Training Blog

In businesses where there are groups of people working it is important that they’re able to work together. If they are not able to work together, it results in conflict and low productivity. In some cases it can result in major mistakes being made.

Ideally all members of the group should share the same ideas and goals. However in reality often the goals are shared within the team but the ideas about how to achieve that sometimes differ. This can be a good thing as long as there is good clear communication and the ability to compromise in order to get things done.

The team dynamic usually consists of degree of hierarchy, where each person is assigned a role. In a medical setting you can see this within individual departments which are smaller teams within a larger team, that is the hospital, which is a smaller team with a particular trust and so on until you get to the largest team of all the NHS.

Now we’ve all seen the stories on the news about the NHS failing, this is because their are parts of this team that are not working effectively. If you think about it logically each department is essentially a business if it does not work effectively then it loses customers this can then impact on the hospital as a whole because if you have a bad experience in one department then you are not likely to go back or at the very least reluctant to go to the hospital where you had the bad experience fearing that if you do the same thing may happen again.

There are a number of options that can be applied to rectify the situation:

• Change the Team
• Alter the hierarchy
• Take Courses in team management and effectiveness

If you decided to take the 3rd option then your next question is who/where can i find these courses. Well there is a company called Medicology Ltd. This company offers a diverse range of tools to help you make your team the best it can be.

A government minister has told bankers “to come back into the real world” after Royal Bank of Scotland directors threatened to resign over bonuses. City Minister Lord Myners said it was unrealistic that bankers should expect to be paid million pound bonuses.

RBS reportedly wants to pay a total of £1.5bn in bonuses to investment banking staff, and the board has threatened to quit if the government blocks the move. The Treasury said it would intervene if it was in the interest of taxpayers.

Meanwhile, Barclays is planning on increasing the non-variable element of staff pay at Barclays Capital, its investment bank, the BBC’s business editor Robert Peston says. The Government is caught between a rock and a hard place. Many voters cannot understand why taxpayer supported banks should pay their staff any extra bonuses.

In January the Chancellor will have to approve the bonus pot at RBS. Any increase could generate a backlash against the government. But the City doesn’t like what’s seen as interference in the boardroom. Looks like this will run and run. Barclays maintains that by pushing up salaries, it is only doing what G20 governments have asked it to do, by shifting the weight of pay from the variable portion – ie bonuses – to fixed.

Lord Myners has estimated that at least 5,000 bankers in the UK will earn more than £1m this year. He told the BBC that the median wage in the UK was just over £20,000 a year, and yet some bankers expected as a matter of course to receive bonuses, in addition to their salaries, of millions of pounds.

He also said banks needed to be mindful of the fact that much of the profit they were now making was due to “the benign conditions” created by the government pumping billions of pounds into the economy to stimulate demand. RBS directors say it is their legal duty to act in the interests of shareholders, and that if they do not pay competitive bonuses, top talent will leave the bank.

This would have an adverse impact on profitability, and therefore the bank’s ability to repay the taxpayer, they argue. Business Secretary Lord Mandelson said: “I understand the point that RBS directors are expressing – they say they have to remain competitive in the market in recruiting senior executives, and this is why it’s important that all the banks are equally restrained, and RBS is not singled out.”

The Conservatives said the government was sending out mixed messages. Shadow financial secretary Mark Hoban said: “The government’s policy on bonuses is a muddle. The city minister claims he will veto big bonuses only to be superseded by the business secretary calling for banks merely to show restraint.

“We have been clear – no significant cash bonuses should be paid out this year and that money should go towards increasing lending to the families and businesses who propped up the banks in the first place.”
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said the government should “call the bluff” of the RBS directors and accept their resignations. “The government has to impose itself and must not be pushed around,” he told the BBC. One banking analyst went a step further, suggesting the directors should be sacked. “Their job is very simple – to fulfil the requirements of the shareholders. If we tell them to paint everything blue, everything has to be blue,” said Ralph Silva at SRN. “They should not be going up against shareholders. I think we should fire them [before they resign].”

