Inappropriate behaviour in the workplace has come under the spotlight once recently after CBI chief Tony Danker stepped down from his role following a slew of allegations. And, more latterly, this morning, Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab has made the decision to resign following disclosure of a report relating to accusations of bullying. Mr Raab has claimed that the bar for what constitutes bullying has been set too low.

In addition to these high profile cases, at HR Champions we’ve also experienced a spike in the number of incidents regarding inappropriate behaviour and comments for which we have been asked to provide support to clients.

Evidence suggests a number of reasons why we might be seeing this increase:

• Victims and affected individuals are more courageous and willing to speak out
• Individuals are more aware of what does or has potential to be inappropriate behaviour
• Individuals are more ready to take offence, possibly a side-effect of the proliferation of social media

It has long been established that it is how comments and behaviour are received rather than how they are intended that determines whether or not they are offensive or inappropriate. Referring to an off-hand comment as being intended simply as a joke or passed off as banter probably won’t stand up in tribunal if an individual is truly offended by it.

Banter is only banter if everyone is genuinely involved in it and there is no target or victim. Even then, some individuals may join in because they are afraid of being singled out or becoming a target if they demonstrate or voice that they are uncomfortable or don’t agree with what is being said or implied.

Individuals can also be affected indirectly by comments and incidents. A laddish comment made amongst an all-male group of similar backgrounds may appear innocent amongst those present, however we may not know what friends or relations people present have outside of that group. And this applies to any group of similar individuals, regardless of gender, race, age etc.

Amongst the allegations made against Mr Danker of the CBI was a claim from a fellow female employee that Mr Danker had made unwanted contact that she said amounted to sexual harassment. Speaking on BBC Radio 4 earlier this week, Mr Danker defended his position stating that he had approached numerous employees, both male and female, to meet outside of work in order to garner a true understanding of the workforce and their attitudes towards the CBI. Mr Danker’s superiors were fully aware of his actions and his approach.

If Mr Danker was speaking truthfully, this is a classic example of behaviour that, despite it’s absolute best intentions, was construed as something sinister by the person on the receiving end.

It is also interesting that the CBI is piling so much at the door of Mr Danker, trashing his reputation in the process. This may be an attempt to avoid vicarious liability, which is where an organisation can be held accountable for the actions of one of its employees. By heaping the blame onto Mr Danker, the CBI is trying to swerve any accusations that it was the culture of the organisation that was to blame for complaints about behaviour, including one report of rape, that it received.

The rape accusation was not against Mr Danker and was made before his time in charge. However the messaging in the media is very confused and understandably, Mr Danker has chosen to go public and defend his reputation.

Dominic Raab’s claim that the threshold for bullying is set too low will probably hold sway with a lot of people. Differentiating between bullying and a robust management style might sometimes come down to very fine margins. Clear and unambiguous policies and performance management practices are key, along with clear parameters as to what good behaviour looks like. That they are applied consistently is crucial. Even so, it might just come down to the view of the Tribunal judge on the day should a case ever get that far.

For your own organisation, our Dignity at Work training is a good place to start. Not only will it educate your team about what is and isn’t generally considered to be acceptable behaviour, implementing the training will show you are taking appropriate steps that will help you avoid a vicarious liability charge of your own.

Guidelines over sexual harassment are about to be reformed through parliament, including new harsher sentences for offenders. We’ll be blogging about this once it’s finalised. In the meantime you can contact us on 01452 331331 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) have stopped updating it’s Covid insights web page and results of the infection survey from 24th March were the last to be published on the website. This is a clear indication that as far as the Government is concerned, Covid has become part of everyday life and a disease like any other that no longer warrants special attention.

The jury is still out on whether or not Long Covid will be categorised as a disability, thereby making it unlawful to discriminate against and require employers to consider reasonable adjustments for workers who suffer from it. Notwithstanding, because there tends to be more cases of Long Covid amongst older people, women and ethnic minorities, an element of potential discrimination already exists.

