“The NMC is aware of the developments today in the case of Rebecca Leighton, and her release without criminal charge.
The interim order suspending Ms Leighton from the NMC’s register, which was imposed on 2 August 2011, will remain in place at present. We will continue to liaise with Stockport NHS Foundation Trust to carry out our own investigations, and establish whether further action needs to be taken.”

Today it is reported that she is expected to find out if she can return to work.

Surely the way the story of her arrest was covered by the media makes it difficult for both her and her employer to let her return to work as normal. There are questions of patient confidence, how other staff will react to her and her own self-confidence.

In the UK we have an assumption that people are innocent until proved guilty. Yet, when the media print ‘Rebecca Leighton, 27, of Heaviley, Stockport’ , together with photographs of her, does this not become a ‘trial by media’? Also, to show how the media will subsequently get any story that shows the ‘suspect’ in a bad light, just look at the stories in various tabloids after her arrest.

I have thought, for some time, that a person arrested for an offence should normally have the same rights to anonymity as the victim in a rape case. Perhaps it is time for HR professionals to complain about how this adverse media coverage puts them in an invidious position. We are supposed to remain completely objective when looking at employing someone, but can we honestly say that previous media stories would not have an effect – perhaps subliminally – on our decision making, even in cases where charges have not been pursued?

However, it has taken me a long time to control my technology and use it when I want to, rather than letting it control me. This is because my coaching experience has evidenced my long-held concern of how we are surrounded by gadgets, some of which are supplied by employers and some are just our favourites, which mean that we are contactable twenty-four hours a day. Social networking also means that the giving and receiving of all sorts of information is instantaneous and keeps people attached to their i-phones or PCs even more often during the time they are being paid to work! Information Technology is usually talked about as a positive and time-saving aide but the amount of information that we are bombarded with daily is becoming a health-hazard; a hazard I call Information Toxicity.

When coaching business owners and senior managers, an issue that arises time and again is that of ‘information overload’. The result of all of this information is an inability to switch off and, consequently, we have a workforce who don’t have time for lunch, who respond to e-mails on the train and at home, who become attached to their technology and who are becoming ill!

So how did we end up with this situation? It began in 1971 when Ray Tomlinson invented e-mail, although this was only used in larger companies, who could afford the latest, very expensive, computers.  In those ancient times the ordinary person would communicate by sending a letter and, hopefully, getting a reply within a few days. At work we could send a fax and anticipate a reply within the next couple of days.

What no-one, including Ray Tomlinson, had foreseen was the introduction of the home-computer in the 1980s. In fact IBM’s Thomas J. Watson is reported to have said, “I think there is a worldwide market for maybe five computers” and DEC’s Ken Olsen’s opinion was, “there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home”. In 1986 it was suggested that lap-tops were a fad that would die out.

Instead, what added to the popularity of the home computer was the introduction and roll-out of the World Wide Web. Although the Internet was invented in 1973 by American computer scientist Vinton Cerf the World Wide Web was developed in 1989 by English computer scientist Timothy Berners-Lee. In July 2002 Sharon Gaudin interviewed
Ray Tomlinson, who invented email in 1971 and asked him, “How do you see email evolving? What will it look like 10 years from now?” His reply was, “If it doesn’t get killed off from spam, it probably won’t be a lot different. You may see it more closely integrated with other forms of communication, though, like instant
messaging. Once email is answered, you could continue the conversation more immediately, like with instant messaging. Simultaneous correspondence is a lot better than a few emails in a few hours. Or maybe you’ll get an email and press a
button and make a phone call…” The full interview can be read at http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/entdev/article.php/1408411/A-Conversation-With-The-Inventor-Of-Email.htm

So, this explosion of information has evolved over just three decades, including the palm-top, allowing us to respond to our e-mails 24 hours a day, from anywhere in the world. And, what is a reasonable time to respond? I have written about human beings changing their concept of time and this is a classic example. Along with this technology came the expectation that you will answer e-mails almost immediately – and if you don’t, then it seems okay for the person who sent it to phone you and ask you why not. If they need an instant response, why didn’t they phone you in the first place? Often it is because the email gives them an audit trail of what they sent you and when. Also Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn mean that you can find out what your friends are doing right now, together with photos or videos of it.

The outcome is that we are creating a potential health epidemic and already have a thing called ‘half-attention-deficit-disorder’, which we have all experienced when we are talking to someone who is half conversing with us and half checking their i-phone or BlackBerry. People are not being rude when they do this – well, not all of them – they are under
psychological pressure to be ‘on top of their game’.

The reality is that these people are becoming increasingly tired and less effective. I have clients who receive so many emails that their entire day can be spent responding to them and they lose focus on their day job – and their staff. Then look for a regulation, policy or procedure. Don’t worry, they are on the Internet or company Intranet but, unfortunately, all business people need so much information that, in order to read it all, you will need to stop your day job and start reading – and you will still be reading when you decide to retire – or die! However, you are supposed to have read and understood all of this information. Why? Well, if you do not comply with one of these regulations or policies, saying that you were not even aware of it will not excuse you. If you employ people, just think about the amount of
legislation and process you have to know about.

