Union partnerships cut UK strikes

first_imgIncreased partnership workingbetween employers and unions has helped reduce the number of strike actions inthe UK.The Office forNational Statistic research shows that the strike rate in the UK fell from 12days to 10 per 1,000 workers in 2000, promoting the UK to sixth in a ranking ofthe EU’s member states with the lowest frequency of industrial actionIndustrial action inthe EU as a whole was reduced by 42 per cent in the five-year period between1995 and 1999. The strike rate was reduced by 43 per cent in UK in the sameperiod. The TUC attributes itto partnership working. A spokesperson said, “Strikes are at an all-timelow in the UK and partnership is now the most common approach to industrialrelations. Most employers no longer see unions as adversaries, but as sensiblepartners to involve in the successful running of organisations. “But whenrelationships do break down in the workplace and employers behave badly, unionscan still use the threat of industrial action to protect the rights of theirmembers at work.”The UK’s rate ofstrike action is three times less than the average for member countries of theOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The UK has the tenthlowest strike rate in the OECD. Comments are closed. Related posts:No related photos. Union partnerships cut UK strikesOn 24 Apr 2001 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Articlelast_img read more

Staff away days are too artificial to be of value

first_img Comments are closed. Now this is going to make me sound like a real killjoy, but can someoneexplain to me what an “away day” is? Yes, I know what managementteams mean when they say they are planning to have an away day but the actualpurpose of these events always seems, how should I put this – unclear. But thenmaybe that is the whole point. I am not sure what the derivation of the word is, but I seem to remember theoriginal Away day was a train ticket, launched as part of a marketing campaignby British Rail. It did not matter too much where you ended up – the whole point was just toget “away”. Anywhere away from where you were, as long as you gotthere on one of its trains. Of course, that was back in the good old days, whenthere was a fair chance you could actually get somewhere, and back again, in aday. Everyone had a fun day out, but there was also a subliminal message that youwould get a bit of company bonding into the bargain. A bit of fun and some indistinct effort to aid team spirit is what mostmanagement away days are about. They have no particular destination in mind oreven a route map. Sometimes they are intended to give busy managers time tothink and reflect on their roles. Time, especially thinking time, is an increasingly scarce commodity back atthe ranch. If that is their purpose then I suppose it sounds just the sort ofthing some management teams could do with. It’s just this idea of going “away” that bothers me. It isartificial. When everyone is away from the workface, it is easy to forget allthe barriers, obstacles and frustrations that are part and parcel of our dailyworking lives in the office. Without these restraints it is relatively easy to achieve a temporary high,a feel good factor which will always make such events popular. This is why manyaway days are “facilitated” by “inspirational” or”motivational” speakers, because the element of fun and the high areseen as crucial elements. As any honest trainer knows though, getting good happy-sheet scores isrelatively easy – just make sure they have a good lunch and a few laughs. Unfortunately, the reason that no-one takes such scores seriously is becausethey know that the likely effects are about as substantial and durable as astick of candyfloss. On a personal level, it might well be more interesting to travel hopefullythan to arrive, but organisations should at least know what their destinationis. Otherwise they might as well all sign up for that other great day out – themystery tour. By Paul Kearns, Senior partner, Personnel Works Previous Article Next Article Staff away days are too artificial to be of valueOn 11 Sep 2001 in Personnel Today Related posts:No related photos.last_img read more

Bookmark of the month

first_imgThe Masie Centerwww.masie.comUnashamedly American, but packed full of useful links, articles, researchand reports on the subject of e-learning. If you’re a beginner, it may be too soonto go to the online arm of the Masie Center, which describes itself as aninternational “e-lab and think-tank”, dedicated to “exploringthe intersection of learning and technology”. Its content can feeloverwhelming, but if you’re already an e-learning champion or are trying togather material for an informed report, it’s an excellent resource. The manbehind it is Elliott Masie, a pioneer in technology, learning andorganisational development for the past 27 years, who’s acted as consultant toover 3,000 organisations from the CIA to Walt Disney. There is a paid-foraspect to the site (and you can join its E-learning Consortium for $5,000annually), but much of the material is free to access. A bonus is the areadedicated to Masie’s presentation material, which is full of soundbites thatare perfect to quote at the boss. You can also sign up for free to the regularonline technology update and newsletter TechLearn Trends. Previous Article Next Article Comments are closed. Bookmark of the monthOn 1 Jan 2002 in Personnel Today Related posts:No related photos.last_img read more

