Don’t dump diversity on HR – Trevor Phillips

Jo Faragher

Tuesday 13 August 2013 15:11

The Employer Network on Equality and Inclusion (enei) has just announced that Trevor Phillips, renowned equality campaigner and former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Committee, will join its board. In an exclusive interview with Personnel Today, Phillips sets out what he wants to achieve.

Diversity needs to “stop being dumped on HR” and become a shared organisational issue, claims Phillips. If chief executives really want to see change, he says, they need to stop focusing on initiatives for initiatives’ sake, and embrace diversity because it is good for business and helps them serve their customers or citizens better.

No stranger to speaking his mind, Phillips touched on this point recently in an article for The Sunday Times. He called out some diversity campaigns for being too focused on “raucous name calling and denunciation”, claiming they did not take into consideration people’s real behaviours and motivations.

Creating a framework

The reason he wanted to get involved with the enei, he says, is to help create the right framework for organisations to improve diversity and inclusion: “You can’t make change happen simply by yelling at everybody that they need to do better. There’s a point where you create the right framework, and people help each other and find ways of improving. To some extent, they improve because they are competing with their peers. Enei has a huge role to play in helping employers benchmark against comparators, and in helping them to find new ways of doing better.”

Before joining the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) in 2003 and later theEquality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Phillips worked in broadcasting for many years and also chaired the London Assembly. During his 10 years at the CRE and EHRC, much of the focus was on developing a legislative and policy framework for employers. He says: “When I left, I felt we’d done a decent job, but there’s a limit to what you can do through legislation and regulation, particularly in the private sector.

“We’re at the stage now where Government and statutory bodies can play a really important role in explaining the law and enforcing it where necessary, but the truth is that most organisations want to be better at diversity and inclusion, they just don’t know how.”

One of the potential areas where employers could make more of a difference is in collating more data, and bringing more scientific methods into how they approach diversity. Phillips cites examples of hospitals where rates of recovery are related to (but not dependent on) the ethnicity of their carers. “This is the sort of data we haven’t started to collect, understand, or analyse properly,” he says.

Ensuring consistency

Together with enei chair Harry Gaskell, Phillips is involved in creating the newNational Equality Standard, an initiative designed to help employers bring some consistency to their diversity and inclusion efforts. It brings together a group of leading employers led by consulting firm Ernst & Young, and to be awarded the standard, each company must undertake a robust assessment against a defined set of criteria, including interviews and staff surveys.

This is all part of the drive to create a greater evidence base for diversity, says Phillips: “We want to make this driven by metrics. This will change the landscape entirely over the next five years and I can say that a large percentage of the FTSE 100 will have qualified this and will want to make sure their suppliers do too.”

One of the areas enei has been pushing forward is in unconscious bias. It has been running workshops and assessments for employers to work out whether workers’ implicit associations or beliefs are having an impact on performance and engagement. Phillips hopes more organisations look at unconscious bias, but for the right reasons.

He explains: “I knew of a major asset or wealth management business that was running some unconscious bias sessions for its senior leadership. They look after a lot of rich people’s money, and the head of the asset business came to the head of diversity and said ‘I don’t know if this is the case, but I’m anxious that my sales people are unwittingly putting off some female clients and some clients in emerging territories.’ So it was a suspicion [it was affecting business], and he wanted some unconscious bias training to make sure. That’s how it should be.”

Profits as a motivator

The motivator is the key, he adds. “It shouldn’t be that an HR or CSR (corporate social responsibility) department says we need to do this to be righteous, or because we need to have a perfect reputation; it should be the sales team saying, ‘in order to be profitable, we need to make sure we have the right mix of people on staff”.”

Too often, diversity and inclusion is a case of “painting by numbers”, according to Phillips. “When people think of diversity, there’s a sort of corporate eye-rolling, a ‘we need 50% women – can we do this painting by numbers?'” he says. “That approach isn’t wrong, but it’s partly a means to an end because the important diversity is not what it looks like (ie, how many women there are or ethnic minorities), but in diversity of skills and attitudes.”

In the same vein, chief executives have tended to “dump” the diversity brief onto HR because it’s seen as a problem that needs a solution. Phillips explains: “What tends to happen is that you’ve got a largely male and white leadership, which every now and again agonises about it and says to the head of HR: ‘Why can’t we get more women or Asians?’, and they get cross when HR can’t deliver an instant solution.

“I think that employers are putting a responsibility on HR that should not really be theirs. This is a whole-organisation issue. The rest of the organisation, especially departments like sales and marketing, has been let off the hook, in a comfort zone where they don’t have to think about this.”

HR’s role

This isn’t the first time Phillips has made this point. When he took over the chair of the CRE, he asked: “Why does the diversity brief always fall into HR?” Perhaps understandably, HR went on the defensive. This time, he’s at pains to explain that HR will still have a role, but that it will need to be a shared one.