Even when away from the workplace there is no let up, which I witness when I am involved with clients whose mobiles are switched off or put on silent. I am faced with people who are fidgety, who are not fully present and, as soon as we have a comfort break, dash for their BlackBerry. Rarely do you get a relaxed conversation over lunch because the pressure they are under means that they have a whole morning’s e-mails and telephone messages to respond to. They are like drug addicts who suffer from withdrawal if their supply of information is taken away.

Along with this health hazard has come a psychological phenomenon of a person’s perception of their self-worth becoming commensurate with how often their i-phone goes off – ‘People constantly need me, so I am worthy – and important. Your BlackBerry has not rung, so people do not need you – you are a lowly person!’ This can be
damaging when they retire and do not receive this constant demand from others.

What is the answer? If I knew that I would be a very rich man, but I do know it is not sustainable. If this ‘disease’ is affecting you, either as an employer or an employee, I have put some questions below that I have asked in a coaching relationship:

For the owner / senior manager:

• When was the last time you gave yourself time to think about your business? (Many businesses fail because everyone is busy doing things and no-one is looking at new opportunities or keeping an eye on potential competition.)
• When was the last time you went for a walk, went fishing or whatever you do to re-charge your batteries? (This can also be when you get your best business ideas.)
• If you are having to make telephone calls, send texts or email people after you have ‘finished work’, why can’t you manage your time effectively during your working day to prevent this happening?
• If you are a ‘workaholic’ where does it say, in their contract of employment, that your employees have to be?
• What culture are you creating in your organisation that allows your technology to control you, rather than you controlling it?
• What is this doing for your personal and organisational reputation? (You may think that customers and clients may think you’re ‘wonderful’ for contacting them at ridiculous times. The chances are they don’t appreciate having their spare time being interrupted and they may end up seeing you as a bit of a pain.)
• Who’s going to run your business whilst you are in hospital recovering from your heart-attack – or when you are dead?

For the employee:

• Why are you finding it necessary to send / respond to work-based communications in your own time?
• Where does it say, in your contract of employment, ‘must be constantly on call and ready to respond within the hour’?
• What does responding to all of these demands do for you – make you look important – or make you look like a puppet, there to respond to the strings of your boss?
• What is the personal cost to you of continually dealing with work, as regards friends and family?
• How much more relaxed would you feel if ‘work’ was kept at work and your own time was truly yours?
• What’s the sick pay like at your place – and do you have mortgage protection cover for the time you’re off long-term sick?

As with most things in life, running a business and dealing with employees is not as straight forward as we would like it to be. A problem employee, if not handled correctly, could undermine your business more than you can imagine.

Alan specialises in all areas of HR. If you are in a real pickle and need help contact us here.

Whilst the benefits of Executive Business Coaching are widely recognised, what is rarely addressed is how the consumer can make sure they get the right coach. For the potential customer we have written a short guide to take them through the questions to ask, with tips on what to look for. It is available as a FREE download here.

If you are a member of the CMI, and on LinkedIn, you can follow this discussion here.

For those that are not, some of the perceptions have been both interesting and amusing. There is a widely held perception that public sector workers have unrealistic expectations of the rewards and benefits package they would expect from their private sector employer. Comments have been made about the higher salaries paid in the public sector – with contrary comments being made about the private sector. Discussion has also included whether public sector workers have an entrepreneurial outlook.

There have been entries, similar to that I put on my personal blog here, about how prospective employees market themselves. For me, all this can be broken down to two issues – the individual and the organisation.

I am an advocate of people being able to market themselves when applying for a job. This entails speaking the language of the organisation you are applying to and being able to ‘sell’ your experience, CPD, skills, abilities, and your USP in a way that demonstrates how you will add value to the role you want.

However, that is no good if the organisation does not want to listen. I am taken back to the report, by Lord Macpherson, about the murder of Stephen Lawrence, when he said that the Metropolitan Police Service were ‘institutionally racist’. What he meant by this was not that any particular member of the police service was racist but that the organisation had developed processes and procedures that resulted in a culture whereby members of certain communities were disadvantaged.

This current discussion thread has left me wondering how many organisations are ‘institutionally discriminatory’ against people from other sectors. Not that many years ago, the same could be said of a lot of organisations as regards their views on employing females – and perhaps some still are. There are examples here of perceptions about salary, public sector culture and private sector culture. Managers, at all levels, are responsible for creating their organisational culture through their words and behaviour. If comments like, “we don’t want some lazy person from the public sector” or “we don’t want someone from the private sector who’s only focused on saving money” are made then no-one should be surprised if that is complied with, even subconsciously.

The major question here, for all of us, is whether managers AND their organisations are discriminating against employees from other sectors, intentionally or not, or whether they are viewing all candidates equally.