We still receive calls to the helpline from employers who need support in knowing what to do when handling Covid cases amongst there employees. Advice will vary depending on the industry, the people who work on site and who employees come into contact with. Guidance for care homes is very different to that for construction workers for example.

The final Weekly Covid-19 Infection Survey released by the ONS reveals a recent increase of cases in England and as many as 1 in 40 people in the country are currently infected. This may be a result of more people staying indoors together because of the wetter weather, but it’s a reminder that we should stay vigilant. Over 600 people have been dying in the UK in recent weeks where Covid was a factor.

Employers not only need to look out for their employees’ welfare, they must also remember that absence effects productivity and therefore the performance and profitability of their business. It might not be too difficult to imagine a business that gets into financial difficulties because it got sloppy over its Covid management and mitigation.

The law doesn’t say you must isolate if you are Covid positive any more, so this this is a grey area. But, employers who allow Covid positive individuals into the workplace potentially put their colleagues at risk (particularly the vulnerable which includes those who are pregnant) and expose themselves to having more employees being sick.

As businesses, we should have these ingrained in us by now but it never hurts to have a quick reminder of the key elements for employers to consider:

• Covid remains a highly transmissible disease that poses a significant risk to business continuity when it is identified in the workplace.
• In all cases, the overriding consideration is an employer’s duty of care and their responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of their employees and other people who might be affected by their work activities. Employers must do whatever is reasonably practicable to achieve this.
• Covid is now treated in the same way as any other sick absence and the normal sick pay rules apply.
• Guidance states that people who test positive or who have Covid symptoms should try to stay at home and avoid contact with other people for 5 days. They should also avoid contact with those that are higher risk from Covid for 10 days. This period starts the day after a positive test.
• If individuals feel unwell but have either tested negative or not tested positive, they should still avoid contact with people and especially those considered to be vulnerable.
• If a person has Covid symptoms or tests positive, they should work from home where this is possible to act in line with current Government guidance and for at least the 5-day period.
• If the infected employee’s job is one where they are not able to work from home, then they should not be in work and should be on sick leave.
• If an infected employee’s position is one where they are able to work from home, but they are too ill to work, then again, they should be on sick leave. Their absence should be used to rest and recuperate.

If you do allow Covid-positive people into the workplace, or if you turn a blind eye to employees with symptoms, then you should be confident that you have robust procedures in place that are preventing the risk of transmission and that your employees are fully confident and pro-active with these arrangements.

The .Gov website is still probably the best source of information regarding Covid, but if you need help with interpreting what they it says or you need support with a specific case, we’re here to help. Call us on 01452 331331 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

When it comes to creating headaches for employers, holiday calculations is a topic that just keeps on giving. With the clocks moving forward to British Summer Time sparking Summer holiday thoughts, and the end of the financial year looming, we thought now is a good time to revisit holiday calculations.

If you are one of the employers who align their holiday year with the fiscal year, then you should note that you’ll have two Easter Bank Holiday Weekends in your holiday year. This year, Easter Sunday is next weekend, meaning the Friday 7th and Monday 10th April will be bank holidays. Next year it falls on March 31st so Good Friday will be in this year’s holiday with Easter Monday in next year’s.

This shouldn’t be too much of an issue as it will balance out again the following year but it might cause a problem if an employee leaves during the year and you have to calculate their final pay. Should you pay them the extra day?

Wording in the employee’s contract of employment might influence how final pay is calculated which is why we always recommend that holiday allowance (for statutory holiday) is described as ‘28 days including public/bank holidays’ as opposed to ‘20 days plus public/bank holidays’.

This not only alleviates the issue caused by Easter moving dates each year, but also ensures that workers in industries such as hospitality, retail and care, who are often contracted to work bank holidays, are still entitled to the equivalent time off in lieu. It also makes calculating part-time workers’ holiday much easier.

For part-time workers, the easiest way to determine holiday allowance is using a pro-rata calculation based on the full time equivalent hours of an employee. For example, a part time worker, or someone who is reducing their hours from 5 days per week to 3 days, simply has their holiday adjusted by 40% or two fifths. So, someone who would normally be entitled to 28 days including bank holidays, would get 16.8 days which we would round up to 17 days.

