2. Applying the science of psychology to work
Division of
Occupational Psychology
DOP Annual Conference 2016
6–8 January – East Midlands Conference Centre, Nottingham
The DOP 2016 Conference will focus on the role of occupational psychology in enabling people and
organisations to respond to the extraordinary demands of our fast-changing world. Concerns about the
environment, new technology, population change, health and safety, poverty and conflict are just a few of
the external challenges impacting the world of work today.
By sharing and discussing the latest thinking, research and practice, the conference will explore how our
profession is helping to develop the resilience and agility to face this challenging environment and work
towards a more sustainable future.
Last chance to book! Why you shouldn’t miss out!
The DOP Annual Conference offers an exceptional opportunity for you to be a part of an outstanding event
with a high quality interactive programme; including keynote presentations from industry experts and
thought leaders, symposiums, CPD workshops, discussion sessions and much more.
In addition, the DOP Conference is well known for the great social experience and networking events,
which in alignment with Nottingham hosting the conference this year, will include experiencing our own
version of the annual Nottingham Goose Fair.
Still not convinced? Here is what one of our 2015 conference delegates thought
"The organisation was perfect, the attendees were inspiring and the workshops/keynotes were
outstanding! Most of all though, I appreciated the Ambassador programme, which made
me feel at ease immediately and broke the ice of anonymity quickly.”
Peter Romero, Lead Analyst, CEB/Global Research Office
Book now! Join us at what promises to be another exceptional DOP conference.
Follow us on Twitter: @DOPConference #dopconf
If you have any queries please get in touch with us at: dopconf@bps.org.uk
Find out more by visiting: www.bps.org.uk/dop2016
Resilience in a
challenging world
Resilience in a
challenging world
Resilience in a
challenging world
Resilience in a
challenging world
Printed and published by the British Psychological Society.
First published December 2015.
Copyright for published material rests with the British Psychological Society unless specifically
stated otherwise. As the Society is a party to the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA)
agreement, articles published in OP Matters may be copied by libraries and other organisations
under the terms of their own CLA licences (www.cla.co.uk). Permission must be obtained
from the British Psychological Society for any other use beyond fair dealing authorised by
copyright legislation. For further information about copyright and obtaining permissions, go
to www.bps.org.uk/permissions or email permissions@bps.org.uk.
The British Psychological Society
St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UK
Telephone 0116 254 9568 Facsimile 0116 227 1314
Email mail@bps.org.uk Website www.bps.org.uk
Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered Charity No 229642
3. Editorial
Robert Goate
I
N MY EARLY CAREER, I worked for a B2B publishing
company which over the years had lost a market
leading position to become a ‘me too’ against its
competitors. There were many attempts to launch new
products which we thought would address our customer
needs. Unsurprisingly all attempts failed, as these
modifications were developed without any consultation
from our customers. Eventually somebody said, ‘Erm, do
you think we should ask our customers what they want?’ We took a new proposal to our
customers, consulted with them on its development, and by the time we launched the
product it was nothing like what we originally thought our customers would want, but
eventually became a £10 million company over three years.
I was recently invited to the launch of the Towards Maturity/CIPD Industry
Benchmark Report for L&D leaders at the BMA where this need to be close to your end
user was raised within the context of L&D. This longitudinal report is in its twelfth year
and reveals some interesting findings about the state of L&D from 600 L&D professionals
across 60 countries, and was available for wider review from 5 November 2015. The event
included a panel discussion which raised some interesting questions chiefly around the
reluctance of some L&D professionals to engage with developments in technology, and
expressions of concerns around the ‘is L&D dead’ theme as human capital is replaced by
robotics and electronic delivery of online learning.
However, the most eloquent comments were raised by panel delegate Dave Buglass
from Tesco Bank who spoke very passionately about L&D people needing to get out of
their silos, get closer to their customers (staff and traditional customers) and connect with
senior business leaders, heads of departments and teams to identify key business
imperatives which will shape learning and development initiatives. If you’re not doing
this, you’re just making it up aren’t you?
Robert Goate
Business Psychologist
MSc Occ.Psych, Dip.Couns, NLP Ma.Pract, MBPS, FCMI
Editor: BPS OP Matters
Mob: 07930 878270
The author
Robert Goate is Head of L&D at BPP Professional Education and a Fellow of the
Chartered Management Institute. He has over 20 years’ experience as a business
psychologist offering coaching, learning, counselling and development to a range of
companies in the media and education sectors.
OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 1
4. 2 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
Letter from the Chair
Roxane L. Gervais
W
ELCOME TO THIS CHRISTMAS EDITION of
OP Matters! It is the season to be jolly and convey
well wishes, so I hope that you are enjoying the
season and looking forward to 2016. Of course the DOP
conference is at the start of 2016; I think one of the best
ways to start the year. It promises to be a great conference
with five dynamic speakers, known internationally for their
research, discourse and great achievements. So I hope you
will join with other DOP members over the three days from 6–8 January 2016 in exploring
resilience in a challenging world.
This is a time of change, within the Society and within the Division. The Society is
progressing in its discussion and assessment of its entire structure. The BPS’s General
Assembly, which is the representative forum for all its member networks, met on 15–16
October 2015. Most of the discussion focused on moving forward with the changes that
have been identified from the two consultations. The Society’s review group has been
tasked with progressing the proposals, which will then be sent to the Society’s trustees,
who will concentrate on translating these into tangible outputs that would then be
actioned. I will continue to update you on the review’s progress.
The refugee situation within Europe
As occupational psychologists we work towards improving the workplace, that could then
impact positively on families, on communities and overall to improve and support societies.
This should translate naturally in how best we can contribute to supporting to the present
refugee crisis in Europe. The European Federation of Psychological Associations
(EFPA) issued a European-wide statement that was in turn supported by the BPS
(www.bps.org.uk/news/bps-welcomes-call-united-approach-provide-psychological-support-
refugees). These statements outline the various ways that psychologists can support these
peoples, who are seeking assistance in countries not their own and away from all that is
familiar to them. I hope you will think about how you can assist, if possible.
Volunteering with the DOP
The research in respect of volunteering has shown the benefits that it brings, such as
improved physical and mental health. Volunteering is therefore a good way to increase
your wellbeing. At the time this update was written, nominations were open for elected
positions on the DOP’s Executive Committee and for the wider committee. The
nomination process is an important part of ensuring strong leadership for the future of
the Division. The DOP relies heavily on its volunteers to promote the profession and to
run the various events and activities that occur during each year and over subsequent
years. Without these volunteers, the DOP would not be able to offer the full range of
networking, continuing professional development (CPD) and topic specific events and
activities that it does. There are opportunities to volunteer within the DOP and I hope you
will consider doing so in 2016.
5. OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 3
Awards and recognition
The DOP recognises its members each year through its awards and recognition
programme. These range from students, to early career Occupational Psychologists, to
those who are more advanced in their career and have made significant contributions
over this time. The rewards include:
n Practitioner of the Year Award
n Lifetime Achievement Award
n Academic Contribution to Practice Award
n Student Prizes for Excellence
n Volunteer of the Year Award
By the time you read this, the awards would have been presented at the British Medical
Association’s House in London on 24 November 2015. However, I hope you will consider self-
nominating, or nominating a colleague, student, or mentor for one of these awards next year.
This edition
OP Matters covers a variety of topics in this edition. For example, Mary Brown’s article
explores Appreciative Inquiry, which focuses on framing the solutions, i.e. looking at what
works within organisations, and building on those procedures and practices, rather than
focusing on trying to improve what is not working – an interesting approach that might
prove useful within the work environment. Melanie George’s article looks at trust in
healthcare leaders underpinning effective teamworking, which looks at factors that would
improve on teamworking within the National Health Service, including trust,
communication and emotional intelligence.
Your working groups continue to organise events across the country on your behalf.
A few reviews of some of these events are presented. Kate Firth summaries three activities
held by the Networking and Professional Development Working Group over the past few
months. They illustrate the diversity of events that are being organised by volunteers on
your behalf and in your local areas. Kim Feldwicke outlines the one-day event organised
by the Going Green Working Group that explored sustainability in the workplace. If you
are interested in encouraging green behaviours within organisations, check for the 2016
events that the group will be running.
Recognising members’ achievements
Congratulations to Professor Dave Bartram who was conferred the Award of Fellow of the
Academy of Social Sciences (FAcSS). This is a significant achievement and I am sure you
will join me in wishing Professor Bartram all the best on attaining the fellowship.
Acknowledgements
As with all organisations, we have to say farewell to colleagues as they move on to new
adventures and challenges. In this edition, we wish the best to Laura Neale, co-editor of
OP Matters, who has stepped down to focus on attaining her chartership.
Have a lovely festive season and all the best for 2016.
Roxane L. Gervais
Chair, Division of Occupational Psychology
Email: DOPchair@bps.org.uk
6. The decent organisation: How
psychologists might help to create
a climate of honesty and respect
Mary Brown
Y
ET AGAIN it seems that the media is full of stories about the dark side of
organisational life. Secrets and lies seem to have been the order of the day in
Volkswagen – and probably several other car companies yet to be identified who
have also lied about their diesel car emissions. Volkswagen has resorted to full page
adverts in the national press, claiming to seek to win back our trust – but they would,
wouldn’t they? Meanwhile, a report into the culture of the higher echelons of the Civil
Service by Catherine Baxendale, ‘former personnel chief at Tesco’ (Wright, 2015) reveals
a ‘snake pit… a bullying and macho culture, and an uncollaborative, poisonous
environment’. Not exactly an ‘employer of choice’ then – and the reports of bullying and
harassment of whistle-blowers in the NHS grow apace (see, for example, Drew, 2013).
