Blog, Professional Training, Courses & Development

Picture of hands touchingTesco has been through some difficult times in the last couple of months. Following an accounting scandal that uncovered a huge hole in expected company profits – to the tune of around £250m – plummeting share value, falling sales and the full-scale investigation launched by the Financial Conduct Authority are all taking their toll on the world’s second-largest retailer.

We know by now that ethics in business matter. They matter to consumers, who are becoming increasingly selective on the basis of companies’ commitment to CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) policies and measures, and they matter to employees. Research recently conducted by the CMI has illustrated this point extensively, showing that staff satisfaction is significantly higher in organisations scoring higher on the ethic of care. What it also shows is that a large number of managers (particularly in large organisations) are aware that ethical behaviour in their organisation is poor.

The interesting question to pose is: why do they tolerate poor ethical behaviour, when we have consistently seen that good ethical behaviour produces winning results all-round?

The question is certainly a complex one that can’t be answered within the scope of this blog post. But Tesco’s reaction to their recent troubles can perhaps give us some interesting insights. More specifically, what Tesco boss Dave Lewis decided to do earlier this month was to decree that thousands of office staff, including senior executives, go to the shop floor as part of an initiative dubbed "Feet on the Floor". This initiative is an acceleration of their annual "helping hands" initiative and designed to see office colleagues work one day per fortnight in the runup to Christmas, either stacking shelves or working the tills in stores across the country.

"Understanding customers even better is critical to our future success and there is no better opportunity for office colleagues than by supporting our stores in the run-up to Christmas."

And I think he’s right. Though it may well be intended as more of a PR stunt than a business strategy, it is interesting to consider the role that "distance" plays in business ethics. What I mean by this is that it is easy for professionals who work in an office role to become, or in fact always be, very much detached from the product or service they are selling, as well as from their customers. And perhaps this distance continues to grow the further up the food chain you go, with top-level managers highly involved and concerned with the performance of the business, but hopelessly uninvolved when it comes to understanding their employees’ and indeed their customers’ concerns. Is it the case, then, that managers just don’t "get" how ethics affect staff productivity as well as customer satisfaction?

I don’t have an answer to this question, but I think it is definitely one worth considering. Perhaps all managers in all sectors should be encouraged to get their hands dirty every once in a while to gain critical insights into how their brand and company are perceived on a human level. Who knows what kind of business decisions they would make then…

Truck speeding down roadLogistics underpins the operation of a great number of businesses across the UK, and it is perhaps because of this very reason that it is often not thought about as a sector in and of itself.

But new findings published earlier this month by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) suggest that this attitude needs to change… and fast. The report, entitled Understanding skills and performance challenges in the logistics sector, highlights that the sector contributes over £90 billion to the UK economy each year, and warns that it faces severe skills shortages in the years to come. With over 1.2m extra jobs said to be required by 2022, one of the main problems is the lack of "young blood" entering the industry, with only 9% of the current workforce aged under 25. As suggested by Michael Davis, chief executive at UKCES, this situation entails "a very real risk that the talent pool will dry up – causing serious consequences for the rest of the economy as a whole."

Taking on new talent is particularly important when considering the rapid rise of technology, which has quickly led to multi-skilled roles being the norm. What is thus needed is a "steady stream of skilled workers" entering the industry with the necessary combination of IT, customer service and communication skills needed to meet the challenges of the years ahead. And this means that employers need to be prepared to make the investments needed in terms of training and recruitment, finding ways of making the sector more appealing and more accessible to the younger generations.

A failure to do so will translate into potentially disastrous consequences for the rest of the economy, with businesses of all kinds unable to support their operations and thus potentially choosing to take their activities elsewhere. In fact, a recent article published in The Economist highlighted that Heathrow, which is by far the country’s busiest hub for freight, has reached bursting point. Unless new investments are made, the airport – which ferried goods worth £133 billion in 2013 – is thus likely to lose business to other European countries, causing further damage to the logistics sector and the economy as a whole.

Active neuron in the brainI’ve come across several articles recently that have made me stop to ponder the issue of hiring really smart people in your organisation. Logically speaking, it seems natural to assume that you, as a business, want to hire the most talented people out there. The more brilliant the individual, so the theory goes, the more he or she can contribute in terms of ideas, expertise and ultimately growth and success.

