Alan Sugar has a lot to answer for...

I have a sneaking suspicion that this may prove to be one of my more controversial posts (although I've learnt the hard way never to underestimate the ferocity of response that the simple act of stating your opinions in a public forum might have). 


This week Sharon Shoosmith has been in the news. Plenty of people whose opinions I ordinarily agree with have been very vocal in their disgust at Ms Shoosmith's 'victory' (the inverted commas reflect the fact that there really are no winners in this tragic affair). Ed Balls (who announced to a pack of journalists that he was firing her, without actually discussing it with her first) has been clear that, not only does he disagree with the outcome of her appeal, but he would fire her all over again if he had to.


Which is a shame because it goes to show that Mr Balls seems to think himself above the law. In his best impression of Lord Sugar pointing a finger and growling "You're Fired" at whoever he deems to be the weakest link in the organisational chain, Balls has forgotten that we have employment laws in this country for a reason and that the thing about having laws in place means that they need to be applied consistently otherwise we make a mockery of the whole bloody thing.


Plenty of commentators on the Shoosmith/Balls thing will be crying out at the idiocy of the law, claiming that it is an example of legality over common sense and decency. I don't really want to focus on the public's need to find a scapegoat when things go tragically wrong, or on the less black and white view that systems fail when there are cultural and organisational failings and that those are rarely caused by (or solved by) one individual. I'd like to focus on this growing assumption amongst politicians and the media that employment law is an obstructive, negative force that stands on the side of nasty unions and overpaid bureaucrats. 


Our own dear Chancellor recently launched an attack on employment law in an address to business leaders - claiming that it prevented business growth and agility. He painted a picture of entrepreneurial businesses hamstrung in saving the British economy by cumbersome regulations. Rather scarily, his views were echoed by a number of business leaders and the right-wing press. It's an odd contradiction that most people seem to think that companies can do what they like when it comes to employees whilst simultaneously harbouring this view of 'cumbersome' employment regulations.


If you turned the TV on this evening and saw your boss telling the press that he'd fired you, would you think that fair or reasonable? Probably not. Because it isn't fair or reasonable for your employer to fire you without giving you the opportunity to know that your job is at risk or give you the opportunity to answer the case against you. So we have laws against it. Employment Law, like most law, operates on the principles of natural justice and of what is deemed to be 'fair' and 'reasonable'. 


Take redundancy, for example. Pretty topical given our current economic environment. From experience I know that very few people really understand their rights when it comes to redundancy. Most people think, for example, that it is perfectly legal for their company to tell them they are being made redundant out of the blue. In actual fact, whenever an organisation is making a change that might result in jobs being made redundant, it has to consult with the people who hold those jobs. It has to do all it reasonably can to avoid redundancies (for example; asking employees for suggestions on other ways work can be organised or pro-actively helping them to find other jobs in the business). Only after it has properly consulted with employees and no alternatives can be found can a company then confirm that a role is to be made redundant. Even then, while the role may be redundant its perfectly fair to assume that the person could well perform another job in the business, so the business should keep looking for one for them. This is reasonable, no? It prevents businesses from taking rash decisions, wasting resources, losing knowledge and experience and subsequently incurring costs of recruiting and training replacements. Not to mention actually being a rather fair way to treat people. I also think it gives those who are left behind, and those who leave the business, a better all round impression of the organisation - "They seem fair, they seem reasonable. I trust them". Isn't that something every business should strive for? 


Treating employees fairly and reasonably and growing your business are not mutually exclusive. In fact, plenty of research shows that treating your employees fairly - giving them job security, a voice in how the business is run, the opportunity to grow and learn and leaders who inspire trust - is critical to business performance. Businesses who treat their employees like valuable capital to be protected and invested in outperform those who treat employees like disposable resources to be used up and spat out. 


Not that our government agrees with this evidence mind. They'd like your company to be able to fire you at will, Sugar-style. They'd like businesses to go through wasteful short-termist cycles of firing and hiring without considering whether they were wasting human capital in the process. They'd like it if companies could decide not to promote women because it costs too much to let them go on maternity leave, without thinking through the benefits of having a leadership team that more accurately reflects their customer base. They have already set the wheels in motion to make you wait two years before your company has to legally treat you fairly or reasonably. 