Case roundup

first_imgRelated posts:No related photos. Previous Article Next Article Comments are closed. Case roundupOn 1 Nov 2002 in Personnel Today Our resident experts at Pinsent Curtis Biddle bring you a comprehensiveupdate on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, andadvice on what to do about themPinnacle ACI Ltd v Honeyman and Cape Industrial Services Ltd Further confusion on TUPE and when new contractors can refuse to engageexisting staff * * * * Cape lost a maintenance contract to its competitor, Pinnacle. Ittold its nine employees who worked on the contract that they were entitled totransfer to Pinnacle. Pinnacle refused to employ them, disputing that TUPEapplied. The employees sued both Cape and Pinnacle for unfair dismissal andredundancy payments. The EAT held that TUPE applied, even without a transfer ofassets or employees. Key pointsPredicting when TUPE applies to contract changeovers is notoriouslydifficult. Here the tribunal correctly applied the latest test set out by theCourt of Appeal, basing its decision on a consideration of all the facts of thecase. While apparently straightforward, this test does make it difficult toanticipate whether a tribunal would find TUPE applied in a case where neitherassets nor employees transfer. While European case law in this area requires either assets or employees totransfer, domestic law stresses that if neither transfers, the tribunal mustexamine why. This means examining all the facts surrounding the non-transfer ofemployees, not just whether the new contractor’s motive in refusing to take onstaff was to defeat TUPE. It was thought one ‘good’ reason for not taking on the old staff might bethat the new contractor could resource the contract using its existing workers.However, Pinnacle failed in that argument in this case. It had just lost a contractat another site and so had a ready workforce for the contract it won from Cape.But Pinnacle was employing a similar number of staff to Cape and thetribunal considered that had it not lost the other contract, Pinnacle wouldprobably have recruited Cape’s employees. The same service would have beenprovided by the same skilled workforce, which would clearly have been atransfer of an undertaking. The EAT held this was a permissible conclusion. This case indicates thateven the ability to staff the contract with an existing workforce may notprevent TUPE from applying. The difficulty is this approach focuses not just onthe facts in the case but on what the position would have been had differentfacts applied. What you should do – Incoming contractors should assume that TUPE will apply unless there is areally strong argument to the contrary. – Contractors should seek to include TUPE costs when pricing their bid,rather than seek to undercut the incumbent, only to face unfair dismissal andtermination liabilities. – Client organisations should consider obliging new contractors to applyTUPE to avoid disruption to services or an attempt to increase the contractprice if a TUPE dispute arises. – See 26 for more on TUPE. Gate Gourmet v Jangra, EAT The dangers of acting too hastily in ill-health terminations * * * * After an accident at work, the applicant developed a medicalcondition that prevented her carrying out her job working on conveyor belts.She was absent from work and it was not clear when she would be fit to return.An attempt to return to lighter duties was unsuccessful. After 16 monthsabsence, a meeting took place at which a manager decided to dismiss theapplicant with immediate effect as there was no clear prospect of her returningto work. She was encouraged to reapply for work when she was fit. Sheunsuccessfully appealed, by which stage her condition had worsened. However, she succeeded in a complaint of unfair dismissal and disabilitydiscrimination. The tribunal considered the termination meeting had beenconvened too hastily and that the employee should have been warned that themeeting could result in termination. The EAT allowed the employer’s appealpartly on the ground that the tribunal had failed to consider properly the defenceof justification to the disability discrimination complaint. Key pointsThis case usefully illustrates the need to ensure that employees are givenproper warning that their employment is under threat before ill-health reviewmeetings or disciplinary hearings. This will be even more important when thestatutory procedures under the Employment Act come into force next year – afailure to provide this information in writing will make the dismissalautomatically unfair and may result in a 50 per cent increase in compensation. A further feature of the case was that the decision to dismiss was takenwhile the applicant was awaiting test results. The tribunal was very criticalof this on the grounds that it was unreasonable not to have waited the short periodof time for the full medical picture to emerge. For that reason, it consideredthe dismissal not to be justified under the DDA. Although the EAT considered that the tribunal had failed to apply thecorrect test on justification, the case illustrates the risk of jumping thegun, not least because the EAT considered that justification should be judgedat the date of the discriminatory act – facts discovered after terminationcould not be relied on. What you should do – Have written procedures for ill-health terminations. – Train managers to follow the procedures and to be aware of the keypractical pitfalls. – Give proper warning to employees if a review or disciplinary meeting couldlead to their dismissal. – Ensure the full medical picture is available before deciding to dismiss. – Remember the need to consider reasonable adjustments under the DDA. – Managing Incapacity is the theme for next month’s employers’ Law briefing,to be held on 5 December at the British Library in London. See page 16 for moredetails. Cobley v Forward Technology Industries Plc, EAT Automatic dismissal of a director when he was ousted from the board wasfair * * * Cobley was employed by Forward Technology as managing director and wasa member of its board of directors. He led an unsuccessful management buy-outof the company, which was