Part-timers who work for part of the day but for five days per week, are still awarded 28 days holiday. This is because any day they take off as holiday will only be for the hours they would have worked anyway. So, for someone who works 9.00am to 2.00pm Monday to Friday, any days holiday they take will effectively be for those hours; so one day’s holiday is still only 9.00am to 2.00pm.

You can combine the two principles above for an employee who works both partial hours per day and partial days per week.

For an employee who works compressed hours, eg. fulfils their weekly contracted hours in four days instead of five to give them Fridays off perhaps, there is a different approach. Because such an employee is effectively working the hours of 1.25 days per day, then any holiday they take is similarly calculated. Someone in this situation then would be granted 22.4 days holiday per year, bearing in mind they are having Fridays off as well.

Our default approach remains to direct enquiries to the online .Gov holiday calculator when calculating holiday as this should avoid disagreements. However, we are seeing more and more anomalies in employee working patterns and so the .Gov calculator doesn’t always have an option for every scenario. Sometimes it’s still a manual calculation.

And don’t forget that, this year, as last year, there will be an extra public holiday to account for Royal events. Strictly speaking, the wording in your employment contracts determines whether or not you are obliged to give the day off for the King’s coronation. But taking into account the fact probably no-one else in the country will be working in the country on that day, except hospitality venues, care and those directly involved in the event, you’re not really going to be the only employer who insists that your staff come into work, are you?

We’re here to help and support with your holiday calculations and questions. Call us on 01452 331331 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amongst a number of legislative bills currently under review in Parliament is a new statutory code on fire and re-hire practices which would require employers to hold “fair, transparent, and meaningful consultations” on proposed changes to employment terms. It’s a change that may have been influenced by cases such as the mass sacking of 800 members of staff by P&O Ferries that you may remember from last year.

A contract of employment determines the terms under which an employee works for their employer in exchange for payment. Therefore any changes to these terms should be reflected in the contract and a new contract issued each time a change is made. If the proposed changes to the contractual terms are significant or fundamental, then a period of consultation should be entered into to give employees the opportunity to object to or influence how the changes are made.

A change of working premises would be considered a fundamental change as would a change in working hours or say a change to a shift pattern. It goes without saying that reductions in pay should always require consultation. Some businesses have used fire and re-hire tactics to avoid entering into a consultation period.

The terms under which a worker is employed fall under two headings; Statutory and contractual.

Statutory terms are those that affect all workers and are set out in law. Some of these are easy to identify, such a statutory maternity pay (SMP) and statutory sick pay (SSP).

We always recommend that statutory terms and those that apply across the entire workforce are included in the company staff handbook. This minimises paperwork when there is a change in statutory law as you don’t have to update individual employee contracts, just the staff handbook.

As well as statutory terms, a staff handbook might include procedures such as disciplinary & grievance and absence, break times and company policies such as Internet policy and Health & Safety policy.

Contractual terms are those that apply to specific employees and may enhance statutory terms, so these are the terms that will differ between employees. These will include the job title, hours of work, remuneration and access to company benefits etc. Although there maybe some statutory requirements that underpin these such as Working Time Directive and Minimum Wage.

A change to contractual terms will mean that the employee is working under new terms and so a new contract reflecting the changes should be issued. Where any changes are deemed to be significant or fundamental, then a period of consultation is required. If you are in any doubt about whether any changes to employee’s terms you are proposing constitute significant changes, you can call us for advice.

How your contracts are worded can help to keep a lid on your administration burden. For example, if you pay minimum wage then using a phrase such as “You will be paid at the prevailing National Minimum Wage rate for your age”, will mean you are not required to issue a new contract every time the NMW rate increases.

We recommend that contracts and handbooks are reviewed regularly to ensure they comply with statutory law and to cater for areas that are subject to frequent change such as Internet and Social Media usage.