Neither do our elected representatives enjoy a healthy organisational culture, when many
of them still appear to be squandering tax payers’ money and hypocritically ignoring the
ethical behaviours they are supposed to promote.
These macho cultures, where the aim is every man (sic) for himself, are apparently
spreading to the peaceful groves of academia and other previously less aggressive
employment sectors. My erstwhile colleague, the distinguished Professor Dennis Tourish,
has recently explored the ‘dark side of transformational leadership’ (Tourish, 2013),
where he rightly illustrates how narcissism, megalomania and poor decision making on
the part of self-styled ‘transformational’ leaders have caused untold organisational
damage and even been a major cause of the global financial crisis of which we are still
experiencing the after-shocks.
An Occupational Psychologist might be forgiven for feeling depressed by such a
catalogue of organisational misery. It must be said that I have also been pretty negative in
the past about the role psychologists currently play in organisations – indeed, I have
previously used this journal to complain about psychologists selling out to contemporary
managerialism (Brown, 2012). But, arguing against myself, is this critical approach really
going to make a positive difference? Recently I have been thinking again about the best
way to achieve constructive change in toxic organisations, and remembered a course I
attended several years ago which might offer a different way of looking at organisational
health. (I was going to write ‘organisational malaise’, but the approach I’m going to
describe would challenge the focus I was intending to put there on the problem rather
than the solution).
In a previous life, when researching into the challenges church communities and their
ministers face in getting their message across in the twenty-first century, I had the
opportunity to attend a two-day training course on achieving successful organisational
change with a group of Church of Scotland ministers (many of whom were not only highly
motivated but also had a sophisticated understanding of organisational behaviour – but
that’s another paper!). The approach described by Rob Voyle, the consultant (Voyle, 2006)
4 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
7. was Appreciative Inquiry (AI). Several of us delegates were initially unconvinced by what at
first sounded like yet another American fad, but the more we learned about AI, the more
it seemed to make sense, both from a psychological and a common-sense viewpoint.
Essentially, AI began as an organisation development approach, the idea originally of
David Cooperider, when he was a doctoral student at Case Western Reserve University in
the 1980s. His case study of the Cleveland Clinic involved the usual diagnostic philosophy:
Focus on what was not working within the organisation. But finding that, contrary to
expectations, his respondents focused their answers on what was working, he changed his
focus to finding ways of growing what worked rather than focusing on preventing what
didn’t. Cooperider argued that the medical model of organisational development, based
on assessment, diagnosis and treatment, often focused exclusively on the nature and
causes of problems. This, he believed, led to cycles of blame and defensiveness, where
people reacted protectively. This seems to be prevalent within the contemporary NHS,
where whistle-blowers drawing attention to problems are routinely bullied, disparaged
and even dismissed in an obscene act of ‘groupthink’, as if, to pursue the medical model,
the organisation is fighting off the virus of positive change.
AI has been accused of ignoring or avoiding problems, or indulging in ‘mindless
happy talk’, but this is certainly not the case. The example I often give when explaining
the AI approach is that of sickness absence in organisations. In my years of supervising
MSc students in HR, very many of them were encouraged by the organisations where they
worked to investigate the absence ‘problem’ and to develop ever more draconian absence
management procedures. None of them ever succeeded in reducing absence. My
suggestion, based on AI principles, was that instead of focusing on the reasons for being
sick, and the problem of those with excessive sick leave, the student might wish to
investigate those who did not take sick leave: what was it about these individuals which
made them different? How could their circumstances be applied to others? For example,
in my fifteen years as a university lecturer I had only one sick day, when I slipped on some
ice and injured my back. But this was less because of my devotion to duty, or a cast-iron
immune system, and more about the fact that my job allowed me to work from home
when under the weather, without registering as being ‘sick’. The other factor ignored by
the absence police was how effective individuals were in their jobs – an individual with a
slightly higher than average absence record might produce twice the effective output of
their colleagues. The organisational interest, however, was not in these more subtle
factors, but more on the policing of a problem.
Unfortunately it appears that the problem-solving approach, with its focus on framing
the problem rather than the solution, is deeply ingrained in our culture. When I tried to
use AI to help churches to increase their membership, I must admit that I did not have
much success, mainly because those who wanted my advice did not really wish to change:
They wanted more people to go to church to keep the whole phenomenon going, but did
not want to respond to new people’s needs and aspirations. Traditional church services
were their psychodynamic comfort blanket and removing the blanket was ultimately too
scary to contemplate. Using AI effectively requires a significant change of emphasis which
must be stressed constantly to avoid slipping back into critique mode. But it is not in any
conflict with evidence-based practice, as both are focused on explanations: ‘Why is this
happening?’ rather than quick-fix solutions.
For Occupational Psychologists the problem is that organisations frequently desire to
focus on the problem, and not on the routes to positive change. There are two
supermarkets in our town, both part of multi-national organisations. This morning we met
OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 5
8. an elderly lady who used to work in supermarket A emerging from shopping in
supermarket B. My husband asked why she had changed her allegiance. ‘Too many long
faces in the other one, these days!’ she explained. An AI approach would want to focus not
on what made the sad expressions, but what would need to happen to change them back
to happy: ‘In supermarket B,’ the lady expanded, ‘everyone has time for you and they are
always willing to help.’ Supermarket checkout jobs are not the most satisfying in the world,
but someone in supermarket B must be doing something to affect staff behaviour
positively, and that in turn is clearly affecting customer loyalty. An AI approach would focus
on what those actions were. It might be asked why an HR manager from supermarket B
could not investigate the issue. With some excellent exceptions, it seems to me that many
Human Resource professionals have become mere mouthpieces for managements which
are already dysfunctional, and so set the tone for a dysfunctional organisation.
With more and more overlap between HR roles and the roles that organisations seem to
want Occupational Psychologists to perform, and the current BPS interest in network
review, the question often asked currently is ‘what do psychologists do?’ It might be more
appropriate to ask ‘what should psychologists do?’ In the context of the decent organisation,
one where honesty and fairness are the norm rather than the exception, where managers
add value rather than leeching on the efforts of others, and where staff at the sharp end
seem happy rather than miserable, I would love to see Occupational Psychologists, with their
experience and understanding of the highs and lows of human nature, using an AI
approach to develop a blueprint for developing ethical organisational cultures. Would
anyone like to join such a major project? The financial rewards may be limited, but the
difference to many people’s currently unhappy working lives would be tremendous.
The author
Dr Mary Brown is a Freelance Education Consultant.
References
Brown, M. (2012) Whose side are we on? OP Matters No. 16, August 2012, pp 52–55
Drew, D. (2014) Little Stories of Life and Death @NHSwhistleblowr. London: Matador.
Tourish, D. (2013) The Dark Side of Transformational Leadership: A critical perspective. Hove:
Routledge.
Voyle, Rev. R. J. (2006) Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry. Hillsboro, OR: Clergy
Leadership Institute.
Wright, O. (2015) Top ranks of Civil Service are ‘like a snake pit’. The I, 12 October 2015.
6 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
9. Trust in healthcare leaders underpins
effective teamworking
Melanie George
E
FFECTIVE TEAMWORKING is a predictor for organisational success (Martin and
Bal, 2006). Research within healthcare settings suggests that it has the power to yield
improvements in the quality of patient care (Borrill et al., 2000; West et al., 2012),
ratings of staff satisfaction (Buttigieg et al., 2011; Maben et al., 2012) and the
performance of the wider organisation (Borrill et al., 2002; Richter et al., 2011). The fact
that the majority of employees within the NHS have traditionally not worked within
effective teams (Healthcare Commission, 2006) is lamentable. Indeed, it points to a
significant source of untapped potential at a time when staff are increasingly being asked
to find innovative ways to do more with less (Smith, 2012).
This paper will argue that leaders’ efforts to cultivate effective teamworking are being
indirectly thwarted by the fact that the evidence base is lacking. What motivates people
within teams is the loyalty and trust that they develop with one another (Heffernan, 2015).
However, to date, the literature has almost universally failed to give sufficient emphasis to
the role of psychosocial aspects of leadership in cultivating the foundation of trust and
participation that is required (Lemieux-Charles and McGuire, 2006; Nembhard and
Edmondson, 2012). The author will draw upon her experience of working on an acute
inpatient ward, when outlining the steps that leaders must take to redress the balance.
The promise of effective teamworking
One of the most powerful ways that a leader can contribute to the future sustainability of
the NHS is to make effective teamworking the norm (West, 2013). The current
challenges, including a £30 billion funding gap (Dowler and Calkin, 2014) and the need
to adopt radically different models of care (Ahmad et al., 2014; NHS England, 2014) will
not be met by people who work within professional silos (Jeynes and Ong, 2014; Ghafur
and Zarkali, 2015). In these climates, change can be stymied by conformity (Morgan,
2006) and groupthink (Hope-Hailey et al., 2010; Wilde, 2014). In contrast, effective teams
are adept at utilising the diversity of backgrounds and training amongst its members to
increase reflexivity (West, 1996), thereby improving the quality of decision-making
(Guohong and Harms, 2009). These teams are also notable for their members’
willingness to embrace the risks that come with experimentation (Allcock et al., 2015).
This is a key determinant of organisational or ‘double loop’ learning (Nembhard and
Edmondson, 2012) because the failure that occurs during processes of trial and error,
prompts a deeper level of scrutiny (Madsen and Desai, 2010).
Critically, these organisational benefits appear to be driven and maintained by
changes in the mindset of team members. In particular, membership of an effective team
is associated with an upsurge in individual members’ engagement (West, 2013). Emerging
evidence suggests that this is underpinned by trust (Fukuyama, 1995), particularly trust in
leaders (Dirks and Ferrin, 2012).
OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 7
10. The role of trust
Interpersonal trust is defined as ‘The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions
of another party, based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action
important to the truster, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party,’
(Mayer et al., 1995, p.712). Although research in the role of trust on teamworking
remains limited, findings from studies into the effects of diversity and conflict offers some
tentative insights. Intriguingly, both appear to have the capacity to have a bidirectional
effect; to either enhance or curtail team outcomes. A key predictive factor is the level of
psychological safety within the team. In the event of low levels of psychological safety,
diversity (Devine et al.1999; Jehn and Mannix, 2001) and conflict (Dreu and Weingart,
2003) can disrupt teamworking and lead to discord. The fact that the converse also
appears to be true (Andreatta, 2010; Alimo-Metcalfe et al., 2013; Guohong and Harms,
2009), indicates that the critical mediating variable is trust.
Teamworking and the social contract
The fact that teamworking has the potential to enable people to realise their individual
and collective potential makes intuitive sense because we are programmed as a species to
collaborate (Deci and Ryan, 2002). The safety and advancement of our early ancestors
depended upon them forming social groups which were bound together by a collective
sense of obligation to one another (Tobias, 2015). The foundation of this ‘social contract’
(Rousseau, 1762, cited in Friend, 1995) was a strong sense of group identity and mutual
trust. Although our environments may have become more sophisticated and complex,
our brains have not: They remain hard wired to focus upon people and other animals,
even though inanimate objects arguably now pose the greatest threat (New et al., 2007).
The link between social connection and survival helps to explain why trust is so critical for
the development of relationships (Lewicki, 2003). As this paper will now illustrate, this
appears to have been overlooked by much of the literature on team leadership.
The role of the leader
Evidence for the role of team leader in the development of trust within teams is limited
(Mishra and Mishra, 2012). Studies have instead largely focused upon instrumental
aspects of leadership (Lemieux-Charles and McGuire, 2006), such as the need to
articulate a compelling vision (Hackman, 2002) and provide autonomy (Kirkman and
Rosen, 1999) and clear goals (Geddes, 2015) to members. This focus may be explained by
the fact that many early organisational theories were influenced by the pioneering work
on motivation, (Bevis, 1998; Denning, 2012; Shurenberg, 2014) most notably Abraham
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs model (1943, cited in McLeod, 2007). When viewed through
the prism of this model, engagement in teamworking is seen to be motivated by an
individual’s higher level need for self-actualisation (Grimsley, 2015). Maslow’s failure to
recognise the role of social connection and collaboration in meeting human needs
(Rutledge, 2011; Grimsley, 2015) appears to have been costly because it has prevented his
proponents within the field of teamworking, from delving deeper.
It is reasonable to speculate that the limitations within the teamworking literature
might have been recognised much earlier, had more research been conducted within
secondary care settings. To date, many of the studies on effective teamworking have been
conducted with staff from the manufacturing and service industries (Mickan and Rodger,
2015). Their experiences are likely to be quite different to that of frontline clinical teams,
8 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
11. the bulk of whose work is contingent upon them securing the trust of people who may be
experiencing fear, pain and psychological trauma.
A shift in focus
The findings outlined in this paper, vindicates those who have been calling for a ‘back to
basics approach’ (Wong and Cummings, 2009, p.1) marked by a shift in focus to
leadership authenticity and trust. However, if leaders are to address the barriers to
effective teamworking within the NHS, they will also need to strive to develop their ‘social-
emotional’ abilities (Ybarra et al., 2012, p.209).
NHS staff are exposed to high levels of emotional labour, defined as, ‘Supressing
private feelings in order to show desirable work-related emotions’ (Mastracci et al., 2012,
p.4). Their ability to cope with the continuous exposure to pain and distress is not helped
by the culture of blame and bullying that is prevalent within the NHS (Onyett, 2014). This
contributes to longstanding institutional anxiety (Menzies Lyth, 1960) and reinforces the
need for ‘collective defences’ (Zagier Roberts, 1994 p.112) such as emotional distancing
(Hinshelwood and Skogstad, 2000; Haslam, 2006). Left unchecked, these factors are
known to damage professional efficacy and weaken work engagement (Vaes and
Muratore, 2013). As highlighted by Frost, (2007, p.211) this is secondary to the loss of
trust; ‘When an organisation’s practices and policies create pain, the afflicted employees
will lose their confidence that the organisation is safe or supportive and they will withdraw
their commitment to it.’
This finding has resonance with the author. During her training, she worked within
an emotionally demanding healthcare setting. The impact of this was mitigated by close
and cohesive relationships with members of her team and she felt highly engaged.
However, the emotional climate changed dramatically when the manager left his post. In
stark contrast to the collegiate leadership approach that the author had come to take for
granted, the new manager did not consult with the wider team. He also displayed a lack
of integrity, evidenced by apparent nepotism. The author noticed an immediate drop in
her engagement levels. She felt disenchanted and, for the first time, wanted to leave. This
process was unconscious; she could not fully explain the rationale for her feelings,
particularly in light of the fact that her day-to-day clinical work had not changed. It was
not until she reflected upon this with a leadership mentor, that she came to recognise that
the ‘psychological and emotional contracts’ (Frost, 2007, p. 190) that she’d had with the
organisation had effectively been betrayed.
Implications for NHS Leaders
Emotional intelligence
It is important to recognise that the need for relatedness stems from primitive and
unconscious instincts (Stokes, 1994). As illustrated by the author’s example, individuals
may be unaware of the psychological defences that are hampering their ability to engage
with their teams. This underscores the importance of leadership traits such as compassion
(Mishra and Mishra, 2012) and emotional intelligence (Curhan and Brown, 2012; Ybarra
et al, 2012). A significant barrier to this however is that clinical staff and leaders in the
NHS continued to be selected on the basis of technical, rather than people skills (NHS
employers, 2013).
OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 9
12. The importance of communication
Openness and transparency is essential to maintaining a sense of fair play in an
organisation (Frost, 2007). If this is absent, then there is a risk of staff developing
fundamental attribution errors (Wheelan, 2009) which serves to perpetuate mistrust.
One example of this within the NHS is highlighted by Nath (2015, p.1). She points out
that frontline teams view themselves as being driven by moral imperatives to provide care
and comfort to patients and families. However, conversely, the perception is that those
who lead them look for efficiencies; resulting in an ‘adversarial standoff’. The same divide
was noted in the large scale ‘Working Together: Staff involvement and organisational
performance in the NHS’ study (West, et al., 2005, p.72). Here, the authors found that in
certain circumstances, senior managers’ emphasis on staff involvement had a negative
effect on team outcomes. A compelling and possibly related finding was that frontline
staff assumed that this was motivated by a need to reduce costs and increase efficiency. In
actual fact however, the managers rated this ‘close to bottom’.
In the author’s view, these attribution errors may reflect the legacy of the introduction of
managerialism practices into the NHS during the 1980s (Ward, 2011). Distributed leadership
approaches can help to restore trust by breaking down the barriers between leaders and
frontline staff (Biswas, 2014). It also provides a means to model trust; empowering staff gives
the implicit message that they are trusted (Spreitzer and Mishra, 1999).
Conclusion
Emerging evidence suggests that trust is a critical antecedent of innovation and creativity
within teams. The fact that it is currently in short supply within the NHS threatens the
sustainability of the NHS because it is giving rise to a disengaged and unhappy workforce
which is ill equipped to meet the challenges ahead. This confers new responsibilities upon
team leaders. It is no longer appropriate to rely upon task-focused approaches to cultivate
effective teamworking. For moral and practical reasons, leaders within the NHS must turn
their attention to providing teams with a foundation of psychological safety. National
policymakers should support the process of unlearning by championing the importance
of emotional intelligence within recruitment and training processes.
The author
Dr Melanie George is Principal Clinical Neuropsychologist at East Kent Neurorehabilitation
Unit (EKNRU), Canterbury.
Email: melanie.george@nhs.net
10 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
13. References
Ahmad, N., Ellins, J., Krelle, H. and Lawrie, M. (2014) Person-centred care, from ideas
to action [online]. Retrieved 5 April 2015 via
http://www.health.org.uk/publication/person-centred-care-ideas-action.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Bradley, M., Alban-Metcalfe, J. and Locker, A. (2013) Leading to
quality [online]. Retrieved 13 August 2014 via
http://www.realworld-group.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/09/LTQ-
report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf.
Allcock, C., Dormon, F., Taunt, R. and Dixon, J. (2015). Constructive comfort:
accelerating change in the NHS [online]. Retrieved 6 June 2015 via
http://www.health.org.uk/publication/constructive-comfort-accelerating-change-nhs.
Andreatta, P.B. (2010) A typology for health care teams. Health Care Management Review,
35(4): 345–354.
Betts, K. (1998) The evolution of social capital on the origins of the social contract
[online]. Retrieved 10 July 2015 via
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0803/article_730.shtml
Bevis, E.O. (1998). Curriculum building in nursing – a process. 3rd ed. New York: Jones and
Bartlett Publishers.
Biswas, D. (2014) Making sense of the Francis focus on leadership [online]. Retrieved 3
March 2015 via
http://www.hsj.co.uk/leadership/making-sense-of-the-francis-focus-on-
leadership/5074426.article#.VawKjKRViko
Borrill, Carol and West, Michael and Shapiro, David and Rees, Anne (2000) Team
working and effectiveness in health care. British Journal of Healthcare Management, 6(8).
pp.364–371.
