In my opening salvo a while ago I argued that the failure to license people who manage people should worry us. In reality though, could a licensing system really work?
Free market lovers and serial de-regulators amongst you are no doubt already screaming at the very idea. Even the administration of any mandatory scheme would be terrifyingly expensive. Equally difficult and hugely relevant would be definitions. How would a regulated role be defined; what actually constitutes a management position? It’s pretty self-evident that nowadays having the word manager in your job title wouldn’t even make for good guidance!
Yet Private Security Operatives are regulated. In case you didn’t know, some PSO’s were known in distant times as doormen or even less flatteringly, bouncers. The SIA is the body that registers and licenses all people engaged in this kind of work, has an easy to understand website with online registration and application services, and allows both employers and employees to readily check whether or not they need licensing in the first place. Whether they are called Doormen, or PSO’s or Door Supervisors, they are licensed, regulated and required to have received a specified level of training.
If we consider that this is all in the name of avoiding gobby binge drinkers getting an arguably well-deserved slap, then surely a similar set up is warranted for people who manage people for a living? Holding sway over the performance of the British workforce and, by implication, the success of the economy must surely merit similar diligence? Apparently, not.
Over 60,000 claims were raised in Employment Tribunals in 2014/15. This is a massive reduction on the 194,000 claims raised in 2012/13. This might be because of changes to the way cases are referred to ACAS for early conciliation. It might also be because since 2013 a fee is now charged to take a case to tribunal. The Scottish parliament is moving to reverse this legislation under its devolved powers and UNISON’s legal action against this at best questionable statute continues and seems to be succeeding.
Whether you view the number of claims as reducing or not, the fact that 1200 employees, or indeed groups of employees, per week actually seek legal recourse against their employers does seem a little severe. Venturing into the world of wild speculation, one cannot help but wonder how many more mistreated employees simply follow the implied wishes of their employers and “bugger off somewhere else”!
If anecdotal evidence is not enough, and the unheard masses shying away from formal action at tribunal count for nothing, perhaps a different tack might sway a doubter in favour of a license scheme.
Millions of pounds every month are spent on improvement programs, consultative advice, training and accreditation schemes. This all happens in the pursuit of improved performance and the greater profitability promised by a trained and well managed workforce. Looking at the wider economic picture, even the most optimistic of us could be forgiven for doubting how much good a lot of this money actually does.
This scale of investment does, however, surely prove that people performance is widely seen as vital? Possibly, or more cynically perhaps, it shows that employers feel it is important to be seen to be covering that particular base. Arguably the importance of the good management of people is a matter of belief. Badly managed companies do succeed; it might be argued that they simply fail to realise their potential to be far more successful than they are.
So would a regulatory framework for managers actually have any positive impact? Perhaps; if the absence of such a standard qualification was seen as a negative and if it was so widely adopted as to be noticeable by its absence. It that case then yes, perhaps it would.
This of course, could be seen as idealism gone mad. An unrealisable and unrealistic vision of some management Neverland. I mean really: Why would a government and a nation’s businesses all come together to voluntarily promote the idea of excellence in one of the key areas of business activity? Why direct spending at improving industrial performance. Surely today the key aim of government seems to be to reduce spending enough to maintain income tax at a level low enough to ensure re-election?
Anyway, I haven’t got enough time for any more of this foolish debate. I need to go online and renew my TV license.
Free market lovers and serial de-regulators amongst you are no doubt already screaming at the very idea. Even the administration of any mandatory scheme would be terrifyingly expensive. Equally difficult and hugely relevant would be definitions. How would a regulated role be defined; what actually constitutes a management position? It’s pretty self-evident that nowadays having the word manager in your job title wouldn’t even make for good guidance!
Yet Private Security Operatives are regulated. In case you didn’t know, some PSO’s were known in distant times as doormen or even less flatteringly, bouncers. The SIA is the body that registers and licenses all people engaged in this kind of work, has an easy to understand website with online registration and application services, and allows both employers and employees to readily check whether or not they need licensing in the first place. Whether they are called Doormen, or PSO’s or Door Supervisors, they are licensed, regulated and required to have received a specified level of training.
If we consider that this is all in the name of avoiding gobby binge drinkers getting an arguably well-deserved slap, then surely a similar set up is warranted for people who manage people for a living? Holding sway over the performance of the British workforce and, by implication, the success of the economy must surely merit similar diligence? Apparently, not.
Over 60,000 claims were raised in Employment Tribunals in 2014/15. This is a massive reduction on the 194,000 claims raised in 2012/13. This might be because of changes to the way cases are referred to ACAS for early conciliation. It might also be because since 2013 a fee is now charged to take a case to tribunal. The Scottish parliament is moving to reverse this legislation under its devolved powers and UNISON’s legal action against this at best questionable statute continues and seems to be succeeding.
Whether you view the number of claims as reducing or not, the fact that 1200 employees, or indeed groups of employees, per week actually seek legal recourse against their employers does seem a little severe. Venturing into the world of wild speculation, one cannot help but wonder how many more mistreated employees simply follow the implied wishes of their employers and “bugger off somewhere else”!
If anecdotal evidence is not enough, and the unheard masses shying away from formal action at tribunal count for nothing, perhaps a different tack might sway a doubter in favour of a license scheme.
Millions of pounds every month are spent on improvement programs, consultative advice, training and accreditation schemes. This all happens in the pursuit of improved performance and the greater profitability promised by a trained and well managed workforce. Looking at the wider economic picture, even the most optimistic of us could be forgiven for doubting how much good a lot of this money actually does.
This scale of investment does, however, surely prove that people performance is widely seen as vital? Possibly, or more cynically perhaps, it shows that employers feel it is important to be seen to be covering that particular base. Arguably the importance of the good management of people is a matter of belief. Badly managed companies do succeed; it might be argued that they simply fail to realise their potential to be far more successful than they are.
So would a regulatory framework for managers actually have any positive impact? Perhaps; if the absence of such a standard qualification was seen as a negative and if it was so widely adopted as to be noticeable by its absence. It that case then yes, perhaps it would.
This of course, could be seen as idealism gone mad. An unrealisable and unrealistic vision of some management Neverland. I mean really: Why would a government and a nation’s businesses all come together to voluntarily promote the idea of excellence in one of the key areas of business activity? Why direct spending at improving industrial performance. Surely today the key aim of government seems to be to reduce spending enough to maintain income tax at a level low enough to ensure re-election?
Anyway, I haven’t got enough time for any more of this foolish debate. I need to go online and renew my TV license.