ultimately taken over by another company, Crest. Cobley was voted off the board and at an extraordinary general meeting, aresolution to remove him as a director was carried. His contract provided thatin such circumstances, his employment would terminate automatically. Thetribunal’s rejection of Cobley’s claim of unfair dismissal was upheld by theEAT. Key pointsThe company argued two potentially fair reasons for Cobley’s dismissal. Onewas his conduct in attempting to buy the company at half its market valueduring the MBO and his persistence in pursuing it, which substantiallyincreased the price Crest had to pay. However, the tribunal found that theprimary reason for Cobley’s dismissal was “some other substantialreason” – the acquisition by Crest which resulted in Cobley’s removal asdirector and employee. On appeal, the EAT agreed this was a legitimate reasonfor dismissal. An employed MD must also be a member of the board of directorsand this was reflected in Cobley’s contract. The next issue was whether the company had acted reasonably in dismissingCobley for that reason. Against the background of the takeover battle, to which Cobley had led theopposition, it was inevitable that he would cease to be a director when Cresttook control. The new owners were entitled to replace the board. Cobley was anexperienced businessman and would have been aware that, having lost thetakeover battle, he was at risk of being ousted. What you should do – Remember that in many cases, contractual damages could be much greaterthan the maximum unfair dismissal award. – Ensure that executive directors’ contracts provide for automatictermination if they are removed from the board. – Ensure that board meetings and EGMs held to remove directors are properlyand lawfully constituted otherwise the dismissal may be in breach of contract. – When dealing with senior executive terminations, bear in mind that seniorexecs may be well placed to mitigate any losses through alternative employment.This may provide scope for negotiating a severance package which is lessexpensive than a payment in lieu of notice. Make sure you have your equal opportunities policies in orderUchendu v International MarketingGroup (UK) Inc and Others, EATPutting equal opportunities policies into practice can pay dividends indefending discrimination complaints* * * * * The applicant was employedby a marketing company as a secretary in its hospitality division. This was an‘aggressive’ marketing environment staffed by female employees. The applicant’scomplaint of sex discrimination related to the action of a male employee whojoined the department shortly after her. On a number of occasions, he asked theapplicant whether she would be wearing her “fuck-me boots”, a termcommonly used within the department by the female employees to refer to knee high,black, leather boots with high heels. She did not appear upset or indicate thatthe behaviour was unwanted.When she resigned, she made no complaint of sexual harassment.She then met with a personnel manager, and after complaining about her workloadand other members of the team, she also complained about the male employee’scomments.When asked if she wanted any action to be taken, she gave noresponse. The personnel manager investigated the issue anyway, and when theapplicant brought tribunal proceedings, the company took disciplinaryproceedings against the male employee and gave him a warning for the use ofinappropriate language.The tribunal rejected the sexual harassment complaint. Theapplicant had not suffered any detriment nor had there been any less favourabletreatment. The expression was part of the normal language used in thehospitality division. The applicant had not objected to its use and was foundto be oversensitive compared with other women in the division. Isolatedcomments from a new staff member did not create an intimidating, hostile orhumiliating working environment.The EAT upheld this conclusion, and agreed the company hadtaken all reasonably practicable steps to prevent discrimination.Key pointsThis decision is extremely unusual. The tribunal’s finding that there hadbeen no sexual harassment at all in this case appears to have been reachedlargely because the offending expression was regularly used by other women inthe department. This case does not mean employers should not crack down oninappropriate language. Other cases on sexual harassment indicate precisely theopposite – what is mere ‘banter’ to some may legitimately be consideredobjectionable byothers. Perhaps the absence of any objection by the employeealso influenced this part of the tribunal’s decision.Of wider significance is the finding that the employer couldhave successfully relied on the statutory defence to sex discrimination underSection 41 (3) SDA 1975.This allows employers to escape liability if they can show theyhad taken all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the act ofdiscrimination. This defence is notoriously difficult to substantiate. However,the EAT concluded it was extremely difficult to see what else the employercould have done.The company had a comprehensive equal opportunities policy,copies were provided to new recruits and the policy was reinforced duringinduction training.The tribunal had also taken account of the employer’s responseto the complaint. While only steps taken prior to the act of discrimination canbe relied upon to support the statutory defence, the EAT considered thatsubsequent actions – here the conscientious investigation of the complaint andthe disciplinary action – were relevant to show the equal opportunities policyhad real teeth.What you should do– Ensure you have comprehensive equal opportunities andanti-harassment policies which include clear statements about what behaviour isunacceptable in the workplace and a clear procedure for dealing with complaints.– Communicate the policies to new staff throughtraining/induction programmes.– Provide ‘refresher’ training regularly.– Train managers to recognise cases of harassment and respondappropriately.– Challenge inappropriate or offensive behaviour throughinformal counselling or disciplinary proceedings.last_img read more