Borrill, C., Carter, A., Carletta, J., Dawson, J., Garrod, S., Rees, A., Richards, A., Shapiro, D.
and West, M., (2002) Team working and effectiveness in health care: Findings from the
health care team effectiveness project. [online]. Retrieved 3 March 2015 via
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/jeanc/DOH-glossy-brochure.pdf
Buttigieg, S.C., West, M.A. and Dawson, J.F. (2011) Well-structured teams and the
buffering of hospital employees from stress. Health Services Management Research,
24(4): 203–12.
Cameron, K.S. and Spreitzer, G.S. (2012.) The Oxford handbook of positive organizational
scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Campling, P. (2015) Reforming the culture of healthcare: The case for intelligent kindness
[online]. Retrieved 14 April 2015 via http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/39/1/1.
Curhan, J.R. and Brown, A.D. (2012) ‘Parallel and divergent predictors of objective and
subjective value in negotiation.’ In Cameron, K.S. and Spreitzer, G.S. (eds.) The
Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
pp.579–590.
Deci, E. and Ryan, R. (2002) Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, New York:
University of Rochester Press.
Denning, S. (2012) What Maslow missed [online]. Retrieved 3 July 2015 via
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/03/29/what-maslow-missed/.
Devine, D.J., Clayton, L.D., Philips, J.L., Dunford, B.B. and Melner, S.B. (1999) Teams in
organizations. Small Group Research, 30, 678–711.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002) Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628.
OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 11
14. Dixon-Woods, M., Baker, R. Charles, K., Dawson, J., Jerzembek. G., Martin, G., McCarthy,
I., McKee, L., Minion, J., Ozieranski, Piotr., Willars, J., Wilkie, P. and West, M.
(2014) Culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service: Overview of
lessons from a large multimethod study. BMJ Quality and Safety, 23(2), 106–115.
Dowler, C and Calkin, S. (2014) Forward view: Unprecedented call for NHS funding
growth [online]. Retrieved 3 March 2015 via
http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/finance/forward-view-unprecedented-call-for-nhs-
funding-growth/5076052.article#.Vaqe3KRViko.
Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003) Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.
Frost, P.J. (2007) Toxic emotions at work and what you can do about them. Boston,
Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press
Friend, C. (1995) Social Contract Theory [online]. Retrieved 6 July 2015 via
http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/.
Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York:
Free Press.
Geddes, J. (2015) What Makes Teams Succeed? [online]. Retrieved 12 July 2015 via:
http://www.trilliumteams.com/articles/41/what-makes-teams-succeed.
Ghafur, S., and Zarkali, A. (2015) New care models need well trained NHS staff to deliver
the best patient care [online]. Retrieved 4 June 2015 via:
http://www.hsj.co.uk/comment/new-care-models-need-well-trained-nhs-staff-to-
deliver-the-best-patient-care/5083086.article#.Va0hrqRViko.
Ghiabi, R. (2015) Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, in reverse [online]. Retrieved 14 July 2015
via:http://ghiabi.com/en/?p=1.
Gohong, H. and Harms, P.D. (2010) Team identification, trust and conflict: A mediation
model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(1), 20–43.
Grimsley, S. (2015) Participative leadership style: Definition, theory and examples
[online]. Retrieved 27 June 2015 via:
http://study.com/academy/lesson/participative-leadership-style-definition-theory-
examples.html.
Hackman, J.R. (1987). The design of work teams. Handbook of organizational behavior.
Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hackman, J.R. (2002) Leading team: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston,
Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Haslam, N. (2006) Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 10(3), 252–264.
Healthcare Commission (2006) NHS national staff survey 2006 Results from Essex Rivers
Healthcare NHS Trust [online]. Retrieved 3 September 2014 via:
http://www.colchesterhospital.nhs.uk/meetings_minutes/supporting_docs/april_20
07/AD_NHS_staff_survey_2006_RDE_full.pdf
Heffernan, M. (2015) Why it’s time to forget the pecking order at work (transcript)
[online]. Retrieved 27 June 2015 via:
http://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_heffernan_why_it_s_time_to_forget_the_pecki
ng_order_at_work?language=en.
Hinshelwood, R.D. and Skogstad, W. (2000) ‘The dynamics of health care institutions’.
In Hinshelwood, R.D. and Skogstad, W. (eds.) Observing organisations, anxiety, defence
and culture in health care. East Sussex: Brunner-Routledge. pp.3–15.
12 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
15. Hope-Hailey, V., Farndale, E. and Kelliher, C. (2010) ‘Trust in turbulent times:
organizational change and the consequences for intra-organizational trust’. In:
Saunders, M.N.K., Skinner, D. and Dietz, G. (eds.) Organizational trust: A cultural
perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.336–357.
Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001) The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study
of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
238–51.
Jeynes, S. and Ong, B.N. (2014) Work together to provide the best end of life care
[online]. Retrieved 4 June 2015 via: http://www.hsj.co.uk/home/innovation-and-
efficiency/work-together-to-provide-the-best-end-of-life-care/5074991.article#.Va0g26
RViko.
Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1999) Beyond self-management: Antecedents and
consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58–74.
Lawrence, B.S. (1997) The black box of organizational demography. Organizational
Science, 8, 1–22.
Lemieux-Charles, L. and McGuire, W.L. (2006) What do we know about Health Care
Team Effectiveness? A Review of the Literature. Medical Care Research and Review,
63(3), 263–300.
Lewicki, R.J. (2003) Trust and trust building [online]. Retrieved 5 July 2015 via:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/trust-building.
Maben, J., Peccei, R. and Adams M, et al. (2012) Exploring the relationship between
patients’ experiences of care and the influence of staff motivation, affect and
wellbeing [online]. Retrieved 3 February 2014 via:
http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/85093/ES-08-1819-213.pdf
Madsen, P.M. and Desai, V. (2010) Failing to learn? The effects of failure and success on
organizational learning in the global orbital launch vehicle industry. Academy of
Management Journal, 53(3), 451–476.
Markiewicz, L and West, M. (2011) ‘Leading groups and teams’. In Swanwick, T. and
McKimm, J. (eds.) ABC of Clinical Leadership. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. pp.14–18.
Mastracci, S., Guy, M.E. and Newman, M.A. (2011). Emotional labor and crisis response.
Working on the razor’s edge. Armonk New York: M.E. Sharp.
Martin, A. and Bal, V. (2006) The State of Teams [online]. Retrieved 1 July 2015 via:
http://insights.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/StateOfTeams.pdf.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995) An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–34.
McCleod, C. (1995) Maslow’s hierarchy of needs [online]. Retrieved 15 July 2015 via:
http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html.
McGrath, J.E. (1984) Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mickan, S and Rodger, S. (2015) The organizational context for teamwork: Comparing
healthcare and business literature [online]. Retrieved 19 July 2015 via:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/12372473_The_organisational_context_for_te
amwork_comparing_health_care_and_business_literature.
Mishra, A.K. and Mishra, K.E. (2012) ‘Positive Organizational Scholarship and Trust in
Leaders.’ In Cameron, K.S. and Spreitzer, G.S. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of positive
organizational scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.449–460.
Menzies Lyth, I. (1960) Social systems as a defence against anxiety: An empirical study of
the nursing service of a general hospital. Human Relations, 13(2), 95–121.
OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 13
16. Morgan, G. (2006) Interests, conflict and power: Organizations as political systems
[online]. Retrieved 5 June 2014 via:
http://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/11142_Chapter_6.pdf
Nath, V. (2015) A return to values-driven leadership or more of the same? [online].
Retrieved 5 July 2015 via: http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2015/06/return-values-
driven-leadership-or-more-same.
NHS Employers (2013). The staff engagement toolkit [online]. Retrieved 3 February
2014 via:
http://www.nhsemployers.org/~/media/Employers/Documents/SiteCollectionDoc
uments/staff-engagement-toolkit.pdf.
NHS England, Care Quality Commission, Health Education England, Monitor, Public
Health England and Trust Development Authority. (2014a) NHS Five Year forward
View [online]. Retrieved 25 October 2014 via:
http://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/futurenhs/.
Nembhard, I.M. and Edmondson, A.C. (2012) ‘Psychological safety, A foundation for
speaking up, collaboration and experimentation in organizations.’ In Cameron, K.S.
and Spreitzer, G.S. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.490–503.
Onyett, S. (2014) Guest post: What will help prevent tragedies like Mid Staffs happening
again? Time for a shift in attention [online]. Retrieved 15 February 2014 via:
http://discursiveoftunbridgewells.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/guest-post-what-will-help-
prevent.html.
Richter, A.W., Dawson, J.F. and West, M.A. (2011) The effectiveness of teams in
organizations: A meta-analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 22(13), 2749–2769.
Rutledge, P. (2011) Social networks: What Maslow misses [online]. Retrieved 4 July 2015
via: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/positively-media/201111/social-
networks-what-maslow-misses-0.
Smith, J. (2012) How can the NHS do more for less? [online]. Retrieved 18 July 2015 via:
http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2012/oct/17/nhs-more-for-less-
judith-smith.
Spreitzer, G.M and Mishra, A.K. (1999). Giving up control without losing control: Trust
and its substitutes’ effects on managers’ involving employees in decision making.
Group and Organization Management, 14(2), 155–187.
Stokes, J. (1994) ‘The unconscious at work in groups and teams, contributions from the
work of Wilfred Bion.’ In Obholzer, A and Zagier Roberts, V. (eds.) The Unconscious
at work. East Sussex: Routledge. pp.19–26.
Shurenberg, E. (2014) Organization Theory [online]. Retrieved 4 July 2015 via:
http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/organization-theory.html.
Tobias, P (2015) The Social Contract [online]. Retrieved 4 June 2015 via:
http://www.rabbipete.co.uk/home/publications/the-social-contract.
Vaes, J. and Muratore, M. (2013) Defensive dehumanization in the medical practice:
A cross-sectional study from a health care worker’s perspective. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 52, 180–190.