But is there a sort of line beyond which intelligence actually becomes a curse?

According to some, there definitely is. Citing examples such as the Enron scandal, caused by a group of people considered to be "the smartest guys in the room", they argue that intelligence is often accompanied by a range of traits that actually make hiring such individuals a risky business. For starters, they argue, smart people are often keenly aware of their own intelligence, which often translates into arrogance and the automatic assumption that their opinions should be accepted without question. This means that they don’t tend to be particularly good at taking direction or working together with others – and they are often pretty lousy communicators, too.

A second and related issue is that being very gifted in terms of technical knowledge doesn’t necessarily make them skilled from a managerial point of view. But alas, the nature of career progression in most fields and companies means that talented individuals often end up being "rewarded" by being given management responsibilities. The result is that teams end up being led by individuals with no aptitude – and in many cases actually no interest – in being responsible for others and working in areas such as team-building, motivation and performance management. Using the example of retired sports superstars who try their hand at coaching, often with little success, some argue that highly skilled individuals are unable to bring themselves down to the level of the “lesser mortals”. This makes them unable to transfer useful knowledge, advice and skills to the individuals they are coaching, which translates into little difference being made to performance.

And retaining smart people can be a real headache too. They know they are considered highly attractive employees by other companies, which makes them think (perhaps rightly so) that they can expect better pay than others, as well as more benefits and higher bonuses. Now, this makes a lot of sense if their contribution to the company justifies that kind of payback. Or at least as much sense as the fact that CEOs have seen pay increase by 937% since 1978 while the typical worker has seen an increase of 10.2%. But if their superior brainpower translates into an uncommunicative, dictatorial approach that focuses purely on numbers and data, without being able to comprehend the more human aspects of consumer behaviour, is it really worth it? Some data would actually suggest that it is the less-confident among us who end up being more productive and successful.

On a slightly unrelated note, another article I recently came across has made me wonder whether a little laziness could actually help me reach my goals more effectively. What I mean is that I grew up being told that hard work pays off, which has made me a fairly committed and dedicated worker. But apparently that may not be a particularly good thing either, because it means that I’m not afraid of having to do a lot of work to get somewhere. On the other hand, a lazy person tries to find the quickest way possible, which actually means they end up reaching the goal sooner. A little someone named Bill Gates actually famously said: "I will always choose a lazy person to do a difficult job, because he will find an easy way to do it".

And if it works for Gates, who are we to disagree?

Employers not complying with DSE responsibilitiesWhile there may not be enough evidence to say that spending long hours in front of a screen causes worsening eyesight, research has repeatedly shown that a high proportion of DSE (Display Screen Equipment) workers regularly complain of eye discomfort.

It is no surprise, then, that the Health & Safety Executive has had legislation in place since 1992 to protect workers’ health in this regard, primarily by ensuring that workplaces take appropriate precautions & measures to protect users’ eyesight against prolonged computer screen use. But a recent study conducted by Specsavers Corporate Eye Care has revealed that many companies are in fact failing to comply with these regulations. To be more precise, HR Grapevine reports that a worrying 63% of the 138 heads of companies questioned (all with Health & Safety or HR responsibilities) admitted not fully understanding the DSE regulations, in what appears to be continuing confusion regarding who is responsible for what.

To shed some light on the matter, the regulations state that you, as an employee, "are entitled to ask your employer to provide an eye test if you are an employee who habitually uses DSE as a significant part of your normal day to day work. This is a full eye and eyesight test by an optometrist (or a doctor)."

But in spite of this, 10% of the managers surveyed by Specsavers expected the employee to fund the full extent of their own DSE eye care. The question is: are we dealing with a lack of information or awareness, or are employers being disingenuous and simply trying to cut costs?

There is no doubt that, for companies with thousands or tens of thousands of employees, the costs will add up. But it is also true that they stand to lose a lot more by feigning ignorance and/or not meeting their obligations. Not just in terms of potential legal action on the part of employees (though this is definitely a possibility), but in the sense that no one stands to benefit from having unhealthy employees. If your employees suffer, your business will suffer too – so is it really worth the risk?

Employers don't understand acronyms on CVsIt’s an age-old question with no straightforward answer that I, for one, have often asked myself in the past. We know that skills and qualifications are good, but how will they actually help us get a better job or a better salary? How much of a competitive edge do they give us? How much do employers really care if you have a BA, MA, BTEC, PhD or NVQ?