Stress tops list of staff health concerns

first_imgStress is the biggest single health and safety problem in the workplace,according to a TUC survey published last week. The poll of more than 500 union safety representatives revealed that stresswas the biggest health and safety concern in almost 60 per cent oforganisations, well ahead of back pain and repetitive strain injury. Owen Tudor, the TUC’s health and safety specialist, said the survey revealswhy employers should take stress seriously. He welcomed the Health & Safety Executive’s (HSE) proposals to introduceminimum stress management standards before the end of the year. He said: “Unions consider this as long overdue. This is not just ahealth and safety issue, it is a personnel issue. It is about how you organisework.” Tudor said the TUC would use the HSE’s powers to investigate stresscomplaints once the standards have been introduced, as a way of tackling employersthat persistently ignore the problem. www.tuc.org.uk Comments are closed. Previous Article Next Article Related posts:No related photos. Stress tops list of staff health concernsOn 14 Jan 2003 in Personnel Todaylast_img read more

How to woo the budget holders

first_imgE-learning is a revenue generator, says Macromedia’s Sue Thexton, we justhave to convince the right peopleAnalysts predict that e-learning will be one of this decade’s killerapplications – Gartner believes that “online learning will be the mostwidely used web application by 2005” and IDC predicts a market value of$18.5bn in the same year. To meet such expectations in today’s economic climate, we need to convincebudget holders that what they are buying into is a revenue generator and abenefit to their business. From day one, it is essential an enterprise clearlydefines what its particular learning needs are and how training will link intoexisting business models. In reality, poorly-defined training can frustrate revenue generators inbusiness units who don’t see its value. This can lead to great content beingdeveloped, but to no predetermined ends, so the content is not used and moneyis squandered. E-learning champions need to internally promote how e-learning can savemoney. This can be achieved by preparing some dummy costings. Take a globalsales force within a pharmaceutical company – bringing the whole team togetherphysically for new product training could cost millions of pounds, whereasdeploying a CD-Rom alongside online web-based seminars, sometimes calledwebinars, will save time and money (and if used correctly, can be veryeffective). Also, corporates should move towards the idea of ‘learning objects’ in orderto maximise return on investment – this will help combat the cost argument usedby e-learning doubters. If corporates treat the content as assets (learningobjects) that can be moved across a number of platforms – for example, a FlashMX movie clip – then they will increase in value the more they are re-purposed.It is a case of greater use equals lower cost, equals greater return oninvestment. E-learning’s worth must be measured against improvement in employees’ coreskills. Within an enterprise, there must be key people who understand eachindividual’s development needs, and who should be responsible for building anddeveloping the e-learning modules to address pre-determined development areas.By creating specific content, the target audience will use the modules andprogress can be measured accordingly. The bottom line is that unless e-learning can be measured as delivering ahealthy return on investment, its adoption will never match analysts’ expectations.Sue Thexton is vice-president Europe at Macromedia, www.macromedia.com How to woo the budget holdersOn 1 Feb 2003 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Article Comments are closed. Related posts:No related photos.last_img read more