Ward, S. (2011) The machinations of managerialism: New public management and the
diminishing power of professionals. Journal of Cultural Economy, 4(2), 205–215.
14 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
17. West, M. (1996) ‘Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration’.
In MA West (ed.) The handbook of work group psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd. pp.555–579.
West, M. (2013) Healthy teams lead to healthy cultures [online]. Retrieved 2 February
2015 via:
http://www.hsj.co.uk/comment/healthy-teams-lead-to-healthy-
cultures/5063782.article#.Vaqdt6RViko.
West, M., Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Dawson, J., El Ansari, W., Glasby, J., Hardy, G., Harley, G.,
Lyubovnikova, J., Middleton, H., Naylor, P.B., Onyett, S. and Richter, A. (2012)
Effectiveness of multi-professional team working (MPTW) in mental health care.
Final report. NIHR Service Delivery and organisation programme [online]. Retrieved
3 September 2014 via: http://www.netscc.ac.uk/hsdr/files/project/SDO_FR_08-
1819-215_V01.pdf
West, M., Borrill, C.S., Carter, M., Scully, J., Dawson, J. and Richter, A.W. (2005) Working
together: Staff involvement and organisational performance in the NHS. Final report.
Birmingham: Aston Business School.
West, M. and Markiewicz, L. (2004) Building team-based working: A practical guide to
organizational transformation. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
Wheelan, S.A. (2009). Effective team members. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
pp.54–76.
Wilde, J. (2014) Cultures of transparency and openness: The imperative from the Francis
report [online]. Retrieved August 2014 via:
http://foundersnetwork.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Joanna-Wilde-Article.pdf
Wong, C. and Cummings, G. (2009) Authentic leadership: A new theory for leadership
or back to basics? Journal of Health Organisation and Management, 23(5), 522–38.
Ybarra, O., Rees, L., Kross, E., Sanchez-Burk, J. (2012) ‘Social context and the psychology
of emotional intelligence.’ In Cameron, K.S. and Spreitzer, G.S. (eds.) The Oxford
handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
pp.201–214
Zagier Roberts, V. (1994) ‘The self-assigned impossible task’. In Obholzer, A. and Zagier
Roberts, V. (eds.) The Unconscious at work. East Sussex: Routledge. pp.110–118.
OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 15
18. Alliance for Organizational Psychology
Rosalind Searle
T
HE ALLIANCE (AOP) was established in 2009 by the Organizational Psychology
Division of the International Association for Applied Psychology (Division 1), the
European Association for Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP), and the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). The mission of the AOP is
to support and advance the science and practice of organisational psychology worldwide,
and to expand its scope of application and contribution to society to improve the quality
of working life.
AOP is therefore designed to offer a distinct and value-added proposition to founder-
and associated-member organisations, and to ‘illuminate’ the good work already done.
Thus it does not seek to duplicate that already done by the other existing associations, but
instead to enhance, extend and facilitate exchanges between associations and individuals.
The goals of the Alliance are to:
n enhance the contributions of organisational psychology to global society through
improvements to the quality of work life and the effectiveness of individuals and
organisations;
n develop more effective communication and collaboration among the federated
societies; and
n advance the science and practice of organisational, industrial, and work psychology
internationally.
The AOP presence is visible at the conference for each of the founding organisations.
They have clearly badged sessions including panels, symposium, incubators, etc. with a
distinct international composition concerning important topics for industrial-
organisational (I-O) psychology globally. Previous conference topics have ranged from
assessment centres, selection and recruitment and youth employment. Additionally in
2014 the first of their international white papers commenced. Again they are developed
by international experts on globally relevant matters. For example, What We Know about
Youth Employment: Research Summary and Best Practices (Searle, R.H., Erdogan, B., Peiró,
J.M., Klehe, U-C, 2014). Access to this and previous SIOP white papers can be found on
AOP’s website (http://www.allianceorgpsych.org/White-Papers)
AOP held elections for its officers in 2014 and Franco Fraccaroli, Rosalind Searle, and
Donald Truxillo were elected as President, Secretary-General, and Treasurer respectively.
They will serve until the 2018 International Congress of Applied Psychology, to be held in
Montreal, Canada. One of the first actions of the executive was to discuss and agree its
funding from its founding organisations, and to identify other groups where there are
clear synergies. Through this new budget provision, we have been able to identify and
start to plan our programme to achieve AOP’s objectives. The current plans for this year
include a presence at SIOP, and two international white papers, focusing on two key topics
that are of global interest, ageing and work, and women and power. These will be
launched in late spring 2016 at SIOP. In the future we will be developing both
practitioner-focused events and academic scholarship.
16 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
19. The executive meets face-to-face once a year and has Skype meetings on a monthly
basis. I will write a column at least once a year to highlight the contribution of BPS DOP
members to these outputs. For example, the UK is leading and contributing to the
forthcoming white papers, and also the SIOP alliance conference roundtable on I-O
psychology at the vanguard of decent work. As our distinct programs come online we will
be looking to include a broad range of talents to help us. For example, the conference
group has two members from each of the founding organisations who make programme
decisions. In the future we will be developing similar panels to support AOP’s white
papers, small group meetings and practitioner workshops.
This is a new organisation but one that aims to showcase how occupational psychology
can make a real contribution with important evidence for key debates regarding our
world. Visit our website to find our more – www.allianceorgpsych.org.
OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 17
20. The perils of personality profiling
Geoff Trickey
This was presented at the University of Westminster on 21 April 2015 at a session arranged
by the ABP.
Key points
1. Unease that, with the dramatic internet fuelled increase in the use of personality
assessment and the proliferation of questionnaires, the good practice standards
painstakingly developed by the profession are proving largely ineffective. An earlier
generation of test publishers were very aware of the importance of reputation for the
credibility of the process. At TPC (archetypal test publisher established by Cattell and
colleagues around 1920 – world’s biggest test publisher when I worked for them in the
1980s) the psychologists and psychometricians called the shots – not the accountants
or the sales team, or current vogues, fads and fashions. Potentially money making
propositions were abandoned if stringent research evidence didn’t stack up.
2. Concern that the pendulum has swung away from understanding (appreciating the
benefits and limitations imposed by personality characteristics and what they mean in
terms of job challenges and success) and towards a simplistic focus on test scores (with
an emphasis on prediction that oversimplifies the relationship and stretches the
credibility of the process).
3. There are two clear strands to psychometric personality assessment: The maths and the
psychology. Cattell argued for both ‘psychological understanding … and statistical
understanding’. Former APA president Frank Landy argued that we should ‘focus attention
on understanding rather than on the simpler and less meaningful search for predictability’.
4. Psychometric measurement is challenged by the complexity of cause and effect of
behaviour, the reliance on inference and estimation and the ambiguity of the language
that we need to use to think and communicate about it.
5. In spite of these hurdles, the current understanding of personality assessment and its
descriptive output is remarkable. We know how to capture the major features that
characterise an individual’s social behaviour with impressive reliability. These
descriptions are implicitly predictive in that they tell us ‘what someone is like’. This
aspect of personality assessment maximises the essentially lexical nature of the Five
Factor Model. Put simply, FFM assessments tell us which words best describe the person
assessed. This is potentially very useful, it is the best that has ever been available and,
to my mind, it is undervalued and underutilised.
6. Language is fluid and ambiguous. Most words have numerous synonyms.
‘Conscientious’, for example, has 21 synonyms in my thesaurus. That’s potentially 21
different nuances. Words can imply different things to different people. In translating
test scores to narrative speech or text, beware the ‘semantic merry-go-round’ in which
meaning slides from synonym to synonym, from one meaning to another (exploited by
the Barnum effect). FFM identifies five ‘hot spots’ of meaning in this sea of personality-
focused vocabulary, imposes some lexical discipline and provides pegs against which
to align behavioural observations and other research findings.
18 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
21. 7. It is questionable how far it is possible to take the implicit prediction already mentioned
(understanding what someone is like) in the direction of explicit prediction relating to
specific work behaviours. The problem for prediction is that we are sentient beings that
have free will. Most people are able to perform outside their own comfort zone in many
different ways for significant parts of their day. Belief and motivation will usually trump
temperament, at least in the short term.
8. Prediction equations based on personality facets, HICs or small numbers of items are
inherently unstable. They may very accurately describe current incumbents in a role,
but are poor predictors of performance of fresh job applicants. Using complete and
coherent scales of reliable personality tests is a much better bet.
9. The overbearing professionalism and science presumed in personality profiling
predictions can undermine confidence and personal responsibility in decision-makers.
Personality assessments cannot make decisions for people. On the other hand, if
decision-makers can know ‘what people are like’, they can make their own informed
selection and team building decisions. They can learn from their successes and from
their mistakes and develop their own insights.
10. My argument is that we have become too numbers and prediction oriented and
undervalue understanding. Finely focused behavioural predictions of performance are
unrealistic for many reasons. The best we can do at the moment is to make inferences
about the potential effects of behavioural dispositions associated with well researched
personality dimensions of the Five Factor Model and we can develop our understanding
of the ways these ‘primary colours of personality’ can be mixed to better reflect the
complexity of personality as we encounter it.
Conclusion
For professional psychologists, the quest is to understand human nature. There are
advances almost daily in the sister professions of neuroscience, evolutionary psychology,
anthropology, genetics, philosophy and the social sciences that cast new light on human
nature and contribute to the pool of knowledge. All this places psychology in an axial
position. ‘Personality psychology is about the nature of human nature. How you think about
human nature frames all subsequent discussions,’ (Hogan, 2006). Rather than reifying the
spurious precision of numbers, why not be the brokers of insightful psychology?