But he also argued that the government would be making a mistake if it told the bank not to pay bonuses. The best bankers who brought in the most profit would leave, he said, and for this reason he thought the bonuses would be paid. But others took a more sympathetic line with the RBS directors. Stephen Regan at the Cranfield School of Management said that shareholders could not call the shots and only had the power to call an extraordinary general meeting, at which they could vote on whether to oust the board.

“Ownership is with the shareholders, but control of the business is with the directors,” he said. The government owns 70% of RBS after bailing out the bank during the height of the financial crisis, a stake that is set to rise to 84% following the Treasury’s recent pledge to inject billions more into the bank.

Last month, Chancellor Alistair Darling announced that the Treasury, as the major shareholder in the bank, would have the “right to consent” to how much RBS pays in bonuses and how they are paid. RBS is said to want to pay £2bn in bonuses across the group for its performance in 2009, with £1.5bn going to its investment banking division, which is expected to make £6bn in profits this year.

It seems that financial firms could be recovering as a survey has shown that business volumes are growing for the first time in two years. In 3 months a 7% increase was reported. However some areas are still weak, which suggests that the recovery is going to be a long one.

Head of financial services consulting at PricewaterhouseCoopers, Andrew Gray says: “For the first time since June 2007, banks are experiencing an upswing in confidence, confidence is, in part, offset by concerns of further impairments and the impact of ‘tougher’ regulation.”

The UK’s five largest banks recently accepted curbs on bonuses agreed by G20 leaders at the recent Pittsburgh summit, and stronger rules on overall banking are likely to follow. Building societies were feeling downbeat about their prospects, partly because of difficulties with funding. However the satabilisation in the housing market did cause some cautious cheer.

It would seem that the main institutions are looking positive but for the average person, there is still a long way to go. It is hoped that a valuable lesson has been learnt from this financial crisis, and that is to only borrow what you can afford and for financial providers to only lend what they can afford and not to go mad in order to line some beurocrat’s pocket.

According to analyst Roy Lilley unregulated pharmaceuticals may be permitted to increase the NHS drugs bill with little benefit to patients. He claims that the drugs will become more and more expensive; but we will by them regardless he says that we are essentially writing the pharmaceutical companies a blank cheque which is rather worrying, considering that at present, drug companies are reluctant to launch new drugs in the UK at prices below “global market value” because much of that market is influenced by UK prices.

The aim is to fast track new medicines that could be blocked by NICE on the basis of cost and effectiveness. A former drug company boss, Lord Drayson, has been given the task of promoting life sciences as potential big earners for Britain with the backing of Lord Mandelson, who sees pharmaceuticals as key to the revival of the UK economy.Reports suggest that Lord Drayson favours a system where NICE would appraise the drug after 3 years in the hope that the company would have made substantial profits and so may be willing to drop the price.

Based on the evidence, if Lord Drayson is successful we could see pharmaceutical companies rushing drug after drug in quick succession without them being thoroughly tested. Another big concern is that the prices of these drugs will have very little regulation, these costs are likely to be passed on to patients by taxes being raised which would make them experience even more financial hardship. So the theory that they could be the revival of the UK economy is flawed. Granted they may make more money but that doesn’t really help the general public.

As most parents know juggling your professional and personal life isn’t easy but here are a few things that may life a little easier.
All working parents have the right to work flexible hours in order to ensure that their children are properly looked after. Many working parents in the United Kingdom have to work long hours and indeed in some instances two jobs to be able to provide a stable financial back drop against which to bring up their children. So with this in mind the government have introduced legislation that enables both parents to work a set number of hours (agreeable with their employer) in a slightly less formal structure. This could allow a parent to work part-time hours during the course of a week starting at 9am and finishing at 3pm; alternatively flexible working arrangements may allow for a parent to come into work later on a morning to allow transporting their children to school or a child minder.

Maternity Leave also known as Statutory Maternity Pay can be paid for up to thirty nine weeks after the birth of the baby. As a working parent a mother is entitled to maternity leave and statutory maternity pay if she has been in constant employment with the same company or organisation for twenty six weeks prior to the fifteenth week of her pregnancy.