Government revamps post-16 education to make it more relevant to employers

first_img Comments are closed. Secretary of State for Education and Skills Charles Clarke has promised morejoined-up thinking for the post-16 years education and training sector, andless bureaucracy. His plans were announced as details were released to make the ModernApprentice (MA) scheme more attractive to employers by making skills morerelevant and flexible. Addressing the Association of Learning Providers’ Partners in Learning 2003conference, Clarke said: “A diverse and strong provider base is vital toour plans in the post-16 sector to allow all our young people to reach theirpotential, to give those whose main-stream education has failed, a vital secondchance and lay firm foundations for lifelong learning.” He drew attention to the employers’ agenda. “A high-quality, crediblenetwork of work-based learning providers is essential to ensure employers’skills needs are understood and training is in place to meet them,” hetold delegates at the conference in Birmingham last month. The DfES is pressing on with its promotion of Modern Apprenticeships and hasset targets of 28 per cent of 16-21 year olds entering the scheme by 2004/05.Latest estimates show it will have achieved 99 per cent of its interim targetsfor 2002/03 with 149,000 young people being part of the system. It has promised to work with the new employer-led MA Taskforce to promotethe scheme and steer their future development. Speaking after the conference, deputy chairman of the new taskforce IanFerguson said employers still perceived MAs as being too bureaucratic andinflexible .” Ferguson, chairman of software company Data Connection, wants to seeemployers take their own initiative to develop MA models which would then be approvedby Sector Skills Councils “But the first thing to do is improveawareness,” he said. “And we need to do more work to make them moreflexible.” Ferguson said it is recognised that many young people need extra support.”In August the new Entry to Employment programme will be rolled outnationally, ” he said. “This is for disadvantaged and disaffectedyoung people to gain the skills needed to progress to Foundation MAs,employment or further vocational learning.” Clarke had outlined the need for bureaucracy to be pruned – a challengehanded to the chairman of the Bureaucracy Taskforce, Sir George Sweeney, whowill draw up recommendation for work-based learning providers following similarwork last year on Further Education colleges. “The aim is to try to identify those things the system generates whichare not serving the interests of young people,” Sweeney told TrainingMagazine. “The more pounds we can push down to the frontline, thebetter,” he said. Sweeney’s department will set up a ‘star chamber’ of regulations, publishits conclusions and produce a final report in March 2004. By Stephanie Sparrow Related posts:No related photos. Government revamps post-16 education to make it more relevant to employersOn 1 Jun 2003 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Articlelast_img read more

EC calls for common list of illnesses for EU workers

first_img Comments are closed. The European Commission (EC) has called on European Union (EU) member countries– including the UK – to adopt an updated and common EU list of illnesses forwhich workers should be compensated if they contract them at work. In a formal ‘recommendation on the schedule of occupational diseases’,Brussels calls on governments “to introduce as soon as possible”rules covering “compensation and preventative measures” for suchmedical conditions. It has also published a second list of illnesses, which are not alwaysdirectly linked to workplace health problems, and has asked member states tointroduce rules demanding compensation for workers where a condition “canbe proved to be occupational in origin and nature”. As the commission’s proposals are in the form of a recommendation, they cannotbecome mandatory as if written into an EU directive or regulation. However, employment and social affairs commissioner, Anna Diamontopoulou,has called on governments to follow Brussels’ disease list plan and also toconduct further research. http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2003/sep/occ_disease_en.htmlNeed to knowThe EC’s high priority list specifies both health problems andcauses required to be considered an occupational illness. It spans:– Diseases caused by 36 named chemical agents, includingarsenic, ammonia and chlorine– Skin diseases provoked by nine elements and allergies, suchas soot, tar and paraffin– Respiratory problems, such as silicosis and asbestosis– Cancers, including lung cancer, caused by wood dust– Infectious and parasite diseases, such as tetanus,tuberculosis and brucellosis– Physical injuries, such as cataracts, caused by heat radiationThe second list covers similar ground, naming less toxicchemicals, such as magnesium Related posts:No related photos. Previous Article Next Article EC calls for common list of illnesses for EU workersOn 7 Oct 2003 in Personnel Todaylast_img read more