The author
Geoff has enjoyed an unusually long and varied professional life that has spanned the
usual divisions of applied psychology. He has held roles as Honorary Research Fellow at
University College London, and European Manager for The Psychological Corporation
(San Antonio, USA), followed by a long association with Bob and Joyce Hogan at Hogan
Assessment Systems (Tulsa, USA). Geoff set up PCL in 1992 and has overseen its
continuous growth to establish its current global presence. He now devotes much of his
time to research-based consultancy and innovative internet-based product development.
Geoff is a Chartered Psychologist with a BSc in Psychology and an MSc in Educational
Psychology from UCL. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and an Associate Fellow
of the British Psychological Society.
References
Hogan, R. (2006). The Science of Personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(2),
p119–130.
OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 19
22. 20 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
But who will make the soup?
‘Women at the Top’ event, October 2015,
University of Silesia, Poland
Rosalind Searle
F
OLLOWING MAY’S EVENT sponsored by the British Psychological Society (BPS)
Division of Occupational Psychology (DOP): Women with Power event, a
conference was held at the University of Silesia in Katowice on 6 October 2015. This
event was sponsorship by The International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP),
Division 1 (Work and Organizational Psychology, WOP), the Polish Association of
Organizational Psychology and Zane Ekspertki (well known experts). It was organised by
Professor Barbara Kożusznik, WOP and Director of the School of Management, University
of Silesia, and chair elect of IAAP division 1. She had heard from Professor Virginia
Schein about the UK event and thought it sounded like a great format and so asked to
run it in Poland. She invited Virginia Schein, (listen to a podcast with her about this
keynote at the DOP website) and Professor Rosalind Searle to reprise their keynotes, and
added an additional keynote from the non-profit sector – Danita Pieter. Danita is
executive director of the Fondation Hôpitaux de Paris, a non-profit organisation working
to improve the lives of children and elderly people hospitalised in France. The event used
the same format as the UK event, with four panels featuring women from different
sectors. They included, from the world of business, Founder of Sonia Draga Publishing
House, Directors for ING bank, and psychologist Professor Mare Teichmann of PE
Konsult from Estonia and a visiting professor at the university. From the public sector, the
Mayor for the city of Zabrze, the Director for the Municipal Cultural Centre in Lędziny,
and the Chancellor of the University of Silesia. From the third sector, President of the
Silesian NGO Forum KAFOS and the Director of the Factory of Local Initiatives,
Zimbardo Centre. The final panel included a PR expert from an organisation promoting
more women experts in the media, Zane Ekspertki, and the President of the Women
Leadership Business Foundation.
The event highlighted that most new start-up firms in Poland are led by women. It is
a context in real need of diversity with low levels of innovation. Senior women in Poland
reflected on their experiences of getting to senior positions in a Catholic and patriarchal
country. They highlighted that many of the ‘doing jobs’ of senior management were
undertaken by women, but a seat at the board remained a province for men. Due to the
Soviet work legacy, it was not odd for women to be involved in traditionally male work
roles (e.g. engineering), but a consistent theme remained their struggle to juggle family
and work commitments. As in the UK, women were effectively doing two sets of jobs, their
role at work, and then at home. Hence, the lament of Polish female leaders – ‘but who
will make the soup?’
Following this very successful event, we are looking to replicate it around different
countries in Europe to compare those with actual quotas for boards versus those with
recommendations. This event shows the important role of the DOP in leading
internationally relevant debates. Further, it offers an international dimension to the
23. DOP’s Board Effectiveness work group to promote greater insight into how and why
different countries’ systems might support or detract women’s abilities to achieve board
level positions. We will keep you posted about these events as they occur and report on
their distinct content. The Polish event highlighted again the work-family interface as a
theme – I wonder what other themes will emerge from other countries?
The author
Rosalind Searle is Professor of Organisational Behaviour and Psychology at Coventry
University Business School, Co-Convenor of the European Group of Organisational Studies’
Standing Working Group on Organisational Trust, and Chair of the British Psychological
Society’s Division of Occupational Psychology’s International Strategy Liaison Group.
Rosalind Searle and Virginia Schein
with the poster advertising the well-
attended event.
Dr Kerry Rees, and Dr Claire Cooke,
both from the University of
Gloucestershire visiting the DOP stand
at the BPS Welsh Branch conference
before presenting their paper:
The role of emotional intelligence
and psychological wellbeing in
paid carers.
OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 21
24. Taking DOP to the BPS
Wales Conference
Janet Fraser
S
ATURDAY 12 SEPTEMBER. A short walk to the
venue at Glyndwr University but long enough to
get soaked in a momentary downpour. Locals
sheltering by the stadium bemused as I squelched
ahead unaware that the rain pounding down on
Wrexham would stop as suddenly and dramatically as
it had begun…. My job for the day to look after the DOP stand at the 4th Annual
Conference of The Welsh Branch of The British Psychological Society.
A friendly, relaxed, well-run conference as it turns out, showcasing the work of Welsh
psychologists who contributed around 80 per cent of the thirty-five abstracts on a
programme which had four themes: Positive Psychology, Health Psychology, Teaching of
Psychology, and the Psychology of Religion. Two excellent keynotes – Dr Catherine Fritz
(University of Northampton) who spoke about Positive psychology: A win-win topic in the
classroom and Dr Denise Ratcliffe (Chelsea and Westminster Hospital) who presented on
Obesity and Psychology – both delivering talks that would appeal to psychologists from all
backgrounds and be of public interest, as well.
But where were the occupational psychologists? I had gone to Wales on behalf of DOP
to generate interest in the Division and encourage people to think about setting up a
DOP Wales Committee. The stand was successful in attracting psychologists from different
areas whose work shares common ground with OP, along with academics and students –
all of whom are welcome to join DOP, of course. However my goal of meeting a Welsh
occupational psychologist remained unfulfilled.
It’s clear, though, based on the activity at the stand that occupational psychology is of
interest to Welsh psychologists and establishing a DOP Wales committee would capture
and create a focus for this while providing a voice in the wider DOP committee, a
development that is being supported by Roxane Gervais, Chair of DOP, and Mary
O’Connell, Chair of BPS Wales who can be contacted for more information.
The author
Janet Fraser is chair for DOP Scotland.
22 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
25. OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 23
Work-life balance? What about fathers?
Gail Kinman and Almuth McDowall
C
ONFLICT BETWEEN WORK and personal life has become the number one
workplace health concern, with serious implications for wellbeing of employees
and the functioning of organisations. Nonetheless, research has almost exclusively
focused on the experiences of mothers, and fathers tend to be left out of the work-life
balance debate. Recent studies indicate that fathers have become more involved in
childcare and wish to spend more time with their children; for example, 58 per cent of
male breadwinners wanted to work less and spend more time at home (Kanji, S. &
Samuel, R., 2015). Although paternity leave rights have recently been extended, fathers
appear to experience many obstacles when they try to become more involved with their
children – inflexible organisational cultures and negative attitudes from employers and
colleagues are frequently documented. Research findings show that fathers who take up
parenting leave or their right to request flexible working are frequently stigmatised, with
serious consequences for their career (Rudman and Mescher, 2013). One recent study
found that men who requested family leave suffered from ‘femininity stigma’, where they
were believed to possess more ‘weak’ feminine traits (such as uncertainty) and fewer
agentic masculine traits (such as dominance and ambition) – interestingly, both men and
women held such stigmatising views and were equally likely to see men who request family
leave as ‘poor’ workers (Rudman and Mescher, 2013).
Held in National Work Life Week (21–25 September 2015), the DOP Work-life
Balance Working Group organised a seminar to open up the debate on fathers’
experiences. The programme included presentations from Professor Caroline Gatrell
26. 24 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
who is Professor of Management Studies at Lancaster University and Dr Svetlana Speight
who is a Research Director at NatCen Social Research, both of whom have considerable
expertise in the field of work and parenthood. Alan Bourne, an experienced occupational
psychologist, also shared his personal insights into balancing work and fatherhood.
Professor Gatrell discussed patterns of continuity and change among UK fathers in
their child caring and income earning practices. She observed how ‘breadwinning’
remains important for many fathers, but a growing tendency among some men to
prioritise childcare over paid work suggests a shift in the priorities and practices of
contemporary fathers. Research she has undertaken with colleagues shows that fathers
who work flexibly report better relationships at work, are more engaged and that doing
housework actually enhances men’s wellbeing. Professor Gatrell explained that although
flexibility enhances fathers’ wellbeing and sense of control, many men still feel
discouraged from taking up flexible work options. The second stage of the research drew
on qualitative interviews with 100 employed fathers and used notions of breadwinner
(income earning) and involved (hands-on) fathering as an analytical framework. Fathers
frequently disclosed that their requests to work flexibly were viewed unsympathetically
and seen as irrelevant to them as policies were aimed at mothers rather than parents.
Professor Gatrell concluded her talk by emphasising the need for further research,
especially on the experiences of lone fathers with resident children who may be more
involved with child caring than is presently acknowledged.
Dr Speight’s talk drew on findings from the European Social Survey to discuss fathers’
experiences of work-family conflict from a cross-national and longitudinal perspective.
While there has been a considerable amount of research on work-family conflict in
general, the experiences of fathers in different countries and the factors relating to their
work and personal life that engender conflict have been little examined. Dr Speight
compared the experiences of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict among fathers
across eight European countries including the UK. Comparisons were made cross-
nationally and over time (between 2004 and 2010) in order to explore how the global
economic recession might have influenced fathers’ experiences of work-family conflict
and whether the effects differed according to country. The role played by job
characteristics (such as working hours and job type) and family circumstances (such as
the division of domestic labour and gender role) were also examined.
