Skills & behaviours

Skills & Behaviours

Deloitte - Foreword

A&O – Beyond the Pandemic: The Role of HR

BDO – Board Leadership in a Hybrid Working World

KPMG – The Productivity Puzzle
Pinsent Masons LLP – Re-Invigorating the Performance Management Process
PwC – Time to Start Upskilling Your People for Tech Success
Worksmart Ltd – Why Personal Development is Critical to Future Business Success

Skills and Behaviours: Foreword

Deloitte

Rohini Menezes, Manager, Human Capital Consulting

Grace Tickle, Senior Consultant, Human Capital Consulting

Payal Vasudeva, Partner, Human Capital Consulting

Tony Gaughan, Partner, Investment Management & Wealth Sector Consulting

In January 2020 the World Economic Forum declared ‘’we need a global reskilling revolution’’. This call to action was in response to the realisation that jobs would be transformed by the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Given the new realities, firms are recognising a difference between where the workforce is today and the critical skills needed to thrive in the future.

Deloitte’s Human Capital Trends research reported that 41% of executives said that building workforce capability through upskilling, reskilling and mobility is one of the most important measures they are taking to transform work. Yet only 17% say their workers are ‘very ready’ to adapt, reskill and assume new roles.

Workers themselves recognise the imperative for change: 60% of the 10,000 workers in this year’s Voice of the European Workforce study identify ’capacity to adapt’ as the most relevant skill they will need to succeed in their careers.

Almost every job is being re-imagined as work is further augmented by software, robots and artificial intelligence. On the horizon, there is a growing skills gap that firms need to address in order to remain competitive in the market. Skills development has shifted from ‘’nice to have’’ to ‘’must have’’. The skills agenda should therefore be a strategic priority to attract and retain the best talent.

Skills and behaviours in the future world of work are changing, from the evolving role of HR, the need to develop resilient leaders to emerging skills gaps in both tech and “human” skills. We recognise that skills and capability needs are different across role types and functions. There is no ‘’one size fits all’.

What does this mean for HR?

The future of HR must be one of expanded focus and extended influence: expanding its focus to encompass the entirety of work and the workforce, and extending its sphere of influence to the enterprise rather than solely the HR function. There are growing expectations of HR, beyond its roles of supporter, partner and adviser to the business. HR should play a critical role today in helping firms to re-imagine the future.

Deloitte’s research has shown that HR professionals of the future will need new capabilities that will require a new and bold attitude. They will need to become consultative, analytical, and solution-oriented—breaking away from the all-too-familiar

focus on cost efficiency and focus more on value creation. They will need to engage and motivate a blended HR team - full-time, part-time, gig, contract, multigenerational, robotic, or AI - in distributed locations - local, regional, global - to accomplish goals.As well as motivating a blended HR team,they will need to create empowered networked teams that shared a common purpose and deliver business solutions. HR professionals will also need to be data obsessed, customer centric, and digitally literate in the future world of work.

What about the behaviour of leaders?

Experience during the pandemic has highlighted the need to develop resilient leaders who can sustain people, firms and society during periods of fatigue, stress and multiple existential threats. Traditional, static leadership competency models are no longer as effective in today’s evolving market. Strong leaders in the future world of work are inspirational, results-driven, influential, collaborative, decisive, and nurturing.

Harvard Business Review found that leadership behaviours account for nearly 70% of the difference between employees who report that they feel highly included and those who do not. Inclusive leaders are insightful and culturally intelligent - they are conscious of their own blind spots as well as flaws in the system. They work hard to ensure opportunities for others, and they are empathetic when working with others. Crucially, leaders are deeply committed to diversity and inclusion.

In what areas do firms need to invest in reskilling initiatives?

There is a skills shortage on the horizon with a long-anticipated skills gap in technology and digital skills. Research by the Learning & Work Institute reported the number of young people taking IT subjects at GSCE level has dropped by 40% since 2015. Deloitte’s Digital Disruption Index found that only 16% of executives believe that their teams have the capabilities to deliver their digital strategy. Employers and workers need targeted

learning interventions to develop a tech-savvy mind-set and feel more comfortable operating in a digital-first world.

With the anticipated skills shortage, firms have a duty to invest in the re-skilling and upskilling of their workforce.In Deloitte’s 2021 Global Human Capital Trends survey, executives identified “the ability of their people to adapt, reskill, and assume new roles” as the top-ranked item to navigate future disruptions, with 72% selecting it as the most important or second most important factor. A focus on continual reinvention of the workforce through lifelong learning is therefore crucial. The World Economic Forum has stated that the half-life of skills is decreasing to just 2.5 to 5 years, reducing the period of time in which a skill is innovated, flourishes and then becomes irrelevant. This reduced half-life of skills means that the workforce will need to be re-skilled more frequently, requiring targeted training interventions and workforce experiences that enable the workforce to upskill continually.