Unpicking the links between psychological and physical safety

first_imgRelated posts: Previous Article Next Article Mental ill health accounted for more than half of sickness absence in last yearA total of 38.8 million working days were lost because of work-related illness and workplace injury in 2019/20, with more… Psychological safety, such as being free of a bullying boss, is important for an effective workplace climate. Image: Shutterstock It is well recognised that feeling supported and safe psychologically can enhance individual and team performance in the workplace. But it is also important for generating and sustaining a positive physical safety culture, writes Deborah Hulme.Why is there so much interest nowadays among employers in psychological safety, and what is its interplay with physical safety? It is certainly true that there is currently much interest in psychological safety, a concept that in reality has been around since 1965, when it was first introduced by Schein and Bennis.About the authorDeborah Hulme is founder Minerva Engagement* and the Neuroleader Academy, which specialises in applying social cognitive neuroscience learnings to business.Since then there has been a growing body of research, including the influential paper, Psychological Safety and Learning Behaviours in Teams (1999) written by Harvard University professor Dr Amy Edmondson.However, the concept of psychological safety only really began to gain traction within the business community over the past five years or so.This revival of interest in psychological safety is largely thanks to a study undertaken by Google’s project Aristotle that focused on what needed to be in place to create a consistently high-performing team.The study reviewed hundreds of academic studies, analysing more than 180 internal teams involving 37,000 employees over a period of two years.Its findings showed that, whilst there were common factors such as structure and clarity, meaning and impact, what mattered most was how the team worked together rather than who made up the team.Psychological safety and high performanceHowever, it was only when the findings from Dr Edmondson’s earlier research were incorporated into the study that the consistent thread across high-performing teams was identified, namely, psychological safety.Psychological safety is defined as the ability to speak up and participate in a group without fear of consequences. Felt by individuals, it is experienced in social situations and, thanks to scientific research, is now understood to be an essential component for trust, communication and collaboration as well as innovation, decision-making and problem-solving.Quite simply the more threatened we feel within our team or social group, the less likely we are to contribute our ideas, challenge the status quo or report that near miss or close call.We know from research emerging via neuroscience and neuropsychology that the human brain works to keep us safe above all else.We respond to threats (perceived or real) such as uncertainty, unexplained change, a bullying boss or a toxic team environment by keeping our heads down and avoiding confrontation.This is one of the reasons why psychological safety is considered important for an effective safety culture and a positive safety climate.Correlational studies report a strong link between psychological safety and willingness to report one’s errors and behaviours (Wright and Opiah, 2018). In essence, the less we speak up the more safety incidents go unidentified with the subsequent loss of learning that prevents ongoing repetition.Professor Dr J Groeneweg describes this new understanding as “The New Dawn of Safety” (GCE Risk, 2020). According to Groeneweg, we are moving from continual improvement through technology, culture and leadership into the importance of team.Where organisations and individuals function as collaborative, networked teams, working together to reduce risk, they generate the motivation and energy that encourages innovation and consistently high wellbeing and performance over time.His view is that within our organisations we are now around 96% safer than we were in the 1980s.Whilst he acknowledges this is a great leap forward, he also highlights that, as a consequence, the learning pool is much smaller than it once was.Therefore, if we are to continue to learn and improve what we do, Dr Groeneweg’s belief is that we need to learn from what we do exceptionally well, as much as we learn from what has gone wrong.He references the Red Bull Formula One pit crew who are always consistently fast, breaking their own records, as they safely send their car back out onto the track.Quality of teamwork and psychological safetyIn 2019 the Red Bull team’s fastest pit-stop, involving a team of around 22 people, was 1.82 seconds and they achieve this (or within a fraction of this) consistently over and over again. When questioned on how they do it, they put their success down to human performance not mechanical advantage; the trust that exists among the team members, accountability, openness as well as the dedication to practice and process.In other words, the quality of the teamwork being determined by the level of psychological safety that exists within the team.The important point Groeneweg is making here is that the level of trust and psychological safety within the Red Bull team means they learn as much from their mistakes as they do from their successes. That error is seen as a learning opportunity and a shared experience about what works and what doesn’t.Indeed, that learning from error is a collective responsibility, one that operates within an environment and culture that makes it safe to learn from mistakes, rather than being diminished because of them.Interestingly, we are now seeing industry level responses emerging that support and encourage this thinking, including:The new ISO standard, ISO: 