If you would like to discuss a contract and handbook review then simply call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

In a fairly uninspiring budget this week, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt did give a nod of recognition to the current and ongoing lack of skilled and experienced candidates available to fill job vacancies with a reform to the free childcare system. Campaign groups have been calling for a change to the rules for some time which, in its current form, means working parents of one and two year old children do not qualify for Government funded childcare.

The Chancellor’s motivation to update the system and therefore release skilled and experienced employees back into the workforce is most likely driven by his plans for economic growth, However, there will be many advantages for those whom the reforms directly benefit; primarily working women.

It’s easy to see how someone who has taken a break from work for any period of time might lack confidence, or perhaps fear that their skills and knowledge have become outdated, thereby making it difficult for them to re-join the workforce. One of the reasons for an extended break may be the inability to afford childcare.

Under the new rules, with childcare costs taken care of, they will be able to return to work with minimal delay and probably to the same job. This will be a boost to employers too as it will enable pregnant employees to plan their return to work more effectively, removing uncertainty over whether or not individuals will be returning to the jobs which must legally be held open for them.

The Chancellor’s plans have drawn some criticism over the upper earnings limit having no tapering and how the phased implementation of the new rules may have a short to mid term ill-effect on those claiming childcare; but we should acknowledge that the changes are another step towards equality.

In the meantime, employers can encourage applications from parents who are ready to return to the workplace by offering what have been referred to in the past as ‘Returnships’.

First discussed back in 2017, returnships provide structured return-to-work programmes targeted specifically at those who have taken an extended, voluntary break from work.

Mostly introduced by larger companies, historically, a returnship was a paid programme of between three and six months, for those returning to work after a break of over 2 years. It includes tailored support, training and coaching whilst the returner actively works in a job role with the final aim, although there is no guarantee, of taking that person on full time.

Often, returnships are targeted at women returners but we would recommend ensuring any such schemes are fully inclusive as the reasons for taking a break from work are not exclusively pregnancy or childcare related.
Previous Chancellor, Phillip Hammond previously announced funding for returnship schemes but we don’t think this ever materialised. Amendments to current apprenticeship schemes to incorporate the returnship concept have been mentioned but details are still to be released.

We suggest that employers who are struggling to fill vacancies design and offer their own returnship schemes to reach those who are already looking for support to return to work. We’d be happy to help with design and implementation. Call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Difficult conversations are difficult because we don’t want to hold them; and in particular, initiate them. There’s also the fact that we believe the person with whom we’re going to hold the conversation probably doesn’t want to hear what we’re going to say either, which is often the case. But hold them we must, and as employers, it is incumbent on us to do so professionally, and whilst maintaining everyone’s dignity.

Support with holding difficult conversations continues to dominate as a reason why our clients contact us, and as an area in which we are asked to provide guidance. It’s clearly not just us that finds this. Numerous books have been published on the subject and we often see training courses like our own, to tackle it.

It’s pretty easy to come up with a list of the types of conversation or subject matter that make for a potentially difficult conversation. For example, to tell someone they are underperforming, that they can’t have the holiday they asked for, that they need to do a job no one wants to do, that they’re going to be made redundant, that they smell.

But it’s not the subject matter that makes a conversation difficult; it’s the potential emotions in ourselves that it might induce, namely:

• Fear (of conflict): We’re afraid that the person or people we must speak with won’t like or agree with what we are going to tell them and so conflict will arise. Most people will go to some effort to avoid conflict so it’s understandable that we don’t want to put ourselves in a position where conflict is a potential outcome.
  
  As a people manager in an organisation however, we sometimes, have to do or say what is in the best interest of the business rather than what is going to keep our own personal relationships or popularity intact. Have indisputable facts prepared and behaving assertively without being confrontational will prevent the other party from finding a conflicting standpoint.
  
  
• Embarrassment: Ill-preparedness is the main cause of embarrassment. If we don’t have all the facts or feel that we may not have all the answers, especially if a conversation is at risk of taking a direction we’re unsure of, we worry that we’re going to look foolish and become embarrassed.
  