This extends beyond tech-focused skills.

’Human skills’ such as curiosity, insight and empathy are becoming increasingly important in the world of work where automation and artificial intelligence are prevalent. In order to thrive, firms need to nurture and cultivate human capabilities in order to gain a strategic advantage, and should continuously address critical skills gaps.

Ongoing changes in the nature of work is making learning and work more integrated and connected than ever before. There will be a shift from traditional learning to developing skills and capabilities ’in the flow’ of work, helping people consume information and upgrade their skills in the natural course of their day-to-day jobs. We expect that new approaches to integrating learning and work will arise, such as integrating real-time learning and knowledge management into the workflow, receiving small doses of virtual learning throughout the working day, and making learning more personal and targeted to the individual’s role. By creating conditions that enable continuous learning ’in the flow’ of work, firms can shift mind-sets towards leveraging their workforce’s human capabilities to deliver value.

The continuing rise of the alternative workforce and gig economy (freelancers, gig workers, and crowd workers) presents an opportunity to access a niche set of skills while reducing excess resource capacity. According to a survey conducted by the Freelancers Union and Upwork, over a third of the US workforce participates in the American gig economy, and alternative workforce are expected to make up the majority of the US workforce by 2027 if the current pace continues. Compared to traditional employees, individuals in the alternative workforce (e.g., freelancers, gig workers, contractors) tend to update their skills more frequently.

The way firms access and develop skills is evolving. Firms can now flexibly access a niche set of skills through talent marketplaces and tapping new talent sources (e.g., gig, crowd). In a recent survey (MIT SMR-Deloitte global executive survey 2020), 40 percent of workers reported that it was easier to find a new job outside their organisation than it was internally, and as a result we are seeing the rise of talent marketplaces to enable internal mobility.

And what is the impact on onboarding new employees?

Firms have been transforming key stages in the employment lifecycle - using digital technology for virtual onboarding and increasing the use of data in the recruitment process. A positive virtual onboarding experience should help new hires to feel welcomed and connected to the company and set them up for success in their future role through access to virtual learning and resources. This becomes increasingly important as some firms explore hiring from dispersed talent pools. As some roles shift to hybrid or fully virtual, we will need to be mindful of how we help new joiners acclimate to the firm, gain familiarity with the ways of working and build a strong network. Given that effective onboarding is key to both enablement and retention of new talent, it is imperative that companies should develop personalised and engaging virtual onboarding experiences.

Beyond the Pandemic: The Role of HR

Allen & Overy

Sarah Henchoz,
Partner - Employment

It is often in times of crisis that HR professionals come into their own, and the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been no exception. No doubt many are still recovering from the intensity of moving their workforce into a widespread remote working model, the challenges of having certain key workers in the office,and dealing with employees suffering from both physical and mental health concerns during the various periods of lockdown.

As we now come out of lockdown and look to the future way of working, the role of HR continues to be front and centre of a successful transition to the “new normal”.

HR professionals have long since needed to have strong communication and negotiation skills, and as businesses plan the return of the workforce to the office, HR skills will once again come to the fore to ensure reintegration is handled appropriately and sensitively. This will help ensure not only that legal risk is managed but also that employees feel fully engaged with and supportive of what the workplace of the future will look like.Some businesses are considering mandatory testing as part of their legal obligation to create a safe working environment. This will require consideration of data protection obligations regarding the processing of medical information which amounts to special category data and is, therefore, subject to the most stringent of data protection obligations. It also requires careful communication with employees as to why you are taking this approach, what data will be processed and how that processing will be undertaken, what the benefits are, why this approach is considered appropriate in addition to other health and safety measures being implemented, and how the testing itself will be undertaken. Getting early employee

engagement in such an initiative will be key to its success and will ensure that implementation is undertaken in accordance with the duty of trust and confidence that exists in all employment relationships.

For HR, one of the biggest challenges will be how to deal with employees who object to testing. There may be some who can point to disability-related reasons or religious or philosophical beliefs as to why they cannot participate in testing and of course such reasons will need to be properly evaluated to avoid claims of discrimination. However, others may simply not want to be tested. HR will need to engage with such employees to understand their concerns, try and allay them as best as possible, and look for alternative solutions. For many businesses, having people continuing to work remotely (at least on a full-time basis) won’t be viable so ultimately if employees do refuse to be tested and testing is considered a reasonable response to the current situation, they will effectively

refusing to comply with a lawful instruction to return to work and HR will need to commence disciplinary action which could potentially result in termination. Such dismissals may well be fair subject to there being no viable alternative and ensuring a fair process is undertaken.