“What I would say to HR is, be ready to let it go,” says Phillips. He concludes that HR can move forward in two key ways: “First, by saying to the chief executive that we’re past the stage where they can discharge their responsibility for diversity by simply instituting some programme. Second, by getting hold of better, more detailed information and metrics. The place at which boards are going to be convinced that diversity matters is where, technically, they can see a relationship between diversity and who works for them, what they do, what their output is and where profitability arises. It’s the numbers that will tell.”

With more and more HR professionals embracing the power of data, this should be a role they are happy to take on.

A slice of HR at Pizza Express

Jo Faragher

Monday 19 August 2013 09:22

As HR director for one of the UK’s most-loved brands, Amanda Underwood is helping to create a recipe for high employee engagement as the restaurant chain expands. Jo Faragher reports.

Often, if you are looking for a job in a restaurant, it’s a case of dropping your CV into a branch in the middle of a busy shift, perhaps hanging around for a restaurant manager who never materialises and ultimately realising that your application got buried under a sea of dirty plates.

At Pizza Express, however, if you walk in off the street seeking work, you will be presented with a card in the shape of a tomato and invited to register your interest online at pizzaexpressyourself.com. All of these details are stored in an applicant tracking system and appropriate candidates will then be asked to interview. The whole experience is designed to ensure that potential employees do not come away with a bad taste of the Pizza Express brand.

This is important because Pizza Express, despite its focus on Italian food, is something of a British institution. According to YouGov’s Brand Index for the eating and drinking sector, it has retained the top spot for the past two years, and has also been named the favourite restaurant brand among 18-to-24-year-olds in its Youth 100 poll. For Amanda Underwood, the chain’s HR director, ensuring that employees (and prospective employees) feel as positively about Pizza Express as customers do is a core part of what her team does.

“When I tell people I work for Pizza Express, they instantly recognise it and tell me how much they love it or the name of their favourite pizza,” she says. “You’ve got to remember that anyone who approaches us about a role is also likely to be a customer, so you want people to go away with respect for the brand.”

Management behaviours

Anyone who applies for a management role completes a psychometric test to gauge whether or not they exhibit the right behaviours, and if they do not not make it to the next stage of the recruitment process they can receive a development report showing areas they could work on if they decided to apply for a role again.

Amanda Underwood CV

August 2012 – present: HR Director, Pizza Express January 2010 – September 2012: head of HR, Pizza Express January 2008 – January 2010: head of HR, Gordon Ramsay Holdings March 2007 – January 2008: HR business partner, International Power January 2005 – April 2007: HR manager, Williams Lea October 1999 – January 2005: HR manager, Baxter Storey

Underwood manages a team of 22 in the HR department – a small team when you consider that the company employs around 10,000 staff across more than 400 restaurants in the UK and an additional 55 internationally. The team consists of regional HR business partners, central admin and the talent team (recruitment and learning and development).

“I think any HR role should have an operational element. After all, we’re not a huge company and this means we can stay close to the business, support them and understand their issues,” says Underwood.

The day-to-day staffing issues tend to be devolved to restaurant managers, who receive training and tools to support them in the issues they are likely to encounter. So while the recruitment process and recruitment of management might be managed centrally, team member recruitment tends to take place at a particular restaurant and be handled by the relevant manager.

Cascading responsibility down through the organisation seems to be a recurring theme at Pizza Express, and it is looking to mirror this in the way it communicates with staff. The company has already replaced a clunky intranet “with something much more functional”, improving visitor numbers by 30%, and plans to introduce an employee forum with elected regional ambassadors. In turn, these ambassadors will communicate with local staff through their own intranet page and/or blog.

Improving retention

The casual dining sector is not known for high staff retention figures, but Underwood reels off a string of stories about managers or regional directors who joined the company as waiters or chefs as a stopgap role and ended up staying for years.

“It gets under people’s skin,” she says, defending the sector’s poor reputation for retention. “By its very nature we have seasonal workers, people who work while they’re studying or are home for the holidays, so when you do the sums the retention figures don’t look great. I think we get a bad rap.”

For those who do decide they want a long-term career at Pizza Express, there are a number of routes available. Team members can follow the classic, operational route through the organisation, working their way up to “manager on duty” (a supervisory level role) and then attend an assessment centre before they progress up to management. Successful applicants complete a six-week training programme where they’re paired up with another restaurant manager as a “buddy”. This includes a London-based residential course called “Il Viaggio”, where delegates learn management basics such as managing people, recruitment, presentation and financial skills and must put together a Dragon’s Den-style presentation at the end of the week based on their learning.