Well, a lot of them probably do care, or at least would if they knew what BTEC actually stands for. And, as revealed by a recent study conducted by City & Guilds, a lot of them actually don’t. When questioned, 57% of the 1,000 employers surveyed admitted that they find many acronyms they see on CVs confusing, with almost two-thirds (64%) revealing that they had to look them up on the internet. Let’s look on the bright side: at least they try… which can’t really be said for the the odd 40% who admitted throwing CVs away because they didn’t understand the qualifications the candidates have.

Worryingly, 44% of respondents – who came from a combination of small, medium and large businesses – didn’t know that BA stands for Bachelor of Arts, while a whopping 95% weren’t able to identify the more advanced qualification from a list including BTECs and NVQs. The problem seems to be that these acronyms generate suspicion rather than awe, suggesting to most employers (around two thirds) that the candidate is doing it to cover up a lack of skills or qualifications.

Clearly, this is a big problem for employers, but an ever bigger one for those of us who are slaving away trying to certify our skills only to find that it makes us less likely to get a job.

As mentioned by Chrissie Maher OBE, founder and director of Plain English Campaign:

“… it’s not just potential employers who lose out: job seekers could be wasting years of hard work on qualifications that employers won’t recognise.”

But let’s not tear up our BAs just yet. City and Guilds is working in collaboration with the Plain English Campaign to create a jargon buster that will help both employers and learners better understand the terms and acronyms that exist in education. Hopefully this will create greater awareness and better possibilities for all parties involved. In the meantime, if you are hunting for a new job, you may just want to double check you are writing out your qualifications in full… just in case.

UK employees not researching employers properlyLast week we reported on a piece of research showing that UK professionals, while secure in their sense of financial stability, are not particularly happy with their working situation.

Bearing this in mind, you would think that they spend a reasonable amount of time researching potential employers, right?


According to a new study conducted by jobs and careers community Glassdoor, full-time UK employees spend a measly four hours on this kind of research every year, out of a total of approximately 1,680 hours spent on the job. That’s 0.2% of their time. On the other hand, they spend an average of 24 hours – 6 times as long – researching their annual holiday.
Fair enough. Holidays are important and we can probably all appreciate that when you don’t even know if a company will be reading your CV or giving you an interview, perhaps dedicating hours on end to research may be a complete waste of time (though it would almost certainly increase your chances of getting an interview to begin with).

But what of the 35% of UK employees who admitted not spending any time researching their new employer before accepting a job offer? It’s one thing to avoid researching new employers when you don’t know if they will pay you any attention or you are not really sure that you want to change job anyway, but it’s arguably quite another to not do that kind of research when you decide to actually accept a new position. What if the job isn’t what you thought it would be? What if the company is going bankrupt? What if…?

The numbers here are certainly more worrying. It seems that 55% of the 1,031 employees interviewed didn’t look at the employer’s website and 78% didn’t bother to check if the business was making a profit. Can you really complain, then, when 6 months in you realise the job isn’t what you thought it would be?

It’s certainly true that looking for a job can be a full-time job in and of itself. It’s not an easy thing to manage when you’re supposed to be, well, working for the person who is currently paying your wages, remember? A lot of people have been there, including myself. But I’ve also been the person who finally quit a job I had come to loathe, only to find that the new job I had taken was even worse than the one before! It’s really not worth it and can make your sense of purpose even shakier than before. As someone who finds purpose pretty important, I would strongly encourage anyone reading to give up at least some of their holiday research time to making sure any potential career change they embark on is a change for the better – or be prepared for a very unhappy 1,680 hours of the year ahead!

Happiness is a complex thing. In most cases, it takes more than a great job or a loving family – it’s the combination of these and endless other factors that contribute to how a person feels overall.

So when it comes to measuring individual satisfaction with these aspects, how do British employees compare to their European counterparts?

The latest edition of the Gallup and Healthways State of Global Well-Being Index provides an insight into this tricky question. This year, the team of researchers probed 133,000 individuals from all over the world about 5 crucial areas of their lives:

  • Social (strength of relationships)
  • Community (liking where you live & feeling safe)
  • Physical (feeling healthy & energetic enough to do things)
  • Financial stability (feeling economically secure with low levels of stress)
  • Purpose (liking what you do & feeling motivated to achieve goals)

Based on their responses, individuals were then categorised into three different groups for each metric: thriving, struggling or suffering. According to this scale, Britons were shown to have high levels of financial well-being, with 46% falling into the "thriving" category compared with a European average of 37% and a global average of 25%. This appears to indicate that, overall, Britons feel secure when it comes to their finances and don’t tend to live in fear of getting to the end of the month or having enough money to pay their skills.