With the pressure on cost-savings, businesses are also looking at reducing and/or reconfiguring office space given the likelihood of having employees working in a blended model between office-based and remote working. Again, meaningful consultation with employees will be key. Some employees may welcome this change, whereas others may be worried about being remote, whether this is the start of further cost-cutting measures including redundancies, and possibly about having to share office space under the new model. They will look to HR for reassurance and support. Clear and transparent communication will be essential.

While it may not be possible to provide any assurances about what the future may bring, being open with employees (even if that is to say that you cannot yet provide answers to their queries) will help ensure you create a platform where people trust the messages they are being given, and trust they will be kept informed about future management plans.

As some businesses look to consolidate offices and move employees into fewer locations, there is a risk of triggering redundancy claims as a result of workplace closures even if roles are to continue albeit from a different location. It will be important to look at what flexibility exists in mobility and place of work clauses in employment contracts to see if employees can be moved without triggering redundancy rights. Even if there is no such flexibility, the same role at a new location may well amount to suitable

alternative employment meaning no redundancy payments will be due if the new location is within a reasonable distance of the existing workplace.

Of course, a key part of consultation is listening. It is likely that HR will need to do a fair bit of this as employees raise a variety of questions and concerns about the “new normal”. There will be some worried about their own health and safety, others about family members who they worry may be put at risk by their return to the office. Some will be concerned about using public transport, others about being around larger groups of people than they will have been with for over a year. While management may be keen to get people back to the office, HR may need to help them understand the different views employees may have, and help find a balance between business need and workforce concerns.

Another area ripe for HR’s mediation skills is disputes between employees. There is significant risk of creating divides in the workplace between those eager to return and

those who are more reluctant, between those who are willing to be tested and those who are not, and those who want to take additional safety measures such as wearing face masks and those who do not. It is important that these situations do not escalate in order to avoid complaints of bullying and wider workplace unrest. Helping people recognise other people’s points of view and being tolerant of difference will be critical.

Inevitably the coming months will present many varied and challenging situations for businesses and employees alike. However, proper handling of employee relations issues will help both come through these changes stronger, better engaged and ready to face the future way of working successfully.

Board Leadership in a Hybrid Working World

BDO

Sasha Molodtsov,
Director

There has always been an expectation that Boards will lead their organisations through crisis and change. This is particularly true in Financial Services with clear responsibility under the regulatory accountability regime (SM&CR). Of course, one can argue that stakeholders have always held the Board responsible for actions and inaction. With the impact of COVID-19 and other ESG related crises, what should Boards be considering when planning for a hybrid working ‘governance’ world?

When the pandemic hit boardrooms virtually overnight, many Boards and NEDs/iNEDs stepped up to the challenge.

We heard first hand through BDO’s FS NED Club of iNEDs being ‘hands on’, supporting (emotionally, mentally) executives, with wellbeing moving to the top of the Boardroom agenda. The frequency of Board meetings increased as did the need for new and quicker management information. Strategic decisions to pivot business models, abandon products/services, accelerate data-driven solutions and evidencing decision making and robust challenge were made at remarkable speed.

Once this reactive phase of treading water shifted to a more resilient mind-set, Boards steered their governing duties towards the ‘new normal’ environment. Leading virtually, defining Boardroom virtual etiquette, inducting new NEDs without meeting face to face and ‘shaking hands’ first, while somewhat strange, became less of a distraction and to an extent, activities went back to a ‘BAU’ Board.

However, the “new normal” does not stay BAU for long.

New crises have hit boardrooms - the climate crises, social unrest, declining staff wellbeing, Black Lives Matter, and women’s safety, to name a number of key issues. Boards, particularly those in FS where diversity has been a blind spot, have started to look at their own composition, ESG strategy, and the tone and culture they are setting from the top.

This period of self-reflection is quite timely, as we prepare for the re-integration of a physical working world. The FT reported, post the Prime Minister’s announcement of a post-summer lockdown ease, that many firms were undergoing an in-depth analysis of employee and customer working preferences. For some, the route is blurred with no clear path, no best practice to lean on and an enormous cultural shift in how we carry out our work.