Alternatively, staff can choose to specialise – for example, a chef could develop their skills as a trainer and restaurant staff who apply for head office roles will generally be viewed favourably because they have already proven they know the business and are engaged with it.

Plans for expansion

Over the next five years, Pizza Express has ambitious expansion plans, aiming to open 200 more restaurants internationally – particularly in China and India. Many of these openings will be joint ventures or franchises, so central HR will have limited involvement. That said, Underwood accepts that sustaining engagement will be a challenge as the company gets bigger at home and abroad. New CEO Richard Hodgson, who joined in April, “really wants to understand and measure engagement”, and this is something HR is looking to do more of.

“[Richard] has huge support for HR; he really believes that people are the most important aspect of the business, which is brilliant for me,” says Underwood.

“We have recently introduced metrics but, because things change so quickly in this sector, a lot of information ends up going to waste, so we need to be careful and sensible with our key performance indicators. And it is what you do with the data – rather than the reports themselves – that is the most important thing.”

However, so much of what makes Pizza Express a much-loved brand for customers and employees is, arguably, immeasurable, and that’s why Underwood was excited to be approached about a job there in 2010: “The best thing about my job right now is the fact I work for a business that – even if I didn’t work there – I’d still adore it. That, and the reaction I get when I say I work here, and as much pizza as you can eat. But the best thing of all is it gives me everything I need from a role – to be challenged, to be learning, to make a difference.”

See Personnel Today Jobs for current HR roles in the hospitality and leisure sector

Five employment law changes that came into force on 29 July 2013

Madeleine Graham

Monday 29 July 2013 12:51

Hot on the heels of June’s employment law changes come another raft of measures, relevant to all organisations, which come into force on 29 July 2013. Personnel Today sets out five things that employers and HR professionals need to know about the new legislation.

1. Compromise agreements renamed settlement agreements

Compromise agreements will be renamed “settlement agreements”. The use of these will be facilitated by new rules in relation to pre-termination negotiations.

• Compromise agreements renamed “settlement agreements”.

 

2.  Pre-termination negotiations become inadmissible in unfair dismissal proceedings

Evidence of “pre-termination negotiations” between an employer and employee will be inadmissible in ordinary unfair dismissal claims. This goes further than the “without prejudice” principle as it will apply even where no formal dispute has yet arisen. The legislation applies to negotiations held with a view to terminating employment under a settlement agreement.

• Implementation date for pre-termination negotiation provisions announced.
• Can an employee rely on confidential pre-termination negotiations with the employer as evidence in a tribunal claim?

 

3. Claimants start paying a fee to submit a claim to an employment tribunal

Claimants who issue a claim against their employer in the employment tribunal are required to pay a fee. Fees will also be payable by respondents in some circumstances.

• Fees for tribunal claims introduced.
• What fees does a claimant have to pay when bringing an employment tribunal claim?
• What fees are payable when a party appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal?
• Can employment tribunal fees be waived if the claimant cannot afford to pay?
• In what circumstances are respondents required to pay tribunal fees?
• What happens if a claimant submits an employment tribunal claim without the required fee?

 

4. New employment tribunal rules

Changes to mployment tribunal rules include combining pre-hearing reviews and case management discussions into a preliminary hearing, revised powers for tribunal judges to strike out weak cases and a requirement that an employment tribunal must, where appropriate, encourage parties to use alternative dispute resolution.

• Government publishes new employment tribunal rules.
• What are preliminary hearings?
• Does an employment tribunal have the power to strike out a weak case?
• Is there anything that an employer can do if it misses the deadline for submitting a response to an employment tribunal claim?

 

5. Reduced cap on the compensatory award for unfair dismissal introduced

An individual cap of 12 months’ pay in relation to the compensatory award for unfair dismissal is introduced. The individual cap will apply where this amount is less than the overall cap, currently £74,200.

• Compensatory award limit for unfair dismissal amended.
• What is the unfair dismissal compensatory award?

 

Legal opinion: How to prepare for giving evidence at an employment tribunal

Helen Darnton

Tuesday 20 August 2013 08:43

It is entirely natural to feel nervous about appearing as a witness, but is it really as bad as you fear? Not if you come prepared. Solicitor Helen Darnton, pictured above, looks at what a witness for the respondent can expect at a hearing.

Preparation

If you are going to be a witness, you will be asked to prepare a witness statement. Take your time to make sure this is accurate and thorough as it will form the main part of your evidence, which you will give under oath.

Ask for a copy of the bundle of documents that will be used at the hearing so that you can familiarise yourself with it beforehand. You don’t have to memorise anything as the bundle will be in front of you when you give evidence, but being familiar with the documents will go a long way to avoiding you being caught out.