Almost a quarter of small businesses would hire a public sector worker if there was no one else for the job, but 10% would never hire a public sector worker. The survey, says uSwitch, reveals “a widely spread perception that public sector industry has developed over-indulged staff with unrealistic expectations of the workplace” with 55% of SME owners believing public sector workers to be unrealistic in their expectations about pay, holidays and employment terms, and only 11% of those questioned considered public sector workers to be as productive as their private sector counterparts.

For me, this raises two fundamental issues:

• Why there is this perception of public sector employees
• How employees from this sector market themselves when moving to another sector

The negative perception of the public sector is caused by politicians. For years the government in power (irrespective of which one) has been bleating on about how much money they have put into health, the police and education. These speeches were perceived as good vote catchers, without telling the public that this was all being done on borrowed money.

In recent years they have been caught out and have had to admit that the UK is in a dire financial position. As a consequence we have now heard about how inefficient the public sector is and that it is too bureaucratic– from the same politicians that created these problems in the first place. Unfortunately, as this survey shows, people have believed this rhetoric and the real tragedy is that many very good people in the public sector have felt undermined and ‘rubbished’ by this rhetoric. If you continually tell a person that they are useless then they internalise that message and lose their self confidence; which leads me to the second issue. I have coached senior leaders from the public sector who will do excellently in the private sector if they can just learn to use the language to market their transferable skills to a commercial organisation. However, they first have to overcome the damage this political rhetoric has inflicted and recognise their own value; which is immense. Are there poor employees in the public sector? Yes.
Are there poor employees in the private sector? Yes.

There are, equally, really good and loyal employees in each but, are there people ‘rubbishing’ public sector staff who should know better? Most definitely!

I would go one stage further and say that the majority of apprenticeships suffer from the legacy of the Labour government’s fixation with performance indicators. Apprenticeships are designed to give the candidate a vocational qualification, which is ideally suited to kinaesthetic learners who are not academically suited. Yet, the majority of level 2 NVQs still require the candidate to achieve C grade GCSEs in English, Maths and Science which makes them almost discriminatory against the very people they are aimed at.

If there is not a radical overhaul of the apprenticeship system conducted soon then we are in danger of losing a generation of youngsters whose learning style does not suit the draconian process of compulsory education – if we haven’t already. Unfortunately, our society is quick to right them off if they do not achieve the statutory five GCSEs of A star to C grade.

Many young people who are accused of low-level disruptive behaviour at school are merely bored. Then they are focused on, which destroys their self-esteem and makes them a problem and yet many of these young people are very talented. They just need to be taught in an appropriate way, but because they don’t fit the current system they end up with issues about learning which can often only be overcome by coaching them.

We rarely see the power of this style coaching and mentoring until reality TV kicks in to evidence the latent potential possessed by these young people. In 2002 Jamie Oliver took fifteen disadvantaged youngsters and gave them professional training and, most recently, Michel Roux Jr. trained eight people in the art of ‘front of house’ service.

He said, "They all come from different backgrounds, but all had reached a dead end in their lives that resulted in low self-esteem. One had an ASBO, another went to public school and university. I wanted to take them on a journey to prove that front of house is an option for a career, not a stop-gap."

For years I have believed that the majority of young people have far more potential than we let them show. Apprenticeships are the ideal tool to allow this potential to be realised, for the benefit of the individual, for industry and for our society as a whole, but not if we place the same academic barriers in the way. The first sign of insanity is to do the same thing twice and expect a different result – and yet the education system and apprenticeships are doing exactly that. Madness!

 
I have heard criticism of a lack of direction and leadership, especially at senior level, in some organisations. Whilst this perception may be true, I have found that it is not because senior and middle managers don’t want to provide this direction and leadership – it’s because they don’t know how, in this performance landscape. If you think about it, the majority of leaders at this level have only known relatively good times and it is much easier to keep staff motivated when their quality of life is improving year on year.

Now we are entering unchartered territory. Public sector organisations are starting to implement the government’s austerity measures, with many local authorities announcing employee reductions and the private sector are unsure how these cuts will impact on them. What effects are increased fuel prices going to have and will the Bank of England increase interest rates – and if they do, by how much and when? Will the price of property go up or down and what impact will that have on business rents? All of these are unknown factors and the natural consequence of this uncertainty is knee-jerk reactions to the latest news.

Unfortunately at these times all of us get focused on survival and work hard to achieve short term goals, instead of taking the time to think. The findings of this report outline the requirement for clarity of purpose and a vision to work towards – a clear Mission and Vision, as outlined in our Performance Landscape programme.

 
The other significant factor of this report is the necessity for the behaviour of senior leaders to match their words. I refer to this as ‘authenticity’ and a quick way to get disengaged employees is to lack this authenticity. Leadership is an art and one that needs continual refining and this report clearly outlines the reasons why. Download a copy of this report and take the time to read it to help your organisation achieve sustainable performance:- http://www.alanwingrove.com/cipd-download