In a halfway house of physical and virtual, what ‘model’ should Boards adopt and how will the future of work impact recruitment, Board composition, skills and remuneration? How does this environment lend itself to governing and where is the sweet spot or comfort zone where a NED can fulfil their

director’s and regulatory obligations, govern and lead in a truly agile way?

If we reflect on what we have learnt about leadership over the past 12 months and the fundamental principles of an effective Board, we should have a good starting place. We have demonstrated that we can adapt when we need to, bring our whole selves to our work and still succeed – if not flourish. Not losing the human side of leadership, trusting each other to do the right thing will be key as we embrace any hybrid-working model. We know that effective Boards:

Adapt effectively to challenging crises and can evidence decision-making in different working environments (pandemics included).

Are not homogenous – they vary in skills, age, experience, gender and ethnicity and bring a broad market and social view to a business.
Consider and put front of mind the interests of all stakeholders, including investors and the workforce.
Ask the right questions and help drive the culture of an organisation by being ‘present’ and ‘tuning in’ to the day to day.
Make strategic decisions which may be unpopular in the short term but benefits the sustainability of the business long term.
Undertake fair evaluations of their own effectiveness and of Board Committees, externally as well as internally.
Are brave and inspirational. They choose a path less taken and ‘walk the walk’.

To echo this and from a regulatory perspective, whilst firms and Boards have adapted to more agile working arrangements, including the adaptation of key systems and controls to enable sufficient management oversight, the FCA and PRA recognised

that firms’ SM&CR arrangements should remain under review during the pandemic. Since then the FCA’s Statement has required that post the 30th April 2021,the application of the SM&CR rules ‘return to normal’. Therefore, when considering any future hybrid model or changes, regard should be given to any new areas of responsibility that a Senior Manager may now have. Such responsibilities must be aligned with the Statement of Responsibility in place, with adequate and reflective measures put in place to enable Senior Managers to demonstrate reasonable steps, regardless of the workplace model adopted.

In addition, and in light of Nikhil Rathi’s (CEO of the FCA) speech at the launch of the HM Treasury Women in Finance Charter Annual Review in March 2021, diversity and inclusion are again highlighted as key regulatory issues.

Nikhil Rathi has warned in the years ahead, that if the regulator does not see improvements in diversity at senior levels and better answers by firms, they will consider how to best use their powers. With this in mind, Boards should be reflecting on whether the management team is diverse enough to provide adequate challenge and whether they create the right environment in which people of all backgrounds can speak up. Again, speaking up in a remote environment may look and feel different, but having the right design model in place may further support the Board to respond with confidence to the questions posed by the FCA.

As Boards look to the future and individuals reflect on how they perform their roles as iNEDs , one can argue that a hybrid world makes little difference to the impact they can and should be making as leaders. It is clear that regulators, stakeholders and employees will judge them on output – deeds, not words – and whether they do that virtually or in a physical setting, matters not.

The Productivity Puzzle:

KPMG

Mel Newton,
Partner

Over the last 20 years UK politicians, policymakers, businesses and economists have wrestled with measuring productivity. It is a puzzle and at the centre, lies the holy grail of performance: how can we all do more with less? And in the wake of the pandemic: how can we do more with less when working from home?

Ever since the global financial crisis of 2008 UK productivity growth has been slow, ranking near the bottom of the league of 35 OECD countries in the decade to 2017. Academics and economists have hypothesised both demand and supply side problems, and have set out recommendations to address them.

Investment in skills, in infrastructure, and in research and development have all been put forward to tackle the supply side of the equation. Some have questioned whether we are measuring the right things. Others think a combination of public spending austerity and a reduction in workers' wage bargaining rights has hurt the demand side.

It is no longer a question reserved for pointy-headed policy gurus. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has brought these questions closer to home, as businesses and a large proportion of the workforce have adapted to remote working.

How can we – whether as individuals, teams, businesses, or government agencies – get, and stay, more productive?

KPMG's work with business, financial institutions, and public sector agencies over the last year sheds some light on the conundrum.

Putting your finger on it

That’s not easy! According to CIPD research (2015), firms that measure productivity are more likely than others to say their productivity has increased. Firms that have conversations about ‘productivity’ or ‘agility’, or say they measure productivity, are more likely to rate their productivity highly. So it is worth getting your head around the measurements.

Most definitions of productivity relate to product creation (‘widgets’), which can be pinned down to the rate at which an organisation makes goods (Cambridge Dictionary).This definition is, unfortunately, less helpful in a service environment.To further complicate matters, productivity, activity and performance are often confused:there can be lots of activity but that doesn’t necessarily mean your workforce is productive. The CIPD definition is helpful, but doesn’t give us a precise formula:“Productivity can be thought of as how effectively organisations, and the people working in them, produce value from individual and collective contributions.”