So, before we demonise Shoosmith or heap condemnation on the High Court for upholding her appeal, perhaps we should be grateful that we live in a country where we can't just be fired according to the will or ego of the person who manages us. That we are afforded the right to be treated in accordance with natural justice and what is fair. That the law encourages organisations to treat employees reasonably because its in everyone's interests to do so. I'd do it quick though because if Osborne gets his way you won't live in that type of country for long. 

They work for us, you know

A business I once worked for (a global premium brand) wanted to know how their employees were feeling about working there. So they conducted a comprehensive survey. And the results were enlightening. What did the people want? More money? More holidays? Better food in the canteen? No: they wanted the Sales Director and the Marketing Director to stop squabbling with each other. They were mightily cheesed off that while they were working flat-out for the business during a recession those who were leading them seemed to be channelling Bette Davis and Joan Crawford in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane. They were bored of the politics and wanted to be led by grown-ups please. At this moment I see just where they were coming from - because I feel exactly the same way about our country. 


You really only have to watch a debate in the House of Commons to see what I mean: sniping, jeering, "calm down dear"-ing.  Wobbling of jowls, jabbing of fingers and reddening of faces - on all sides. It has nothing to do with the actual business of running the country and everything to do with point-scoring and one-up-man-ship. The AV referendum is another good example of an important debate that's degenerated into a rather ridiculous bitch-fight. (I'm not saying that our PM makes a fitting Bette Davis but the simultaneous crippling of his deputy whilst keeping up the 'sisters' charade is strangely reminiscent... )Just like those directors who were too busy bickering to lead, and who were making a mockery of their employees' hard work by conducting themselves like five-year olds, our politicians seem to be too busy trying to trip the other side up to get on with the rather important job of taking the decisions that affect our lives. 


Some commentators have, mainly in response to the Winner-gate gaffe, been spouting off this week about how 'that's just the bear pit of politics". Politicians have always been petulant and childish in debate - why criticise it now? 


Perhaps because its clear from observing the Obama-Trump situation (that's Obama vs Donald, I'm not suggesting the Leader of the Free World has a flatulence problem) that there is actually another way. You can rise above the pettiness and the sniping, you can be the better person. You can refuse to get drawn into the bitch-fight and let your actions do the talking for you. (It helps if those actions are to find the world's most wanted terrorist and then reveal it in a measured, reasoned and thoroughly mature kind of a way.) That's how to be a leader. 


I recently met with one of Cranfield Business School's visiting fellows. She's ex-armed forces and was recounting a story of one of her old colleagues - a man with a battalion under his command. On his first day, his commanding officer called him onto the office and drew his organisation chart; him at the top, and the rank and file spreading out below. Then he said; "That's the last time I want you to look at it from this perspective" and promptly turned it upside down. "You work for them" he was told - and he never forgot it. Its a lesson every leader should learn. 


Yet its a lesson that so many just don't want to hear. No wonder 35% of people didn't even see the point in voting in the last election. Most of us - just like those cheesed-off employees - aren't interested in playground politics, in the type of politics that is about telling us how sh*t the other guys are in order to make yourself look better. We'd like someone who has a good clue about what they're doing to focus on what we're paying them to do. We'd like them to be in the job for the right reasons and to lead us with our welfare in the forefront of their mind. 


This is one of the reasons that I'll be voting 'yes' for AV this week. Not only because I think they've conducted their campaign with a teensy bit more decorum than the 'no' campaign but mainly because I think AV is a step towards a system that reminds our politicians who they actually work for. At the moment we have a system where 68% of voters did not vote for the party that ends up controlling government. Where we often feel we shouldn't vote for the person who we think will work hardest for us, but for the person most likely to keep the people we really don't want out. Where the pantomime that is politics means that a third of our country don't even bother voting. Our current system doesn't encourage politicians to listen to their constituents. It encourages the tribalism that we've seen too much of recently. It encourages the negative campaigning, the polarisation, the mud-slinging. If they can win with less than 50% of people voting for them, why should your MP be concerned about what you actually want? 


AV isn't perfect - I'm not sure any system is. But it doesn't kill babies, it won't bankrupt the country and it won't send you spiralling into existential angst - contrary to what the 'no' lobby would have you believe. If you feel that politics isn't relevant for you. Or if you're tired of the petty squabbling and would like to be able to remind politicians that they do, in fact, work for you then you should probably be voting 'yes' for AV tomorrow.

Oh, and if you live in Earlsdon ward in Coventry and would like a real-life grown-up politician who knows who they work for and is in it for all the right reasons then you should probably be voting for John Fletcher. Not a jowl-wobble or duck-house in sight.