  A topic of conversation might be of a delicate or personal nature, but if we are prepared in what we plan to say and how to approach it, there is no need for the conversation to be embarrassing and therefore difficult. Remain factual and offer support. Not discussing an issue it won’t solve the problem.
  
  Embarrassment can become self-fulfilling when it comes to making conversations difficult. If poor behaviour or performance remains unchecked for a period of time, possibly because we fear conflict, then it’s likely to be embarrassing to justify why the behaviour has suddenly become an issue and is no longer acceptable .

In our experience, the discomfort that might be felt in having to hold a difficult conversation is rarely as bad as has having to deal with the results of failing to hold the conversation  We have come across some quite convoluted and costly courses of action that individuals have taken in order to avoid having to hold a difficult conversation. In reality, they’re just kicking the problem down the road and creating a much bigger issue that is going to have to be dealt with eventually.

If you feel that a difficult conversation is looming, here are some tips that can help:

• Be prepared. Make sure you have as much information as you think you’ll need and have a clear idea of the outcome that you are after. Think of a mental flow-chart so you can keep the conversation on track.
• Get on with it. Preparation is good but don’t use it as an excuse for procrastination.
• Make an appointment. Don’t just call an ad-hoc meeting. Pre-arrange a time and date in a suitable, private environment to add formality to the meeting and gravity to your message.
• Be direct but use open questions. Don’t beat around the bush. Get to the point of your discussion but use open questions to draw out the subject’s views. Eg. “We’re meeting today to discuss your sales figures. How do you think you are doing?”.
• Keep emotions in check. Be aware that the subject of your conversation may cause emotions to run high. Keep your composure at all times and don’t get personal – show empathy.
• Find a solution together. Where possible, ensure that the outcome is agreed between you and that both parties “buy-into it”. Create a written next-steps plan if needed which will aid your position if the issue arises again.

Holding difficult conversations is a perpetual issue and we run full and half-day workshops on the topic, as well as including it as a module in our ILM programmes. If required, we can come on-site and hold difficult conversations alongside you or on your behalf. The best option however is to learn to hold them for yourself.

Talk to us about some training or coaching for you and your team. Contact us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

You have very probably heard the news recently of how journalist, Isabel Oakeshott disclosed thousands of Whatsapp messages between former Health Secretary Matt Hancock and his colleagues, to the Daily Telegraph. The messages have exposed some questionable and embarrassing decisions made by Ministers during the pandemic, threatening the integrity of an ongoing enquiry. Moreover, the disclosure has garnered attention because Ms Oakeshott had allegedly signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement or NDA with Mr Hancock.

NDAs are a common feature in the business world and in terms of HR, they are a component of Settlement Agreements; mainly financial arrangements made between employers and employees to settle a dispute on the proviso that no further action is taken. Ms Oakeshott’s decision to disclose the Whatsapp messages, thereby potentially breaching the NDA, relies on the defence that she is revealing something that is in the public interest and is therefore protected by the 1998 Public Interest Disclosure or Whistleblowing Act

Under the Act, individuals are protected if they bring information that is in the public interest about a wrongdoing to a relevant organisation. Formally known as ‘making a disclosure in the public interest’, the common term for disclosing a wrongdoing is ‘blowing the whistle’, hence the terminology for the legislation.

The legislation was introduced partly so that employees are not discouraged from revealing what might amount to criminal activity about their employers, for fear of unfair treatment at work or of losing their job. We find that whistleblowing is often incorrectly cited by disgruntled employees who claim to be exposing a wrongdoing to strengthen an otherwise flimsy claim against their employer.

The overarching point to remember is that to qualify under the legislation, the disclosure must be in the public interest and must be regarding information where the worker reasonably believes one or more of the following is, has or will be taking place:

• A criminal offence
• The breach of a legal obligation
• A miscarriage of justice
• A danger to the health and safety of any individual
• Damage to the environment
• Deliberate attempt to conceal any of the above

The gov.uk website provides a full list of prescribed people and bodies to which information can be whistleblown and includes organisations such as the Charity Commission, the Children’s Commissioner and the Care Quality Commission. Disclosure directly to the media however would mean that the employee loses any protection that the legislation provides. By going directly to the Telegraph newspaper, Ms Oakeshott may therefore have left herself open to legal action. You can see the BBC report on the case here.