Defining productivity in a service-based setting therefore requires the careful selection of appropriate input and output measures which are aligned to the objectives and goals of your organisation, such as:

Now we have a working definition, the questions remain: how do we use it; and will it give us the answers we’re looking for?

Breaking tasks down to identifiable units of input (such as time spent on idea generation, report writing, process delivery, collaboration etc.) and service delivery outputs (such as customer experience scores, claims processed, policy amendments, etc.) can help pinpoint useful productivity data. Improvements in workplace analytics have made measuring inputs easier than ever before and “deep dive” analysis in specific functions can provide valuable insight when whole organisation data is not available.

Measuring productivity is an imperfect science though, and to truly understand the productivity picture, thought has to be given to the factors that drive productivity.

Driving productivity

Understanding productivity drivers, such as employee engagement, capability development, wellbeing, access to technology and performance management processes, to name a few, can provide enough pieces of the puzzle to determine the productivity picture.We have identified five categories of productivity drivers:

Organisational effectiveness (e.g. the alignment of strategic objective to the measurement of productivity)
Capability (e.g. investment in upskilling and the ease of accessing quality learning which can meet capability and skill requirements, and how effective performance management processes are in driving productivity)

Management (e.g. how well-equipped managers are to manage the workforce effectively and how effective leadership is in dealing with a fast-changing environment)
Employee experience (e.g. the effect of health and wellbeing, as well as employee engagement/happiness on productivity)
Enablers (e.g. how well the tools, technology, workforce structure, processes and policies support productivity)

Assessing the drivers of productivity can therefore not only help you understand your organisation’s productivity, it can identify the actions you need to take to improve it.

Hybrid working

Many organisations have worried that hybrid working, as a result of COVID-19, has had a detrimental impact on productivity, although they have found it difficult to demonstrate this effect. Hybrid working is not new. Many organisations were already working in a hybrid way pre-pandemic. A “3:2” working week (three days on site and two from home) was becoming increasingly common and forward thinking organisations, such as Unilever, had even shifted to a four-day working week as standard and seen an improvement in productivity as a result.

We have found the ability to work productively in a hybrid model is dependent on understanding the modes of work required for individual roles. These modes of work drive the requirements for workplace and

supporting tools and infrastructure. Individuals may move between these modes during their working week.

Operational work which typically requires a specific location or equipment and largely cannot be carried out remotely
Secure work which requires specific confidentiality standards and often a secure working environment
Collaborative work which requires close working with others and can be performed both remotely using virtual collaboration tools or in person
Communicative work which requires contact with other individuals or teams to pass on information and can largely be conducted remotely supported by the right technical tools
Knowledge work which can be performed effectively from any location

Work mode analysis is underway in many commercial organisations who are taking the opportunity provided by the pandemic to redesign corporate workspaces to take account of the different types of work people

will be undertaking in an office environment. Many are increasing collaborative spaces and reducing traditional desk space, with the expectation that communicative and knowledge working will mostly be conducted remotely. That is not to say that there will be no room for physical working space. For some individuals with specific needs, maintaining their productivity will require them working on site for all modes of work and some provision for this will be necessary.

What is important is linking the work modes to productivity drivers. For example, are you providing the right tools and equipment to work effectively? Have you considered adjusting leadership styles and culture? And are you thinking about how to upskill your teams to deliver work in the future?

Conclusion

Whilst measuring productivity in a service environment is notoriously difficult, organisations can define a set of tailored measures which represent productivity in their organisation. Combining this with an understanding of what is driving productivity will help unpick the productivity puzzle.

The key elements to consider, to set your team or organisation up for hybrid working success, are:

Agreeing appropriate measures of productivity;
Understanding what is driving productivity in your organisation;
Identifying the modes of work your employees need to undertake; and
Linking your productivity drivers to support the hybrid working model.

Maintaining and even improving productivity in a hybrid working environment is possible, so take the plunge and ask your organisation the productivity question.

Re-invigorating the performance management process:

Pinsent Masons LLP

Dr Anne Sammon,
Partner

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to revisit the way in which we navigate the employment relationship, from the location employees work (home vs office) to the way in which employees are managed. This allows us to consider how performance management should be undertaken.

Defining good performance

When employees are starting in a role, they will often be given a job description, which will include a summary of the key tasks that they are expected to undertake. The quality of that job description varies from organisation to organisation and even sometimes from team to team. Generic job descriptions can give rise to a whole host of issues from an employment law perspective (including equal pay issues which are outside the scope of this piece).