45003 has a focus on psychosocial risk and, embedded within this is, the importance of psychological safety at work. Launching in 2021 it will complement the well-established standard ISO:45001 for Occupational Health & Safety. (ISO/DIS 45003, 2020).A letter published recently in The Times from 33 leading organisations (Unilever, global banks, energy companies, the CBI and others) emphasised the importance of prioritising psychological safety, as well as physical safety (Gosden, 2020).RSSB, the Railway Standards Board, is currently developing wellbeing KPIs for the rail industry (RSSB home page, 2020).Whilst the focus is certainly shifting, it is not an easy ask. It is not enough for managers to say, “my door is always open”, “we are listening”, “there are no mistakes just learning opportunities”.In fact, research suggests that psychological safety does not necessarily emerge even as a product of a positive safety climate. Principally because, it’s a property of “team”, influenced to a large extent by the mindset, behaviours and energy of whoever is leading the team.Leaders and managers play a critical role in creating a psychologically safe environment by setting out the vision, values and modelling the way.For example, by avoiding negative reactions to error reports and evading initiatives such as zero accident programmes, which may, un-intentionally, undermine reporting behaviour. Effective safety structure, process, messaging and governance are all essential; however, impact is hindered if displayed leadership behaviours are not aligned.The line manager/leader/team relationships are crucial to continued safety improvement. Fortunately, we now have the intelligence, frameworks and the measurement tools to support and develop leadership understanding and capability.Through data, guidance and targeted interventions we can extend existing skills and capabilities as we work our way towards Red Bull levels of consistent high performance.*Minerva Engagement is a strategic people consultancy focused on the relationship between psychological safety, wellbeing and performance. For any OH practitioners wanting to find out more, please email [email protected] A and Lei Z (2014). “Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, And Future Of An Interpersonal Construct”. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, vol 1:23-43. Available online at https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305Edmondson A (1999). “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), p.350.Gosden E (2020). “Mental Health ‘Is A Priority’”. The Times. Available online at: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mental-health-is-a-priority-lfd27dr3bWright M and Opiah S (2020). “Literature review: the relationship between psychological safety, human performance and HSE performance”. Greenstreet Berman. Available online at https://heartsandminds.energyinst.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/648484/Literature-review-the-relationship-between-psychological-safety,-human-performance-and-HSE-performance.pdfISO/DIS 45003. Occupational health and safety management — Psychological health and safety at work : managing psychosocial risks — Guidelines. ISO, https://www.iso.org/standard/64283.htmlKnowles M (1967). “Personal and organizational change through group methods: the laboratory approach”. Within Adult Education, by Edgar H Schein and Warren G Bennis, New York: John Wiley & Son, 1965. 17(2), pp.126-128.Groeneweg D J (2020). “Psychological Safety within Formula 1. CGE Risk”, Connected by Risk Seminar, 24 September, 2020. Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brITLSki5wM&feature=youtu.be“re:Work” withgoogle.com 2020. Re:Work. Available online at https://rework.withgoogle.com/print/guides/5721312655835136/The RSSB: what we do, latest updates (2020). Available online at https://www.rssb.co.uk/en/what-we-do/insights-and-news/newsWildner M (2000). “Aristotle and the human genome project”. The Lancet, 356(9238), p.1360. Why Covid-19 is an opportunity to rethink wellbeing within constructionThe construction sector faced major workplace health, safety and wellbeing challenges even before the logistical and financial problems generated by…center_img No comments yet. Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply.Comment Name (required) Email (will not be published) (required) Website Unpicking the links between psychological and physical safetyOn 7 May 2021 in Mental health conditions, Sickness absence management, Occupational Health, Bullying and harassment, Personnel Today, Occupational psychology, Organisational psychology, Performance management Firms should have legal duty to protect night workers’ health, says Co-opThe Co-op has launched a nightshift workers’ health and wellbeing ‘manifesto’ in Parliament, which has called for employers to be…last_img read more

The feeding of sledge dogs on Antarctic expeditions

first_img1. The diets of sledge dogs at a British Antarctic sledging base were studied both at base and during sledge journeys, and samples of the diets and the relevant faeces were analysed. Changes in weight were related to calorie intakes. 2. The calorific requirements of sledge dogs were found to vary considerably from dog to dog and depended on the activity in which the dogs were involved. Whereas 2500 kcal/dog daily were just sufficient to maintain the body-weight of a completely idle dog, 5000 kcal/dog were insufficient to maintain the body-weight of a dog pulling a heavy sledge over long distances. 3. Seal meat was found to be the most beneficial and most satisfactorily absorbed diet. The artificial diets, pemmican and Nutrican, were adequate to maintain body-weight if sufficient supplies were available to give dogs as much as twice the routine ration, but were uneconomical in that large quantities of nutrients were passed in the faeces.last_img read more