When arranging settlement agreements, illegal activities are not covered. Indeed, no contract can be enforced if the specified activities are illegal. Therefore, any employer acting illegally would not have any recourse if the employee with whom they settled subsequently reported the illegal activity to the police.

Organisations should embrace the whistleblowing legislation and have an appropriate policy in place. It would be usual for employees or workers to approach the employer first to make any disclosure. If they feel unable to do this, they should approach a prescribed person or body to ensure that their employment rights are protected.

If an employee is dismissed or selected for redundancy as a result of whistleblowing then the dismissal is automatically considered unfair and therefore prone to a tribunal claim.

Prevention is better than cure so of course avoiding any reasons for whistle-blowing to occur is obviously the best course of action for employers to take. If however you would like support with preparing or reviewing your whistle-blowing policy or need help with a whistle-blowing case, then please contact us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Despite the doom and gloom regarding the country’s economy that we’re currently hearing being predicted by the Bank of England and institutions such as the CBI and OECD, vacancies in the UK still stand at above 1.1million. Staff recruitment and retention still remain significant challenges for employers. However, that shouldn’t be an excuse for shortcutting the recruitment process or for recruiting the wrong individuals. Furthermore, induction processes and probation periods need to work more in the employer’s favour.

What was once an opportunity to be briefed on one’s duties and to meet colleagues in other departments in the organisation, an induction programme these days needs to be a robust and thorough process. We’re seeing a rise in employee claims and challenges against their employers and so businesses must ensure they protect themselves by providing appropriate training and being prepared to challenge performance in the early days and weeks of a new recruit’s employment.

Required compliance training in the usual suspects like Health and Safety and Safeguarding should already be baked in, however with societal expectations changing, it has never been more important to cover Equality, Diversity & Inclusivity and company values. Failure to ensure that employees have been demonstrably trained in areas of legal compliance can make it difficult and expensive to dismiss underperformers at a later stage and leaves a door wide open for tribunal claims or a costly settlement under the threat of one.

Poorly planned probationary periods for new recruits can also create headaches when review meetings aren’t scheduled or carried out or when the probation deadline drifts past without action. Whilst passing the probation period doesn’t make an employee bulletproof, properly administered probation periods are considered best practice. You might have an uphill battle in justifying a dismissal just a few months after an employee’s probation period has ended.

During their probation period, new employees should have regular meetings with their line managers to measure their performance against targets and objectives, starting with weekly and moving to fortnightly and monthly as competence develops. Consistent under-performance should prompt closer monitoring and support culminating in dismissal if the employee doesn’t make the grade; this doesn’t have to wait until the probationary period is complete.

Too often we see an arbitrary decision to dismiss at the three month probation stage based on what the manager feels at that time. When an employee is truly unsuitable for a role, a properly executed probation will expose this so it can be dealt with it in a more timely manner, enabling the business to get back to the job of recruiting a more suitable candidate.

Induction and probation should both be considered part of the overall recruitment process, which in itself should be carried out thoroughly and professionally. Failing to send regret letters to unsuccessful candidates for example is not only impolite and unfair on the applicants, it is a sign that other parts of the process may be lacking too.

Statistics tell us that 51% of candidates will continue looking for roles even after they have accepted a job offer so if your recruitment and induction process leaves anything to be desired then you may find yourself losing the best talent. A poor process overall could mean that your bridges are burned with your second and third choice candidates too.

Investing time in a professional recruitment process will pay higher returns in the long run as your churn of new recruits will be less and the initial experience recruits have of your business will outweigh that of your competitors. The process should work in your favour too though so implement a robust probation that enables you to fail quickly and a comprehensive induction plan that protects the business in the long run.

For more support and advice in the recruitment and induction process, call us on 01452 331331 or contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The resignation of Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, this week, came as a shock to most of us. The reason she gave for quitting was simply that she felt it was time to go. This followed a similar decision by New Zealand former Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern in January who had decided that she had nothing more to give.

