch break who gladly stopped and posed for a smiling “team photo” before heading into McDonalds for his “fix”.
• The endless shopkeepers, hotel staff & theatre box offices who took time to listen to our strange requests and helped us where they could.  Yet, we bought nothing from them apart from a 50p “Sights of London” pencil.
• Perhaps most surprisingly was @RichardAArnold.  Having been spotted walking past us on the Strand, @StirTheSource ran after him and he gladly helped us with our much needed celebrity photo and autograph.  He took time to talk about what we were doing and shared a laugh.  Firstly though he went to the bank, then came back and found us, all on his birthday with a hangover.  That’s generosity!

The Art of Giving

On reflection, it’s perhaps not surprising that a day that started with the generosity of Trainers Kit Bag, continued in that same vein throughout.  Even to the end of the day when someone I’d just met for the first time asked “Is there anything I can do to help you?”.

This post isn’t about how to give or what to give.  It’s more of a recognition that we all give willingly and generously.  Perhaps we need to be asked, nicely of course, but we are all qualified in the art of giving.  If you feel you’ve not practiced this art for a while then have a go – it’s very easy.

“Real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present.”

Albert Camus

Twitterethics

Perusing the “Activity” function last night on Twitter, I noticed that someone I was following had just followed what is best described as a porn tweet account.  I didn’t even know they existed!

Anyway, I don’t know this person but I’m interested in their business.  They are the founder/CEO of a major people change organisation which relates closely to my own work.  Seeing that they actually use Twitter and that we have networks in common we ended up following each other.

Ethics in the moment

What happened next was spontaneous.  I unfollowed them.

Immediately after I found myself questioning whether I was being prudish.  Did it actually matter if this person, like many others, liked pornography?  I’ve not felt the need to unfollow anyone because of an ethical issue.  Yet this felt like one.

On reflection, I’m surprised at their stupidity of publicly following a porn tweet account.  I don’t see a place for this in business or professional circles and I don’t believe such actions build the right type of engagement.  Personally, I don’t want to be associated with people on Twitter who do.

Looking at their client list I think they are playing with fire.  It’s the kind of action that can lose you business with clients who care about their reputation & associations.

A learning experience!

I have my own ethical standards and values but I don’t force these upon others.  I think I’m very much a live and let live kind of person.  This just felt wrong to me.

Yet I have to say I’ve never experienced Twitterethics before.  So I want to share my actions & thoughts for your scrutiny!

What are your thoughts?
What would you have done?
What ethical dilemmas have you faced on Social Media?

Would love to hear from you!

A Question of Ethics

What do you think is ethical?  Big question but social norms probably influence all of us to the extent that generally our personal ethics are not that dissimilar.

So what are your professional ethics?  Have you written them down anywhere?  Do you share them with your clients, colleagues or even your manager?

For the Coaching & Mentoring work that I do, I believe that it’s critical to share with clients the code of ethics that I abide by.  This happens to be the European Mentoring & Coaching Councils Code of Ethics.  This includes :

• Assuring Competence
• Understanding the Context
• Understand & Manage Boundaries
• Act with Integrity respecting confidentiality
• Act with Professionalism

What I find compelling about this code is that not only do I believe in it but I’m also very glad to be held accountable to it.  It is congruent with how I practice and along with Supervision it helps guide me through the ethical dilemmas we sometimes face in coaching & mentoring.

What Code of Ethics or Professional Standards do you hold yourself accountable to?

How could Supervision (in the coaching & mentoring sense) support you with ethical dilemmas?

I'd love to hear from all professionals!