The day of the hearing

When you arrive at the tribunal you will be shown to the respondents’ waiting room where you will be asked whether you prefer to swear on the Bible, another holy book or to “affirm” that you will tell the truth. It does not matter which you opt for.

When you go into the tribunal room, you will see a table set out at the front for the judge and panel members. In unfair dismissal cases judges often sit alone, whereas in discrimination cases there will be a panel of three: a judge and two lay members who are not legally qualified.

One of the lay members will be from an employee representative or trade union background and the other will be from an employer representative or HR background. Decisions are made by majority so the two lay members could potentially overrule the judge, although this is rare.

The claimant’s and respondent’s representatives sit in front of the panel with seats for witnesses behind them, as well as on the side for when the witness gives evidence. It is a public forum, so anyone can sit at the back and listen – including reporters – but try your best not to be concerned by this.

Once any preliminary points have been made by the judge, the first witness begins to give evidence. In discrimination cases the claimant usually goes first; in unfair dismissal cases, however, it is usually the other way around. The order of evidence depends on the legal issues and burden of proof.

Giving evidence

When you are called forward to sit at the witness table, you will first be asked to swear an oath that you will tell the truth.

If the judge hasn’t already read your witness statement you may be asked to read it out loud. You will then be cross-examined by the claimant’s representative, which is the challenging bit. Don’t take anything personally; it is their job to discredit your evidence. Remain composed and take a deep breath if you start to feel yourself getting riled or frustrated, and don’t be afraid to take a moment and think before answering the question – there is no rush.

One of the most important points when you are a witness in an employment tribunal is to take your time to consider the question. It sounds obvious, but many people are inclined to try and answer the question they think ought to have been asked or that they wish had been asked. It can be very tempting, but this isn’t helpful for the tribunal judge.

Sometimes witnesses can become obstructive or defensive, which makes it appear as if they have something to hide. Remember that it is not an exam or a memory test; if you can’t remember or you have no knowledge of something, it is absolutely fine to say so.

Likewise, if you can’t remember something but think that the answer is in the documents, it is absolutely fine to ask for a minute to check before you answer.

The key to being a good witness is to be helpful. If the judge or any of the lay members ask you something after the cross-examination, answer as helpfully as you can. Do not read too much into whether or not you get asked questions and how many you are asked as neither are an indication of how “well” you have given evidence.

When the cross-examination is over, your own representative may ask you further questions to clarify any points raised. Again, do not read too much into this.

Finally, there is etiquette: Refer to male judges as “sir” and female judges as “madam”.

If you are still nervous, it is worth taking the time to watch a tribunal hearing before you have to go yourself. These are public and if you explain to the clerk why you are there, they can direct you to an appropriate hearing.

Helen Darnton is an associate at Clarion

The Biggest Onboarding Mistakes You Might Already Be Making

Contributor:  CB Bowman,

We are all familiar with the term “onboarding”, which became in vogue during the 2003 release of  “The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at All Levels.” However, over the course of a decade, the term “onboarding” has morphed into “orientation”, a disastrous error. Here I present to you the biggest markers that lead to failure of an organization’s onboarding process.

The first mistake is not truly understanding the difference between onboarding and orientation.

Many organizations confuse them with each other or, worse yet, companies only relegate onboarding to the executive-level employee. These companies believe that like orientation, onboarding is a one to two day process during which “wining and dining” takes place for the executive-level new hire. Add to this, the incumbent is over-loaded with executive material, all the while being introduced to stakeholders, as appropriate. Following this, the employee is placed on one of two tracks, which more than likely have been predetermined prior to the hire: solve our problems or become window dressing! But not so fast– onboarding is best defined by Michael Watkins, a whopping—90 days. Even for window dressing.

The second mistake is not understanding your culture, not being able to articulate your culture, and not preparing the incumbent for the new culture. We have not fully begun to understand the impact of culture on a person’s success because it is hard to identify which form of culture (i.e., social, ethics, value, knowledge, appearance, et.al.) has the most meaning; we do not have a clean way to isolate them from one another and there is not a clean way to measure their isolated impact.

If we look at Wikipedia’s definition of Culture …

… “the term “culture” in American anthropology had two meanings: (1) the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act imaginatively and creatively; and (2) the distinct ways that people living differently classified and represented their experiences, and acted creatively. Other anthropologists describeculture as an integrated system of learned behavior patterns which are characteristic of the members of a society and which are not a result of biological inheritance.

From this vantage point, we can begin to better understand why one or two days are not nearly enough time to identify, explain and indoctrinate your organization’s culture into a new hire so that a their opportunity for success is increased exponentially. Think about it: underneath the sheets of culture lay office politics, most certainly a showstopper.

I’d like to hear from you: what are your top onboarding mistakes and how does your organization make the most out of orienting a new hire?