We often assume employees will know what good performance looks like, but we miss opportunities to define this. The job description can be such an opportunity; whether what good looks like is included in the text of the document itself, or the manager talks this through with the employee, does not matter – what is important is that at the very outset of the role, the employee knows what the expectations are in terms of performance.

The importance of continuous feedback

Within many organisations, there will be a focus on gathering feedback as part of annual appraisals or performance reviews. Often, this results in performance concerns only being flagged after the performance has, in reality, already been a problem for a sustained period of time. This means turning around the performance is unlikely to be a quick process. Early intervention gives employees a genuine opportunity to address issues; it is much easier to correct behaviours that have not yet become established.

Embedding a culture of continuous feedback takes time and needs to be role modelled by the most senior managers in the organisation.

Some organisations do this very well, with employees seeking and providing feedback after every significant transaction/ interaction. However, it is not only the frequency of the feedback but also the quality of it that is important. Telling a member of your team they have done well is far easier than providing genuinely thoughtful feedback on how they might improve. As such, training managers in how to deliver feedback, particularly difficult feedback, is essential.

Managers also need to be encouraged to adopt the right behaviour when it comes to feedback. Monitoring how frequently feedback is given provides a useful data point (although it does not necessarily provide a complete picture, as the quality of the feedback is also important, but more difficult to measure) to enable firms to identify those

managers who are not complying with best practice and take appropriate action. Another way of incentivising the right behaviour on feedback is for the frequency of feedback to be considered as part of the manager's appraisal/performance review, with those who are then complying with best practice being rewarded for doing so. Through this process, as well as quantitative information (frequency of feedback), consideration can also be given to qualitative measures (such as the quality of the information and how the team responds to the feedback).

Receiving feedback

Whilst delivering the right feedback is important, the way in which employees receive feedback is also important and is something that very few employers provide routine training in. Many employees do not enjoy receiving what they perceive to be negative feedback and it is all too easy to become (or to be perceived as being) defensive.

Providing training to all employees in the way in which performance is managed, including strategies for receiving feedback, can help to create a culture in which feedback (even where it is constructive, rather than positive) is seen positively and where managers feel empowered to quickly identify issues that are of concern.

Managing discrimination risks

Where grievances or litigation arise from performance management, often processes are attacked as being subjective and managers are alleged to being biased (whether that is through stereotypes or confirmation bias).

We often see examples where the same situation can be spun differently, depending on whether the employee is seen as a poor performer or a good performer. By way of illustration, if an employee has failed to achieve a deadline, for a poor performer,

the fact that the deadline has been missed will be all that matters, but for a good performer, the context in which it was missed will be considered and the fact of missing the deadline will be excused because of the employee's workload. This is another area where manager training is essential - ensuring managers are aware of the need for a consistent approach to providing feedback (and the risks associated with not doing so) is crucial.

In addition, ensuring that feedback is obtained from a number of sources, rather than a single manager is essential. Where a number of different people all share the same view of performance, it is less likely that this is as a result of bias towards the employee.

Finally, from a risk management perspective, keeping a robust paper trail is important. This does not mean that every time a manager has a discussion with an employee full meeting minutes are created, but just that there is a note of the key points.

The use of technology

One of the barriers to managers providing continuous feedback is often the amount of time they perceive it will take to do so. Technology can assist with this. Systems can enable real time feedback to be given (and recorded, thereby creating a paper trail to help manage the legal risks). Such systems can also provide useful management information on how frequently managers are providing feedback, enabling those who are properly engaging with their management responsibilities to be identified, as well as those who may need support.

However, technology can only be of use where it is deployed properly and where there is genuine commitment to providing thoughtful feedback. In order to support this, policies need to be put in place governing the use of the technology - these might include guidelines for how frequently feedback should be given (which then allows firms to monitor the amount of feedback given by each manager against the guideline) as well as guidance on the content of the feedback.

For example, some firms favour the "start; continue; stop" model, whereby employees are told what they need to start doing; what they need to continue doing and what they need to stop doing. This type of model can assist in ensuring managers are consistently providing the same level of feedback to all employees, which can again help to manage some of the legal risks associated with performance management and feedback.

Conclusion

For performance management to be successful, everyone, both managers and employees need to constructively engage with the process of delivering and receiving feedback. There are a number of ways to facilitate this, from providing training (both to those giving and those receiving feedback) to technological solutions which enable real-time feedback to be given and recorded. However, the key is to create a culture of feedback where the time taken to provide this is genuinely valued by the organisation.