At the same time, 51% of British respondents were ranked as "struggling" in the purpose category, suggesting that a large proportion of them are unhappy in their professional roles. And they are not alone – purpose was the pillar that showed the lowest global averages of “thriving” individuals at 18%.

But if people feel financially secure, shouldn’t it follow that their sense of professional purpose are also quite high? Well, not necessarily. According to research director Dan Witters:

As the country’s employment situation improved, it’s possible that many job seekers took the first available position they could get, without regard for whether the job was a good fit for their talents or long-term goals.

And that’s understandable: being stuck in a role that is not necessarily your cup to tea can’t be particularly good for your motivation levels. Even if you are committed to your job and do it well, enjoying what you do is a huge motivating factor that makes a big difference to how much you are able to achieve & contribute. What can be said is that, if Britons do in fact feel secure about their finances, it is never too late to invest in gaining the skills or know-how needed to go from doing a job that is ok to doing a job that you love. What is at stake is not (only) the productivity of businesses across the country, and the economy as a whole, but your personal sense of well-being when you wake up to go to work on a Monday.

We spend an awful lot of our time working, after all – why not get the most out of it?

The fact that women continue to be disadvantaged in the world of business with respect to their male counterparts is nothing new. Despite significant and consistent advances in terms of female representation on company boards and the percentage of women filling senior positions, the unfortunate truth continues to be that, broadly speaking, the opportunities available to men and women in workplaces are far from equal.

In this context, the role of training and skills is often the cause of much debate, particularly when it comes to the issue of merit and the extent to which women are less skilled. More specifically, is it that women are not as qualified as men to perform certain roles, or that they are not given the same opportunities even though they do, in fact, possess the same skillset and/or experience?

According to a report issued last week by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES), women are already ahead when it comes to qualifications, with 38% holding degree-level certifications compared with 36% of men. What’s more, this advantage is set to pick up speed with 49% of women and only 44% of men predicted to hold degree-level qualifications in 2020. Importantly, the prediction is that this gap will result in two thirds of the new high-skill jobs created going to women in the next 6 years.

Commenting on the results, General Secretary of the TUC and UKCES Commissioner Frances O’Grady said:

The fact that skills levels are predicted to increase is welcome news. Skills matter – they increase a worker’s pay, their job satisfaction and boost the economy.


The increased disparity between men’s and women’s skill levels is concerning for both sexes. Men are finding to harder to get skilled jobs, while for many women their higher qualifications are not leading to better pay and jobs.

In other words, the situation is complex and affects both sexes, though perhaps to different extents. Indeed, with so many factors coming into play in recruitment and selection processes, both externally when taking new people on and internally when deciding who to promote or shift to a different position, it is perhaps idealistic and naïve to assume that higher qualifications will ever be directly correlated with better jobs or better pay.

What we can certainly hope is that more training and better skills will contribute to a more vibrant economy overall, which, in combination with a continued shift in attitudes when it comes to gender equality, will give skilled professionals (both men and women) greater opportunities for job satisfaction and career advancement than ever before.

At, we believe in the power and value of professional development. There wouldn’t be much point in doing what we do if we didn't.

But is there such a thing as too much training?

I ask the question after reading about the Italian doctor who made the headlines last week after an inquiry was launched into his rather impressive working record as a state employee: 15 days in 9 years.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. It’s Italy. Those guys never do much but ride around on their scooters and eat good food. But while there is some truth to that (I am Italian, which gives me the right to say these things), what interested me more were the reasons he had for staying out of the workplace for so long. Aside from the one year of paid family leave and the extended period of sick leave, what took up most of his time were two university training courses that appear to have taken him a total of 8 years to complete. The first lasted from when he started work in 2005 until November 2008 (around 3 years), while the second began upon his return from sick leave in July 2009 and lasted until June this year (around 5 years).