In the last few years the legislation controlling the rights of fathers has changed to ensure that fathers can have paid leave to spend with their children after they are born. This is referred to as paternity leave and is paid at the same rates as maternity pay although only for one to two weeks. A father can spend one to two weeks at home with his newborn child if he is the child’s biological father or married to the child’s mother.

Although adoptive leave is right of any parent it is not always paid for and will only be paid for if there are already arrangements and agreements in place with your employer. As with maternity and paternity leave you must be employed by your current employer for twenty six weeks prior to becoming the child’s adoptive parent. An adoptive parent is entitled to up to thirty nine weeks leave which is paid at a flat rate known as Statutory Adoptive Pay. In order to qualify for adoptive leave you must notify your employer well in advance that you are being matched to a child for adoption. This allows them to make the necessary arrangements but also if their terms and conditions state you are entitled to Statutory Adoptive Pay.

In addition to these laws if you are entitled to Working Tax Credits you can claim up to 80% of the childcare costs providing that your childcare provider is registered (most nurseries, playgroups and after school clubs are registered) if you are unsure if your daycare provider is registered just ask them.
All of the aforementioned rights are afforded to working parents in the United Kingdom and if you are an expectant mother or proud father-to-be then you should investigate the terms and conditions of your employment and enquire as to whether or not these working rights are supported by your employer.

If however you are not sure then you should contact your local Citizen’s Advice Bureau who will be able to help you find out what you are entitled to and will also be able to help with understanding the terms and conditions of your contract of employment.

Your local office of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) will also be able to assist you with advice on benefits and additional monies for low income families.

In January 2009 Consumer Prices Index (CPI) inflation fell to 3%, in December 2008 the CPI was 3.1%. For the last four months the CPI has fallen from a high of 5.2% in September, to 3%.

As well as the falling energy prices, the reduction in VAT from 17.5% to 15%, announced in the pre-Budget report in November, also had an effect. A zero or negative RPI could result in the extraordinary occurrence of average pay increases also falling towards zero with the current strain on government finances some are calling for a freeze on public sector pay.

The decline in CPI wasn’t expected – the consensus forecast among analysts had been for an annual rate of 2.7%. the decline in energy bills were slightly offset by rises in the price of household equipment, such as furniture, and alcohol, clothing and footwear. the smaller than expected drop was also due in part to a reluctance by retailers to slash prices further after heavy discounting in December. One of the reasons why the Bank of England delayed cutting interest rates last year was concern over inflationary pressures in the economy; the bank has already cut interest rates to 1% in an attempt to stimulate the economy. They believe that CPI inflation will drop to 0.5% this year and will remain below its 2% target for two years.

There seems to be a growing number of employees who are working hard, but not at being productive instead they are working at looking busy and thus making them appear indispensable. This is because workers fear they will join the growing number of workers becoming unemployed if their bosses see how little work they have to do. As a result some engage in “busywork” such as reorganizing files while some attempt to trick their bosses into thinking they are working late nights. However this is not a phenomena that is confined to times of economic uncertainty even when the economy is good, some workers will go to great lengths to appear busy, but these people are usually the slackers who are bunking off on company time. When the economy turns for the worse, it’s only natural that every employee wants to look indispensable and some start using the same techniques perfected by the slacker in an attempt to secure their job.

Some workers will go to extreme lengths to convince their boss that their are indispensable:

• An attorney, who wanted the boss to think he was working late into the night, brought an oscillating fan to his office so that it would produce movement and the lights wouldn’t dim when he left his office.
• A sales associate refolds clothes even though they are folded perfectly already.
• A worker in the financial industry scatters papers on his desk.
• An advertising executive is busy but not at the advertising business. While at the office, he is designing toys for the baby he is expecting. His computer is facing toward the window in his office building so no one can see what he has on his computer screen.

In some cases spend their time with busywork because they have no real work to do. A professor argued that busywork probably does more for the individual’s psyche than for the company’s productivity. Some claim that busywork may have an individual value for the person who is doing it because it’s difficult going into work and having nothing to do, particularly if the person is used to having a substantial workload.