Time to start upskilling your people for tech success:

PwC

Victoria Robinson,
People & Organisation Partner

We are in the middle of a tech revolution. We know from our 24th Annual CEO Survey that CEOs are prioritising digital transformation and productivity through automation and technology. We’re increasingly seeing clients rapidly re-thinking their business models in response to changing customer needs and opportunities to work more efficiently using technology.

This is exciting, but presents the huge challenge of upskilling entire workforces at pace, and the pandemic has highlighted the divide between the digital skills people have and the digital skills they will need for the future.

Fortunately, there is an appetite among the workforce to upskill.

Earlier this year, PwC commissioned a survey of 32,517 members of the general public, across 19 countries.

More than three quarters of respondents (77%) said they are ready to learn new skills or completely re-train in order to remain employable in the future, and 74% said they are continually learning new skills in order to keep up with changing technology.

However, 21% are getting no opportunities from their employer to develop digital skills outside their normal duties.This is not just frustrating, but indicates that employers for over a fifth of the workforce are either not recognising the strategic benefits of digitally upskilling their people, or are struggling to implement an effective upskilling strategy.

Designing an effective digital upskilling strategy

Over the last few years, PwC has embarked on its own upskilling journey in order to radically modernise the way we run our business and serve our clients. Based on this, together with our work with clients, we’ve pulled together some of our top tips on designing and executing an upskilling strategy that works:

Align your upskilling strategy to your business strategy. There is so much to learn - artificial intelligence and machine learning, robotic process automation, data analysis and visualisation - it can be hard to know where to begin. Focus on the digital skills that will be needed in order to deliver your business strategy.

Reward the right behaviours. Organisations that are successfully upskilling their people at pace have made learning part of everyday working life. Business leaders need to be clear on what behaviours they expect - this may be employees taking personal responsibility for learning new digital skills, investing time

supporting others, or exploring new technology-based solutions to problems - and reward employees who demonstrate these behaviours. When it comes to learning, measure and reward effort, as well as hard outcomes, because everyone will be starting from a different place.

Ensure leaders are driving the change. It is critical that business leaders give employees at all levels the time and support they need to develop their digital skills. This also means accepting there may not be an immediate return on investment. Leaders and managers must role model the change - it can be really powerful for junior employees to learn alongside more senior colleagues. What will employees think if you are telling them that upskilling is important, while de-prioritising your own learning?

Informal leaders at all levels can accelerate the pace of change. Informal leaders are early adopters with high levels of influence among peers.

Identify individuals who see the strategic value in technology and digitisation, and have a growth mindset - the belief that they and others are capable of learning new skills. These individuals do not necessarily have to be technology experts from the start, they just need to be excited and curious about technology. PwC UK’s Digital Accelerators programme gave 220 people (selected from over 2,000 applicants) from across the firm structured in-person and self-directed training, over 12 months, that equipped them with the skills, knowledge and tools to make an immediate impact on client projects and champion a digital mindset.

Provide personalised learning for all. There will be a range of different perspectives on technology in your workforce. Some will be excited and keen to learn; others will be apprehensive; and some won’t feel they have the time. Allowing employees to drive their own learning is key. Our research revealed 40% of respondents found learning via free resources (including online videos, podcasts and e-learns) enabled them to gain new skills which they put to use over the last 12 months.

At PwC, our Intelligent Digital Hub gives employees access to a wide range of learning, from podcasts to games to classroom learning. We’ve also launched cloud platforms to accelerate the growth of our digital transformation - our Digital Lab is a platform for employees to publish visualisations and automation assets, while Workbench allows us to host, access, and collaborate on cutting edge technologies effectively. However, more traditional training courses still have a role. We run two-day Digital Academy courses, open to all our people - from all business units and grades. These provide a chance to learn about and use tools such as Alteryx, Tableau, Power BI and UI Path in an informal, small group setting. So far, more than half of PwC UK (over 12,000 employees) have attended a Digital Academy.

Digital upskilling must become a priority. Successfully upskilling your workforce with the digital acumen needed for the future will require business leaders to inspire employees to think and act differently with technology.

Why personal development is critical to future business success

Worksmart Ltd

Julie Pardy,
Director of Regulation & Market Engagement

The Future World of Work is a huge topic and in June 2021, 15 months in from the first ever lockdown in the UK, it is very hard to predict what might come next. However, I think that on the topic of competence, capability and leaders really leading from the front, there probably are some easy predictions to be made.

