As a general rule of thumb, people who blow whistles come in for a good deal of criticism and dislike.
A sports referee, for example, will seldom earn the affection of those whom he or she controls. A rigorous enforcement of rules quite often results in discontent, and sometimes acrimony.
In this light consider, if you will, the lot of Steve Walsh at the moment.
So it is against that background that the “whistle blowing legislation” (more properly known as the Protected Disclosures Act 2000) could possibly create a bad impression.
You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2010.
Here is a cheery thought for you at end of the week: there may actually be some workplace advantages associated with aging!
Two posts from different sites this week offer some food for thought.
The first is from the Workplace Prof blog, reporting on a recent study in the United States (which you can link to from the post if you like).
The study involved experimentation with 2000 subjects, querying what features of a Chief Executive’s image caused them to perceive that he or she was “competent”. It turns out that being “baby faced” causes people to think that you may not have the correct competencies to be in a position of leadership. On the other hand, however, not appearing so youthful is likely to cause people to think that you are “mature” and therefore more competent.
What great news!
Meanwhile, over at Beverley Main’s HR blog you can read about six gains that your organisation may make by hiring an older worker. My favourite is the last – namely, that they are more likely to have learned the proper rules of grammar and spelling at school!
Some interesting things to ponder this week from the ever–readable Kris Dunn at the HR Capitalist.
Chris suggests that internal candidates applying for an externally-advertised position may face bigger hurdles than might be first expected – as a result of necessarily having “baggage” about which the employer already knows.
For example, little things like tidiness of workplace, a habit of listening to music while working etc can cause an employer to have reservations about a person – and these are things which are known about an internal candidate, but which remain a (helpful) mystery in the case of an outside applicant.
The post is well worth a read.
Lady Justice is, curiously enough, an international symbol of fairness.
Her image is derived from the Roman Goddess of Justice, Justitia – and at least since Renaissance times, she has been characterised as a woman carrying a sword and scales (and sometimes wearing a blindfold). Her image adorns buildings from the Old Bailey through to the Supreme Court of Canada, from the Brazilian Parliament to a Japanese law school. Her symbol is as international as one can be.
The concept behind this ubiquitous image is simple: when assessing what is fair, one must balance the interests of both sides to an argument.
This concept is true of all legal tribunals – but arguably is especially so in the case of employment law.
Body art and tattoos traditionally pose some difficulties for employers (at least in certain industries where appearance is a key part of the role).
On the one hand, employers like to allow an element of individuality – and must, of course, abide by Human Rights laws (which, amongst other things, do not allow discrimination on the basis of ornamentation worn as a genuine part of a religious belief).
On the other hand, however, many workplaces wish to maintain a certain “look” or standard of appearance – which can be compromised by facial piercings and/or tattoos.
Where lies the balance?
This is an issue considered in the Workforce Management site – and the post is well worth a read.
Here’s one for you: what would happen if you ran a “stupid rules” contest in your workplace?
A recent blog post from an American commentator, Bob Sutton, suggests that Stanford University might benefit from a competition of this type. The idea is that you get your employees to give feedback about the silliest workplace rules that exist within your environment.
Often, the idea results in positive feedback to the employer about changes that can be made to benefit the workplace.
What do you think would happen if you ran this in your place of work?
About the Blogger
Proudly supported by
