Labour Relations
While the role of the individual at work has been changing, labour relations have also undergone a major transformation.
In the not-too-distant past, major dissatisfaction and resistance to change usually manifested itself in union activity - work-to-rule, strikes and the like. These were a huge challenge to management but, at least, such activities meant that the bosses were kept aware of the issues. Furthermore, workers also felt that their views were being aired.
​
Since the '80s and Thatcher's all-out clash with the unions, legislation restricting their powers and a steady decline in membership have eroded their influence (though, interestingly, not those representing staff working in the Public Sector).
​
However, this is not to consign unions to the history books. Far from it. They continue to have an important role to play in management and staff relations. After all, who will safeguard the interests of millions of employees whose lives are impacted by the legislative and economic nightmares inflicted by today's political and business leaders? Surely many will turn to unions and other such bodies to represent them.
​
But today’s empowered and informed employees, by their very nature, no longer seem prepared to tolerate mindless confrontations between belligerent and bloody-minded management and unions – a feature of industrial relations in the not-too -distant past.
​
More so than in the past, the unions and professional bodies that will prosper will be those that work for realistic outcomes of mutual benefit to the staff and enterprise.
Consequently, they can't expect to be effective without a clear understanding of the business employing their members. In fact, unions and management often agree to work together to resolve some of the larger issues.
Whilst at Guy's & St. Thomas', I met regularly for informal chats with full-time officers of the many unions and professional bodies representing most, if not all, the 7000+ people employed at the hospital. We would use these meetings - away from the glare of publicity and the traditional management-union posturing - to have frank and open discussions about our (often similar) expectations. The nett result was that our subsequent negotiations were usually tempered with a greater sense of reality and an increased preparedness to find solutions and to compromise, if absolutely necessary.
​
Therefore, is it any wonder that the traditional and easily recognised boundaries between those who manage and those whom they manage are becoming blurred?
​
Realistically, such blurring and ambiguity must be expected.
​
Many of today’s multi-faceted issues can only be addressed by the combined efforts of a wide range of specialists drawn from across traditional departmental, functional and professional boundaries.
​
With accountabilities and reporting lines less clear-cut, it’s hardly surprising that people ask such questions as "who's my boss?” In reality, it could be a line manager, the head of a current project or, possibly, a professional from elsewhere in (even outside) their organisation. Quite conceivably it could be a combination of all three.
In his book, 'the Age of Unreason', Professor Charles Handy writes that today’s smart organisations have given rise to the post-heroic leader. Handy suggests that the heroic leaders of the past knew all and would expect (be expected) to solve most, if not all, problems. Sir Lancelot Spratt, the head surgeon in the 'Doctor' films of the '60s, springs to my mind as being one such leader.
In contrast, the post-heroic leader of today doesn’t claim to have all the answers. Possibly the issues are more complex and the solutions more challenging.
​
It is certainly the case that the rapid changes in markets, technology, laws and, even, human behaviour have transformed the agenda for those leading today’s enterprises.
​
So how can today's management gauge the mood of the workforce (and the individuals within its ranks)?
Often it's only after individuals have 'walked'. By then, of course, it’s too late. Nonetheless, turnover statistics may offer a clue (as might absence records). However, whereas turnover and absenteeism may indicate issues, there lurks a less obvious problem - 'presentee-ism'.
"Presentee-ism - what's that?", you ask (be assured, my definition is rather more pernicious than any you'll find on Google).
I came across this notion when seconded to the Industrial Society. It was the early '70s. management and politicians were all-consumed by the millions of days lost through industrial action and sickness. However, although these were clearly major issues, public and private sectors seemed more at risk from what a colleague termed 'presentee-ism'.
When I asked him what he meant, he said that when individuals 'clocked on', many promptly 'switched off' and coasted through their day with their minds elsewhere (unless, of course, it was to find ways to avoid work). He suggested that later in the day, those very same individuals would 'clock off' and 'switch back on' and that once they'd left the workplace, might even take on some responsibility within their local community.
As my colleague had spent some years working on the production lines at British Leyland in the early '70s and seen (been part of) all this first-hand, I was prepared to accept he had a point. I'd suggest that such 'presentee-ism' still exists.
Bringing this right up-to-date and add 'presentee-ism' to the actuality of today's strikes in the NHS, our schools, universities and public transport and - for the first time in decades - we appear to have major and widespread scepticism and dissatisfaction among us Brits.
If that is the situation, how should our business leaders go about handling the problem?
And. lest they think they're on top of things, it's the same challenge for the UK's politicians as they try to convince us to join them in 'the(ir) promised land'.