As a member of a firm that provides supporting services to regulated entities, we get a unique window into the different challenges across all sectors of Financial Services. This helps us understand the “mood music” of the sector and enables us to compare what is happening in the different corners of the market.

One thing that has strangely been consistent across all sectors of the market has been the noticeable lack of structured development programmes throughout all levels in UK organisations. Now, many of you at this point may be shouting at the screen, “totally untrue – we’ve spent the last 6 months meticulously training everyone around role relevant conduct rules.” If that’s you, then I applaud you – no mean feat in lockdown and very hard to ensure that each business area has a “role relevant approach.” But I’m not talking about what I would call the “day to day” requirements for training that arise out of BAU. I’m focusing on the good old Training Needs Analysis programmes for staff that would consider role, tenure, career aspirations, identified needs, and developmental aspirations. In the digital age, where the world seems to spin faster, and certainly for many in more stressful environments due to lockdown than ever before, it seems that this might be taking a backseat, which in the long term is likely to be counter-productive for most firms.

These statistics published in a recent UK learning and development (L&D) benchmarking survey would seem to support what we see.

When we are working with our SM&CR clients and looking at systemising the firm’s approach to managing the regime, you can imagine we go through a whole series of questions to help understand the shape of an organisation and its associated processes.

Typically, this is what we find:

HR Teams that are creaking under the weight of responsibility for managing many elements of the SM&CR Regime
HR Teams that had not been provided with a structured approach to gaining familiarity with regulatory requirements around Fitness & Propriety and the importance of the different elements of the regime
Teams within an organisation that have been given the authority to “sign off” individuals within Certification at their annual check, with no assessment of their capability to act
Senior Managers who are very experienced leaders in their roles, it has been assumed that they need no further development or input
A lack of real focus around good old fashioned “development plans” and structured input to improve both knowledge, skills and on the job performance, both from a personal and corporate perspective

A further statistic from the UK L&D benchmarking survey. I suspect this statistic surprises no-one, so why have firms and individuals got out of the habit?

With the greater focus on employee wellbeing and mental health during the on-going pandemic, isn’t it a shame that employee development appears to have slowed down and dropped down the list of priorities. It is well known that well trained and engaged employees perform better, which in turn delivers improved business results.

Can organisations and business leaders blame the lack of focus on training and personal development on the pandemic? Well, according to the recently published CIPD People Profession survey 2020, they can!

Prior to the pandemic learning, training & development featured in the Top 3 for both business stakeholders and people (HR/L&D) professionals. But surveyed again during the pandemic, it was clear that this has dropped down the list for business stakeholders.

Unsurprisingly, the first priority was of course to establish remote workforces and continue to serve consumers as before but in a more distanced manner. However, over a year into an extended period of working from home, maybe now is the time for that clear focus to return.

I also want to consider what your training and development (or lack of it) says about your firm. In a recent report from the PRA, they shared with the marketplace that they have been tracking what they describe as “Unobtrusive Culture Indicators” from a wide range of metrics that banks supplied them with over a six-year period from 2014 - 2020. From these, they were able to draw some high-level conclusions about what the metrics told them. Although this study focused on the banking sector, there is a clear read across to the investment management industry.

The PRA made the management and oversight of culture part of their set of Prescribed Responsibilities for banking, and whilst the FCA chose not to do that, they are still interested in culture within firms.

The FCA have a clear focus in the marketplace around “Regulatory Culture Drivers”. They talk about the four pillars, one of which is People Policies. Regardless of which regulator, the way a firm interacts with them and/or presents itself to them, provides a window into your world. With the focus on Senior Manager Accountability, stopping bad apples rolling (to coin a phrase from the FCA) in respect of certified staff and an increasing interest in the competence and capability of all, how might a lack of structure, process and investment look like from a regulatory perspective?

On the job training and personal development doesn’t always need a huge investment, it’s not always about bringing in swathes of very expensive external experts. It is about giving people the time and space in management and oversight roles to support their direct line

reports in improving their performance in role. Don’t underestimate the power of peer-to-peer learning and leadership led development.

If your senior leaders do not have a structured programme of input for their personal development, you might like to ask yourselves why not. If your support functions are taking on ever more complex requirements linked to changing regulatory need, ask yourself, did we plan support for them to explore this before we asked them to step in and provide the operational support to the business.

If you have numerous staff that do not have developmental discussions with their line managers and only have scant attention paid to a once-a-year cursory performance appraisal, I suspect that the Future of Work from a regulatory perspective may need to look quite different.

The FCA talk about “tone from the top”, now might be the time to ask yourselves what the tone of your focus on people policies says to the regulator?