Findings showed that fathers frequently experience work-to-family conflict; for
example, around three-quarters of the sample were too tired after work to enjoy the
things they would like to do at home at least sometimes, and a similar proportion
indicated that their job prevented them from giving sufficient time to their partner or
family. Interestingly however, Dr Speight explained that considerably less evidence was
found for family-to-work conflict, where family responsibilities and concerns affected
fathers’ working lives, than vice versa. Working hours, job type, housework share and
gender-role attitudes were key predictors of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict. A
higher level of conflict (in both directions) was found among fathers in the UK than in
other countries, whereas fathers in the Netherlands reported the least. Fathers in Greece
experienced the most dramatic changes in both work-to-family and family-to-work conflict
between 2004 and 2010 highlighting the particularly strong impact of the recession on
work and family life.
Last but not least, Alan Bourne talked candidly about his experiences as a father and
how he had made a recent career change from full-time employment as a partner in a
27. high-profile consultancy to self-employment. His experiences showed that flexibility is
often not about the ‘big things’, such as radically changing work, but being able to
accommodate small but important individual needs, such as being able to do the ‘nanny
handover’ in the morning.
A lively audience discussion followed the talks which covered both the individual
perspective (e.g. are fathers only now experiencing the difficulties that women have
encountered all along?) and the organisational angle (why are employers not doing
more?). The discussion highlighted the need for much more understanding about how
flexibility is negotiated in practice and the real barriers to uptake and success. A key point
for discussion was the extent to which flexible work models are easier to implement in
small organisations. While some argued that the administration of flexible working
initiatives might be more straightforward and the benefits more direct, others considered
that clients of small service-focused organisations may not take kindly to them as they
expect their contacts to be available as and when necessary.
The research agenda is vast, and we hope that more organisations take an evidence-
based approach to improving the experiences of fathers and helping them be more
involved in childcare while avoiding the very evident stigmatisation of the uptake of
paternity benefits. It is curious how employee engagement continues to be such a hot
topic, yet flexibility does not get the same attention in annual surveys and other initiatives.
Such information is crucial given that work continues to change and evolve. More
concerted efforts are needed to understand the experiences of male managers, leaders
and employees in their roles as fathers in order to improve initiatives and their uptake.
References
Crespi, I. & Ruspini, E. (Eds) Balancing Work and Family in a Changing Society: The Fathers’
Perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan (Forthcoming).
Kanji, S. & Samuel, R. (2015). Male Breadwinning Revisited: How Specialisation, Gender
Role Attitudes and Work Characteristics Affect Overwork and Underwork in Europe.
Sociology, doi: 10.1177/0038038515596895
Rudman, L.A. & Mescher, K. (2013) Penalizing men who request a family leave:
Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma? Journal of Social Issues, (69)2, pp 322–340.
OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 25
28. Interview with Alan Bourne
Almuth McDowall
Co-chair of the Work-Life Balance Working Group, and a previous chair of the Division, caught up
with Alan Bourne following the seminar in September in London.
A
lan, thanks so much for your engaging contribution to the ‘What about fathers?’
event during National Work-Life Week in September. Tell me, quite a bit has
changed for you recently, professionally as well as personally?
Our daughter Emily was born 18 months ago, so I’m a relatively recent joiner to
fatherhood and enjoying it hugely. My attitude to work has changed slightly as I don’t
want to miss out on the fun seeing her grow up, so balancing work is important. On the
professional front, we sold Talent Q (Alan’s previous place of work, where he was a
director) to the Hay Group around the same time that Emily was born. I left to start up
on my own 15 months later, and am now delivering a range of bespoke services.
What were the main drivers for you to make these changes to the way you work?
One key factor was to be able to have space to be creative and have full ownership of what
I do. Another related to flexibility and good use of time. Our office location was in
Oxfordshire and a two-hour commute from home in South London. Whilst this was not
an everyday trip, nevertheless it meant several hours a week spent on travel which was
essentially unproductive time. Given the priority of getting time at home alongside being
productive during work time, a change was needed.
Delegates came up to us afterwards, all saying that the fathers’ perspective deserves so
much more attention than it currently does, in research as well as in practice. What is your
personal take on this?
I think the research is clear that working mothers continue to experience major
challenges finding a balance between home and career. Anecdotally it does feel like new
fathers also expect flexibility from their employers and are increasingly less willing to put
up with a lack of it. Figuring out how to make flexibility work for fathers and changing
cultural expectations around this seems an important part of helping many families as a
whole achieve a better balance.
There are broader issues at play too about what we expect from work and employers,
regardless of whether we have children or not. A close friend recently called and he
informed me he had been nominated onto a senior leadership programme in his firm. I
congratulated him, but he jokingly chastised me saying ‘No, you completely
misunderstand – I want your help to get out of it!’ From his perspective, the sacrifice of
extra time and weekend working expected at the top tier in his organisation just wasn’t
worth it versus alternate, more flexible ways of enjoying his career. Increasingly, highly
talented people expect more from their career than endless sacrifices to climb the ladder.
To what extent was your psychological background helpful to you in navigating all of this?
Having an occupational psychology background has certainly been helpful in thinking
clearly about what kind of work structure I want to be in and then creating this.
26 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
29. Appreciating what I want to spend time doing and seeing cultural expectations in
organisations for what they are rather than accepted facts, were certainly helped by this
background. As a result, after some thought, making choices felt relatively straightforward.
A couple of delegates raised at the seminar that smaller employers are much better placed
than larger employers to facilitate flexible working. What’s your take on this?
I think the subtext here was that smaller organisations may find it easier to make changes
as they have fewer stakeholders, which is probably true in many cases. However, from the
perspective of how work is structured and shared between employees, an organisation
which is larger will have much greater flexibility as a function of its scale to manage how
people work together in teams to deliver their services. So practically, I think large
organisations have no excuse really for failing to offer greater flexibility. The main
barriers which seem to occur in many organisations regardless of size are poor leadership
and implicit 1950s attitudes. Often ‘client needs’ are used as an excuse for staying with the
status quo rather than thinking creatively about how to deliver work flexibly.
With your organisational development hat on, what do you think employers should be
doing to make sure that UK parental policy is put into practice?
There are a number of areas where many organisations can do a lot better. One of areas more
can be done is thinking more deliberately about how roles are defined and how work is
structured. More use of teams to deliver services to customers is crucial to then afford
flexibility to employees, so they can use this as they need to help their work/life balance.
There are many practical ways companies can deliver flexibility. The biggest barrier is
the will and attitudes of business leaders to act. So essentially, it is organisations and their
leaders that will need to change. Role modelling and rewarding the right behaviours is vital,
with a sensible balance between delivering a great service to clients and ensuring flexibility.
Fundamentally, organisations that fail to adjust will increasingly lose talent – male as
well as female – as social expectations of work shift to flexibility being a major part of the
calculus when considering whether to stay in a job or leave. In our increasingly knowledge-
based economy, leaders who grasp the nettle on this issue stand to gain the loyalty of
talented people, whilst those leaders whose attitudes remain stuck in the past will fail.
I saw a nice Branson quote recently that sums this up. ‘The way you treat your
employees is the way they’ll treat your customers’. Food for thought for business leaders
when it comes to offering flexibility?
What can psychologists do to further these issues?
Clearly there are a few areas where occupational psychology can contribute in this area.
Helping design work more flexibly, developing inclusive leadership skills and attitudes,
and consulting around retaining top talent are all areas of practice where occupational
psychologists can make a meaningful difference. Conducting and disseminating research
to highlight the issues will also continue to be a vital enabler for change.
Thanks very much Alan! We look forward to hearing more about your career, and life
changes in due course. We hope that others will follow suit and put the fathers’
perspective firmly on the organisational agenda.
OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 27
30. Engage and change: Going Green
Working Group event – Review
Kim Feldwicke
T
HE GOING GREEN WORKING GROUP recently held a highly interactive day of
talks and workshops aimed at bringing together a diverse group of professionals
from a range of backgrounds interested in exploring ideas around behaviour
change and sustainability. This event was one of several networking and knowledge
sharing events run by the Going Green Working Group in 2015 with more planned for
next year.
The event focused on the practical application of theory, business best practice for
sustainability and presented innovative insights into behaviour change. The event
comprised four sessions: Dr Phillipa Coan explored environmental change management;
Hermione Taylor and Richard Parker from DoNation introduced their business model
and described their journey from initial vision to application; and Dr Jan Maskell
presented a workshop that elaborated on the Going Green Working Group’s publication
Engage and change: Occupational psychologists’ role in facilitating corporate responsibility
(available to download at www.bps.org.uk/dop/engage_and_change_ggwg) and she also
provided a session that considered a model of personal resilience in relation to
organisational sustainability.
Chartered psychologist and behaviour change expert Dr Phillipa Coan provided an
insight into her recent PhD in environmental behaviour change and the practical
application of environmental change for businesses. A case study was presented which
provided the opportunity for the group to identify and discuss barriers, opportunities and
recommendations for an organisation in order to reduce the amount of energy used. This
provided a good platform to integrate the opinions and assessment of professionals from
different disciplines and specialisms. Key barriers identified were the potential for a lack
of priority for environmental sustainability, tight margins, divergent attitudes and
desensitisation to change incentives. A broad range of solutions and incentives were
introduced by the group, such as the communication of change requirements through
the framing of intrinsic and extrinsic norms, the integration of environmental
management systems into the core of business practice and the need for strong
leadership. Dr Coan’s session provided a great opportunity for knowledge sharing
breaking down the divide between disciplines.