Basically if you are not productive the company will cease to exist as it is highly likely that you are not the only one doing busywork instead of work that is productive thus beneficial both to you and the company.

So we’ve all heard about the impact the credit crunch is having on big chains like Woolworths but how is it affecting small businesses?

Small UK firms are struggling to get the loans they need to grow or even survive. A lack of funds means that banks are being more selective over who they lend money to, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) says: “Those who could get loans now faced paying interest rates in excess of 10%.”

Matthew Knowles claims that: “one of the reasons Banks often see small businesses as more of a risk. The issue is that the banks are being more choosy over who they lend money to until they ride out the storm.”"The reason that banks tend to see small businesses as more of a risk – and because they aren’t able to tick all the boxes which the banks set out, they struggle to borrow.

The credit crunch has followed woes in the US sub-prime mortgage sector, which specialises in loans to people with poor credit histories or on low incomes. Rising interest rates have led to record levels of loan defaults and home repossessions – and that has sparked fears about which lenders might be exposed to the bad debts.

VAT is value added tax; basically pretty much every item you purchase has VAT added to the cost price of the item. For example a chocolate bar costs the shopkeeper 49p for the consumer the cost of the same bar of chocolate is 52p at the old rate of VAT. Before 1st December 2008 the rate 0f VAT was 17.5%; the current rate is 15%.

The reason for the decrease in the VAT rate was an attempt to resolve the country’s economic crisis by encouraging people to start spending again although I should point out that it is temporary and the reduction will apply only for a short time which given the changes listed below will ultimately mean even greater expense for the companies. Unfortunately when the government decided to introduce this reduction they forgot to consider the sheer cost involved in amending the prices of every item. Not only do you have to ammend the prices on the actual item but you also have to reprogramme the software used to
process the sale (tills or software on online sales), another problem is that the brochures for next year have already been printed thus with the reduction they are now useless therefore it increases the cost to the company. It also generates a further problem because retailers have 1 of 2 options either they can pass the saving on to their customers and make a loss themselves as the wholesale price does not change, alternatively they can basically pocket the difference unfortunately there is no way to prove who is doing what.

The “Credit Crunch” is the term used to describe the economic status which 1st became a problem in 2008. Basically the problem is that the banks are refusing to lend because they can’t afford it. This is causing a domino effect throughout the country.I should point out that it is not just the UK that are in the middle of this economic crisis. One problem which keeps cropping up is that public spending has been reduced this is creating problems for businesses as they are unable to borrow from the bank the next logical move would be to rely on public spending but as this had declined businesses are unable to get the cash that they
need from this source which can affect their long term cash flow. This in turn means that businesses have had to make some staff redundant but this is not without consequences; as if you make staff redundant it will not improve public spending as if you don’t have a job any money you do have goes on paying bills so you have no disposable income.

In some cases this is not enough and the business goes into liquidation as we have seen with Woolworths. This ultimately makes the problem worse as unemployment figures rise, thus decreasing the number of people with disposable income and increases the number of people relying on government schemes such as the dole just to make ends meet. Which is not without problems as the government does not have an infinite amount of cash, they are attempting to fix the economy with a number of things such as reducing the rate of VAT but this is not really ideal as demonstrated in the article about VAT changes. Another thing that you may not be aware of is that the government is borrowing money from other areas such as the NHS in an attempt to fix the banking crisis.

This creates even more problems such as the NHS having to make cut backs on some of the services that they offer which can impact on the public when they need treatment and waiting times are increased as they like everywhere else are having to make some staff redundant. The only plus side I am aware of is those lucky enough to have disposable income are able to purchase things fairly cheaply due to cuts in VAT and also businesses are so desperate to stay solvent that they are having massive sales which basically means that for the duration of the sale they have a fairly good cash flow unfortunately it is not good for business to have a permanent sale. So as you can see there are good points in between all the doom and gloom but when you look at the bigger picture the good points don’t seem quite so great.