Eight years is a long time. Especially considering that a doctor presumably has to have a degree in Medicine to even get a job as a doctor in the first place. Then again, is it that unreasonable for a 50-year old professional to feel that he needs to update his skills and knowledge, particularly in the rapidly evolving field of medicine?
Leaving aside the fact that this gentleman may have been using training as an excuse to not have to work, I think this story raises some interesting questions about how much training professionals actually need, as well as to what extent it is the employer’s (in this case the state’s) duty not just to allow for it, but to sponsor it in terms of both time and money.

According to the hospital director, all of the doctor’s actions fell within the rules. Is it just a case, then, of dealing with a poorly designed system? What we don’t know, as of now, is if and to what extent this training will pay off in his future work (presuming he is allowed to keep his job). If it were to make a significant difference to the number of lives this doctor is able to save, for example, would this be worth the investment made? And how would an organisation go about measuring that?

These are all tough questions that L&D professionals deal with on a regular basis. The key here is the issue of measuring results, and the challenge of finding ways to do this as effectively and objectively as possible. What we need are structured, transparent systems that highlight the benefits (or lack thereof) of training in a way that makes it easier to either justify or veto further investments. My suspicion is that, while all businesses will find that there are indeed tangible benefits to be had by training their employees, some will come to the conclusion that an 8-year absence is ludicrous, while others may actually find that it’s worth it.

After all, il mondo è bello perché è vario.

Training needed for Pharmaceutical CompaniesVirus outbreaks tend to inevitably fuel debates about the pharmaceutical industry. And indeed, the current Ebola situation is no exception.

As was the case with bird flu, swine flu and indeed numerous other epidemics, many thorny issues arise and many buttons are pushed when it comes to the availability of potentially life-saving medicines, their cost and their distribution. This in turn stimulates reflection on big pharma in general.

Let’s face it: pharma hasn’t historically had a great reputation. Though pharmaceutical companies work essentially to help people overcome disease, often when they risk losing their lives, there are a number of reasons for which they are often interpreted to be the bad guy. Among these, profit is probably at the top of the list. Many – including the UK’s top public health doctor with regards to Ebola – blame the industry for failing to make investments where returns are too small to justify spending any money to begin with. The trouble is that an industry as necessary and as rich as pharma has historically always had the freedom to reason that way, where a lot of other traditionally "bad" industries have been forced to adapt and act in a way that is perhaps interpreted as more "moral".

Now, the point of this post is not to make a judgement on whether these criticisms are well-founded or not – that would be way beyond our remit and my own personal area of comfort. The point is that I want to make is that right or wrong, good or bad, it seems that even pharmaceuticals are reaching a cross-roads and will have to make some tough decisions in order to remain competitive in the next 5 to 10 years. In fact, PwC’s Pharma 2020 Report warns that “The outlook [for the pharmaceutical industry] has never seemed more promising – or more ominous”.
More specifically, the industry faces big challenges in terms of increasing what have been very low levels of scientific productivity over the past 10 years. In addition, according to the report, pharmaceutical companies need to address the "cultural sclerosis" that is affecting the management culture, mental models and strategies on which the industry continues to rely. Basically, they need to wake up and realise that there are new ways of doing business, and start taking practical measures to break with the "business as usual" approach that they have been lucky enough to get away with until now.

And this reality is in turn inextricably linked to the skills question and the potential for economic growth. In the UK alone, the pharmaceutical sector has continuously generated a greater trade surplus (at £5 billion) than any other industrial sector in the UK. But skills are lacking and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) warns that better regulation and a more science-focused education system will be needed to meet demands and make the change that is so desperately needed possible.

It is in this context that here at we recently launched a dedicated Pharmaceutical category, in the hope that it will become one of our biggest and more diverse categories in the future – relevant to professionals at all levels and in all sub-disciplines of to the industry. Whatever you may think of pharma, it is clear that it is a sector in dire need of talented professionals, and we reckon making training opportunities as accessible as possible will, in the end, work to everyone’s advantage.

Request help finding a course

Request a free training course quote!

Search for courses
Can't find what you're looking for?
By submitting your e-mail, you become a member of
Please fill out all required fields
CMI or ILM: which one is for you?

ILM or CMI: which one is for you?

Special offers & price reductions!
FCA Approved Qualifications

Discover 4 important truths about qualifying to perform controlled fuctions in an FCA-approved firm.

User / Blogger Login