Martin Goodyer is a psychologist and corporate coach specialising in the leading and delivery of behavioural change. In addition to regularly appearing, contributing to, or acting as a consultant psychologist on television and radio, Martin is one of the UK's top Corporate and Business Coaches.

Travel only when you ‘want to’ rather than having to ‘need to’

Shock horror; it snowed at the weekend and it was cold. It’s January; what do you expect?

It’s January now but it doesn’t matter what month it might be when you read this; the choice to focus thinking either on the past or the future will be the same.

Well, one thing you can definitely expect is that if we do the same as we’ve always done, we are likely to get the same result. I think it was Albert Einstien who for all his wonderful achievements is remembered by some for saying that doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result is akin to madness. Based on that definition the leadership of the UK is stark raving bonkers. 

Reduce the need to travel

Ridiculous wasting of resources

Being 'Boozed-Up' in the morning is OK?

Random workplace drug and alcohol testing...PLEASE!

As Scrooge-like as it might first sound, I do wish out approach to alcohol abuse would change.

We are mealy mouthed when it comes to dealing with a problem that will tear some families apart this Christmas when their loved ones are maimed or killed by a driver still over the limit from a 'session'

A survey today confirmed what anyone out after ten at night during the Christmas celebrations will have deduced already; that almost half of 17 to 24 year olds are happy to risk driving to work in the morning even though they know they're still under the influence from the night before.

Instead of relying on our already overstretched police force to intervene, I think it's about time we took a new and determined approach to stamp this out. It's not acceptable to wring our hands and tut in disgust after another tragic but avoidable alcohol or drug driven event.

Self funding, non invasive and protective of the innocent

Like most people, I don't want to be held up in queues at police road blocks carrying out mass breath tests. Nor do I want to see more 'discretionary' targeting of groups suspected of being 'most likely' to offend. All this leads to is public irritation and accusations of unnecessarily harsh policing. Instead I want to see employers empowered, supported and even obliged to carry out drug and alcohol tests in the workplace. It's a nonsense that employees be allowed to endanger themselves, their colleagues and their employers by being unfit to be relied on in an emergency at work. If it were made an offence for organisations to allow this to happen then the onus will shift from the criminal to the corporate. I want our police to protect us against criminals and not waste their time ferreting out drunken ne're-do-wells. 

If companies were required to protect themselves against abuse they will save themselves a fair portion of the billions lost every year in unnecessary sick days and lost productivity. If they were required to demonstrate such protection by a minimum percentage of employees being randomly sampled each month it will soon become just another HR procedure, like a fire drill or a risk assessment. It already happens in sport and in professions like the airline industry where sobriety needs to be enforced; so why not everywhere?

Every year I make the same kind of plea. Last year nothing changed and more people were killed and injured as a result; not just at Christmas but throughout the year. How many more must needlessly die, how many more families must be ripped apart and how much longer do the majority of conscientious employees have to see their companies ripped off by 'colleagues' more concerned with having a skinful the night before than the effects of their actions?

£8 billion available if you want it!

Stress and mental health at work is a big and expensive issue!

I am aware of many stress related cases. One in particular highlights the problem really well: A woman in her mid forties, (let's call her Janet although that isn't her real name), with a relatively senior job, begins experiencing negative feelings that erode her capacity to perform well in the role. The workplace culture is downbeat and secretive, purported methodologies are barely adhered to (often only as lip service) and there is a lack of clarity surrounding performance measures and authority boundaries. The net result is that this £60,000 a year leadership person has been away from work now for over 9 months.... on full pay. Clearly the institution that employs her is not a private enterprise as it's unlikely any commercial venture would support this level of absence and cost. However her circumstances are not particularly unusual in many UK institutions.

It's easy to push the issue of stress aside when times are tough using the excuse that 'it's tough for us all' - as if this will excuse or diminish the already devastating effects of stress on productivity. It's also easy to point the finger at institutions like the one above and complain that it should not be allowed to happen. But that really won't help.

The charity 'Mind' estimate that British businesses lose £26 billion each year in sickness absence and lost productivity, and suggest that at least a third of these costs could be saved if stress and mental health issues were addressed more effectively.

So £8 billion a year could be saved by adopting a different attitude and approach to stress

Why then isn't it being seen as a priority?

The answer to that is simple; it's because the wrong question is being asked; or rather a series of wrong questions. The tendency is to ask how stress can be reduced; but there's an inherent problem with that. It predicates the notion that stress is present and a given. It presents stress as an inevitability and infers that any stress present is 'negative'. Neither is necessarily true. Stress need not be a 'given', nor need anything that might put pressure on performance be necessarily negative.

That's not to say that stress won't happen. Given the right circumstances it may well become inevitable. It's just that attempting to make inroads into that £8 billion need not start with questions that make it more difficult to succeed.

A better question might be 'How might negative stress be avoided in the first place?'

Now that's a much better question. It straight away suggests answers that are both sensible and doable. Things like;

..."ensure all employees have total clarity with regard to three essential job ingredients, each of which must be in balance with the others; responsibility, authority and accountability". If a person knows (and agrees with) what he or she is responsible for doing, how that responsibility and their performance in delivering it will be measured, and that the support and tools to do the job are readily available and accessible, then the chances of negative stress are considerably diminished.

Or ..."create an environment where energy and enthusiasm are the norm". This can be easily achieved simply by the leadership setting the example and being consistent.

Or ... "ensure politeness and respect is part of an embedded culture". Negativity spreads like a tsunami through an organisation where lack of respect and politeness is tolerated. All it takes to fix it are an agreed set of rules that are enforced.

Or... "turn necessities into opportunities". If things 'have' to be done, find ways of making them useful and upbeat; for example I've got companies sending employees on necessary courses where the employees willingly do 12 hour work days instead of 8 to shorten the time away from work. How? Because we hold the courses on the sunshine island of Tenerife! The costs of getting there are offset by the reduction in days needed and the otherwise recalcitrant employees see the training as a perk and not a chore.

Or ... "have clear methods of working that everyone truly understands". Basic quality leadership where clarity is key; what's agreed gets done and follow through can be guaranteed.

The list  may not be exhaustive but it certainly could go on. The point however is to notice that each of the things identified that answer the right question are positive, will support the business aims, and can be done without any need for external intervention.

Businesses can do this for themselves. There's no need to make a big deal about it because the answers to the better question are all centred on leading the business more effectively.

Janet's problem probably has nothing to do with work. It's much more likely to be that her kids have left home and she has a poor relationship with her spouse; having made 'raising the children' her life priority for so long, and buried her head in the proverbial sand regarding her relationship, she's now having to face an uncertain future. It's not an uncommon isse and she's not alone. This lack of balance is much more likely to be the real 'cause' of her problem. But the lack of an open, supportive, enthusiastic, energetic and positive work environment with no clarity around performance issues will have added to her lack of certainty and lack of control. It also becomes a much easier target for blame. The result; her contribution to that £8 billion cost to the UK at a time it can be least afforded.

Ask better questions and you are bound to get better answers

Had Janet's workplace been effectively led she would be using her job as a way to balance her personal uncertainty rather that it adding to it. Reducing stress is not a 'motherhood and apple pie' wish. It's something that can, and should, be achieved.

To learn more about turning necessary training into a cost reducing perk, contact Martin here