Jim Moore, Hamilton Nash
@hamiltonnash.bsky.social
UK HR, Employee Relations & Employment Law. Workplace Investigator & Mediator. Managing Partner at Hamilton Nash.
#HR #EmploymentLaw #CIPD #ukemplaw
#HR #EmploymentLaw #CIPD #ukemplaw
I'm also firmly against forced distribution curves in performance management processes, or a Jack Welch-style compulsory pruning of the bottom 10%
March 10, 2025 at 2:04 PM
I'm also firmly against forced distribution curves in performance management processes, or a Jack Welch-style compulsory pruning of the bottom 10%
Agreed. My view on this is:
Protected conversations are an opportunity for the individual and employer to part ways amicably.
However, if managers have been managing performance properly all along, it shouldn't be necessary to find alternative methods to show people the door in the first place.
Protected conversations are an opportunity for the individual and employer to part ways amicably.
However, if managers have been managing performance properly all along, it shouldn't be necessary to find alternative methods to show people the door in the first place.
March 10, 2025 at 2:01 PM
Agreed. My view on this is:
Protected conversations are an opportunity for the individual and employer to part ways amicably.
However, if managers have been managing performance properly all along, it shouldn't be necessary to find alternative methods to show people the door in the first place.
Protected conversations are an opportunity for the individual and employer to part ways amicably.
However, if managers have been managing performance properly all along, it shouldn't be necessary to find alternative methods to show people the door in the first place.
Sorry, just posted this on Twitter/X and then remembered you asked about this here. Hope this helps, on the off chance.
February 11, 2025 at 2:17 PM
Sorry, just posted this on Twitter/X and then remembered you asked about this here. Hope this helps, on the off chance.
That's where mediation can come in.
Mediation is all about helping people reframe their conflict away from a "why we can't" work together position to a "how we can" perspective.
I'm a strong advocate for mediation, and recommend exploring that option wherever possible.
Mediation is all about helping people reframe their conflict away from a "why we can't" work together position to a "how we can" perspective.
I'm a strong advocate for mediation, and recommend exploring that option wherever possible.
January 29, 2025 at 11:19 AM
That's where mediation can come in.
Mediation is all about helping people reframe their conflict away from a "why we can't" work together position to a "how we can" perspective.
I'm a strong advocate for mediation, and recommend exploring that option wherever possible.
Mediation is all about helping people reframe their conflict away from a "why we can't" work together position to a "how we can" perspective.
I'm a strong advocate for mediation, and recommend exploring that option wherever possible.
Deciding who's right or wrong doesn't do anything to repair the breakdown in the working relationship. Unless the matter involves conduct that warrants a disciplinary sanction, the individuals involved are still going to have to work together. [...]
January 29, 2025 at 11:19 AM
Deciding who's right or wrong doesn't do anything to repair the breakdown in the working relationship. Unless the matter involves conduct that warrants a disciplinary sanction, the individuals involved are still going to have to work together. [...]
I deal with workplace conflict professionally, but I find these principles apply beyond conflict in workplaces. I am a strong proponent of mediation.
Very few people are inherently malign. As per Hanlon's Razor: don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained by error or miscommunication.
Very few people are inherently malign. As per Hanlon's Razor: don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained by error or miscommunication.
January 16, 2025 at 11:42 AM
I deal with workplace conflict professionally, but I find these principles apply beyond conflict in workplaces. I am a strong proponent of mediation.
Very few people are inherently malign. As per Hanlon's Razor: don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained by error or miscommunication.
Very few people are inherently malign. As per Hanlon's Razor: don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained by error or miscommunication.
4. Beware of false consensus bias. You may think a particular view is self-evidently right or wrong, but that doesn't mean every other "right thinking person" agrees with you.
Echo chambers are notorious for reinforcing false consensus bias. Don't confine yourself within one.
[...]
Echo chambers are notorious for reinforcing false consensus bias. Don't confine yourself within one.
[...]
January 16, 2025 at 11:42 AM
4. Beware of false consensus bias. You may think a particular view is self-evidently right or wrong, but that doesn't mean every other "right thinking person" agrees with you.
Echo chambers are notorious for reinforcing false consensus bias. Don't confine yourself within one.
[...]
Echo chambers are notorious for reinforcing false consensus bias. Don't confine yourself within one.
[...]
In Richmond Pharmaceuticals v Dhaliwal 2009 IRLR 336, Underhill LJ pointed out that the intended "purpose or effect" of the comment or behaviour needs to be considered.
[...]
[...]
January 16, 2025 at 11:42 AM
In Richmond Pharmaceuticals v Dhaliwal 2009 IRLR 336, Underhill LJ pointed out that the intended "purpose or effect" of the comment or behaviour needs to be considered.
[...]
[...]
3. It is okay for someone to hold and express views that others find objectionable.
As long as those views aren't weaponised, i.e. expressed in a manner that causes someone to suffer a detriment, then airing those views is lawful. Being offended is not, in and of itself, a detriment.
[...]
As long as those views aren't weaponised, i.e. expressed in a manner that causes someone to suffer a detriment, then airing those views is lawful. Being offended is not, in and of itself, a detriment.
[...]
January 16, 2025 at 11:42 AM
3. It is okay for someone to hold and express views that others find objectionable.
As long as those views aren't weaponised, i.e. expressed in a manner that causes someone to suffer a detriment, then airing those views is lawful. Being offended is not, in and of itself, a detriment.
[...]
As long as those views aren't weaponised, i.e. expressed in a manner that causes someone to suffer a detriment, then airing those views is lawful. Being offended is not, in and of itself, a detriment.
[...]
2. In a situation where the rights of different groups are in tension, finding a balance between them can be tricky.
Each situation needs to be considered on its own merits. The existence of this difficulty doesn't make either of the groups inherently 'bad' or 'wrong'.
[...]
Each situation needs to be considered on its own merits. The existence of this difficulty doesn't make either of the groups inherently 'bad' or 'wrong'.
[...]
January 16, 2025 at 11:42 AM
2. In a situation where the rights of different groups are in tension, finding a balance between them can be tricky.
Each situation needs to be considered on its own merits. The existence of this difficulty doesn't make either of the groups inherently 'bad' or 'wrong'.
[...]
Each situation needs to be considered on its own merits. The existence of this difficulty doesn't make either of the groups inherently 'bad' or 'wrong'.
[...]