Ms Sturgeon had held the position of Scottish First Minister for over eight years, so her decision to simply throw in the towel has led us to re-visit the topic of leadership qualities and whether ‘knowing when to quit’ is one of them.
Within our Leadership and Management training, discussion and debate around the qualities and traits of great leaders is a common occurrence, as you would probably expect. Indeed, it’s something we analyse during most of our training courses, across all levels from 2 to 5. Perhaps not surprisingly, regardless of at which level the debate is held, the characteristics suggested by our delegates are always very similar.

Typically, we expect to see:

• Integrity
• Communication
• Influence
• Empathy
• Courage
• Respect

However, after asking the question of our trainers, ‘knowing when to quit’ has never been a suggestion made by a delegate during our training. At least no-one ever remembers it being a suggestion. But does that mean that we shouldn’t consider knowing when to quit as a relevant leadership characteristic?

Certainly, there is something to be said for ‘failing quickly’. That is to say, being able to recognise when something probably isn’t going to work out in your favour or to your original plan.
There have been numerous stories from modern business where those in charge keep borrowing and investing time and money into a venture that is doomed. Cutting your losses is often the best tactic in such circumstances, but the skill is knowing when that time has come.

As managers, we may have to make the decision to fail quickly with an employee. If an individual doesn’t display the right aptitude or attitude to do the job they are employed to do, then better to let them go early rather than persevere with someone who will never make the grade. That’s what probationary periods are for after all.

An aspect of Ms Sturgeon’s resignation we should applaud is actually making the decision. As a leader, sometimes making a decision, even of it is potentially the wrong one, can lead to a better outcome than no decision at. Having a team that is floundering and lacking any sense of direction will lead to frustration and conflict.

We should also consider that knowing when to quit isn’t necessarily a sign of failure. Whilst President Putin perhaps takes a different view on this point, stepping aside can be viewed as a courageous move, made for the benefit of the greater good; and courage is a characteristic of leaders that we discuss often.

Our Leadership and Management training courses are already scheduled for the year. Take a look at how you and your team can benefit from ongoing leadership development, accredited by the ILM. We have a new Leadership Programme option too which enables you to get the most cost effective solution. Call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

We know that employers have a fundamental duty of care for the health, safety and welfare of their employees. Covid has brought employee wellbeing into much sharper focus and with moves at Government level to legislate for Mental Health First Aiders in every organisation, a formal wellbeing strategy should be a adopted by all employers.

Not only will employers reap the rewards of a motivated and engaged workforce, an integrated approach to wellbeing will promote longer term organisational success.

HR Champions can support you business in developing their own employee wellbeing strategy through training and policy implementation that will ultimately engender a wellbeing culture that makes yours, a good company to work for.

Wellbeing Strategy Plan:

• Starting from the top, ensure senior leaders and managers understand the gravity of workplace health and wellbeing, and take the matter seriously.
• Train line managers and supervisors in good management skills ensuring targets, workloads and deadlines are manageable and realistic. Instil the importance of regular one-to-one meetings and performance reviews. Give them the skills to hold sensitive and difficult conversations with confidence. Empower them to offer flexibility and adjustments where they identify the need.
• Provide a clear and easy pathway to occupational health support and any other specialist therapies such counselling or mediation.
• Initiate strategies to generate an evidence-based understanding of the causes of poor physical and mental health in the organisation an of any unhealthy practices.
• Encourage an open and honest work environment and one where employees feel safe and able to discuss issues with fear of reprisal.
• Ensure policies and practices are aligned with the organisational and employee needs rather than relying on off-the-shelf quick fix solutions
• Promote a good mental wellbeing ethos and engender a culture where people can talk about mental health and seek help where needed.

An authentic employee health and wellbeing strategy should be a core element of any organisation operation and not simply a tick-box exercise. It should be an ongoing project that forms part of the overall company culture. 

Talk to us about how we can support you own Employee Wellbeing Strategy.

Get in touch to find out more.