Founding director of DoNation Hermione Taylor and commercial director Richard
Parker provided an inspiring introduction to the company. DoNation is an online
platform that reconceptualises fundraising challenges by enabling individuals to pledge
to make a small behavioural change that contributes to the wider environmental
sustainability, such as cycling to work or eating less meat, instead of donating money. The
motivation behind the company was framed by Hermione’s passion for the environment
and assertion that behaviour change cannot be demanded due to the embedded nature
of individual attitudes and behaviour. She explained how DoNation offers a way to
indirectly influence norms that enables conversations about sustainability to be positively
framed. The concept was then placed into organisational context as a company can
28 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
31. integrate it into organisational dashboards and support social norms within the
workplace. This presentation not only allowed delegates to learn about DoNation’s aims
and vision but served to highlight how the value-action gap can be narrowed in order to
achieve sustainable outcomes.
In her session, chartered psychologist Dr Jan Maskell elaborated on the latest
publication by the Going Green Working Group, Engage and change: Occupational
psychologists’ role in facilitating corporate responsibility and the key areas that were considered
important and challenging for sustainability professionals such as education and
collaboration.
This session was highly interactive and worked with the 6-E model considering how to
introduce environmental sustainability change incentives by exploring options for change
and innovation as well as current good practice, enabling, engaging, encouraging,
exemplifying, and evaluating the process. These headings were interrogated by delegates
in a workshop session, identifying current and future examples. This provided an
opportunity to see how the practical application of the model can help to implement
sustainable behaviour change.
Dr Jan Maskell also facilitated a small workshop on resilience for environmental
sustainable practice. This firstly tackled the topic of defining resilience and explored the
variance of definitions within the group. The delegates then reviewed what an
organisation needs to remain or become resilient in terms of economic, social and
environmental sustainability within four areas; confidence, adaptability, purposefulness
and social support. The group’s thoughts on this have been reviewed to form a
foundation for the Going Green Working Group’s next event ‘Resilience and
Sustainability’ on 9 November 2015 2pm–5pm at the BPS London office. The event will
introduce what is understood across sectors with regards to resilience and how theoretical
and business understanding on the topic can be applied to sustainable practice.
More events are being planned in 2016 for discussions, presentations, workshops and
practical activities all related to sustainability in the workplace. These will include half day
events and a whole day conference in September 2016. Other networking and
development events can be arranged for regional groups, universities and other working
groups to consider a whole range of sustainability issues which are of interest and concern
to psychologists and other professionals.
The author
Kim Feldwicke, committee member.
OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 29
32. ‘Science into Practice’ event
Linda O’Donnell
T
HE THEME of the DoP Scotland ‘Science into Practice’ event in Perth on 25
September 2015 was Evidence-based Practice (EBP) in the Real World. The aim was
to show that EBP was not just an academic tool, but also an essential approach for
professional practitioners. The seminar highlighted the use of evidence-based practice by
psychologists across different organisational contexts.
For early-birds, Janet Fraser, the chair of the DoPS Committee, ran a workshop on
literature searching which provided a range of useful sources and helpful techniques,
some relatively unknown amongst non-academics. Janet presented six steps for
structuring a successful search; formulating the right question, establishing search
criteria, systematic searching for evidence, screening and selecting papers, documenting
the process and critically reviewing individual papers.
The first session in the main programme was presented by Professor Fiona Patterson,
Founder of the Work Psychology Group and a principal researcher at the University of
Cambridge. This session discussed values-based recruitment in the NHS. Fiona reminded
listeners of the conclusions of the Francis review of healthcare professionals in the NHS,
which reported examples of failures in care, lack of compassion and a broken
organisational culture. The importance of values within healthcare emerged as a major
theme, but questions had been asked about how to assess for these in the selection of
job applicants.
Fiona and her team examined the evidence base for values-based recruitment as part
of the development of a new framework guiding best practice within the NHS. Health
Education England’s values-based recruitment programme was designed to ensure the
30 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
33. right workforce is recruited not only with the correct skills but with the right values in
order to deliver top-class patient care. From March 2015 the VBR framework has been
used for all new recruitment rounds. Fiona discussed one tool in detail: Situational
Judgement Tests (SJTs) which had been shown to be consistently valid and reliable in
selection decision-making.
The next session was presented by Liz Gibb, who had worked with NHS Education for
Scotland to create a psychometric tool to measure insight and self-awareness in new
dentists. Liz discussed how to conduct a systematic review, a vital component of an
evidence-based approach. Her experience of conducting a systematic review in this
context aimed to provide a clear set of practice guidelines. The use of the AGREE II tool
enabled the quality and reporting of practice guidelines to be assessed, allowing dentists
now to have access to a common set of guidelines.
The final session was presented by Neill Thompson, a chartered psychologist and
senior lecturer at Northumbria University. Neill demonstrated how EBP can be applied to
the complex issue of workplace bullying within the NHS. Neill and his colleagues
conducted a realist evaluation of evidence while working within a large NHS Trust. Two
effective interventions were introduced; a drama-based intervention and a resilience-
based training event. Neill suggested that psychologists need to reflect on interventions,
asking what the outcome should be, what the mechanism was which led to the outcome
and what contextual factors contributed to its effectiveness. He also believes that
psychologists need to develop better sharing of relevant case studies, partly because whilst
evidence-based practice is predominant in several fields it needs a better profile within
occupational psychology.
Attendees at the session agreed that this type of event is invaluable in terms of
enhancing practice as well as presenting networking opportunities, and that it was also
beneficial to hear comments from colleagues working in different psychology disciplines.
For instance, a number of educational psychologists attended and disclosed how EBP is at
the core of their practice, providing an opportunity for those who were less aware of its
benefits to learn from the educational example.
The author
Linda O’Donnell MBPsS has recently completed her MSc in Occupational Psychology at
the University of Leicester.
OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 31
34. 32 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
DOP – Scotland
Janet Fraser
Building supervisor capacity in Scotland
I
N THE LAST ISSUE of OP Matters we reported that
there is a Stage 2 supervisor shortage in Scotland and
that DOP-S is supporting activities to remedy the
situation. Arrangements are now in place to deliver a
training workshop for new supervisors, and existing
supervisors, on 20 May 2016 in Edinburgh. Prior to that,
a dial-in Q&A session will be held on 9 February 2016 when Karen Moore, chief
supervisor/registrar for the Qualification in Occupational Psychology (Stage 2), will
answer questions about the role for anyone who is interested.
But why become a supervisor? I’m unable to speak from experience – I’m not a
supervisor. However, Gail Steptoe-Warren, Coventry University, has described it as both
interesting and valuable, explaining how it allowed her to give something back to the
profession, broadened her understanding of the qualification process, while also
benefiting her academic role. She concluded by saying that she would certainly
recommend it to others (Carter et al, 2012).
It also contributes to the supervisor’s CPD – something well worth considering. The
DOP-S committee appeals to all eligible members in Scotland to think about stepping
forward for this important role.
The workshop on 20 May 2016 will be held at Premier Meetings, 1 Lochside Court,
Edinburgh EH23 9FX adjacent to Edinburgh Park rail station. Workshops will also be run
on 26 January 2016 at The Society’s London office, 30 Tabernacle Street, London and on
3 June 2016 at the BPS Leicester Office, Princess Road East, Leicester, LE1 7DR
For further information and to book a place
Meg Ashcroft, Qualifications Officer
Email: meg.ashcroft@bps.org.uk
35. Update from the Networking and
Professional Development Working Group
Kate Firth and Craig Knight
It has been a busy summer and autumn for the NPDWG, with several exciting, informative and
inspiring events running across the country.
Creating more jobs for young people – Dr Angela Carter, Sheffield University
Management School, 27 August 2015
Did you know that only 25 per cent of UK organisations employ young people (16–24
years) with only 6 per cent employing school leavers (UKCES, 2011)? In the UK 735,000
young people are unemployed (ONS, 2015), and the trend to employ young people is
decreasing (SKOPE, 2012). These issues were among many discussed in an extremely
informative session led by Dr Angela Carter at Sheffield University Management School.
Amongst the discussion topics held by the group was consideration of the psychology
of youth employment. Angela supported the group to think about how established
psychological theory and practise could be linked to the issue – for example motivation,
selection and assessment methodology, person-environment fit and temporal aspects of
life (Sonnentag, 2012).
Angela presented an informative summary of current research in the field, including
research that she is undertaking herself. The group also had a lively discussion about the
role that occupational psychologists can play in helping young people to find good work.
Themes emerging included supporting organisations with best practise selection
and assessment methodology, and our role in early careers support and guidance for
young people.
OP Matters No. 28 December 2015 33
36. The event ended with consideration of actions to encourage youth employment.
Factors such as designing selection processes that do not bias against young people,
encouraging organisations to adopt mentoring programmes for both employing
managers and young people (to support young employees during their first
employment), and working with senior management to educate them on the benefits of
employing young people were considered.
The event shone a spotlight on what is clearly an important and current issue facing
young people in the UK today. Delegates left the session feeling informed and educated,
but also inspired to take action to target the issue.
Improving your social media presence – Chris Wood, The City Gate, Exeter, 2 October 2015
On Friday 2 October 2015, Chris Wood of Q media presented ‘How to make the most of
social media’ at an NPDWG event at The City Gate in Exeter. Chris had tailored the event
for our group of occupational psychologists.
For those looking to build up a presence on the web, Chris had a number of useful
messages. The most salient of these were:
n Be regular and be frequent. Chris recommends tweeting at least once a day. And use
those hash tags to reach the widest audience.
n Be informative. People do not want to be sold to, so tell the world something interesting.
n Pick your medium. For business a LinkedIn presence is essential; Twitter is important,
and even Facebook has its place – especially if you set up a business page.
In essence, building a presence takes patience and thought. Luckily it also requires
minimal outlay. So think, write and tweet – often!
Mindfulness in the workplace – Leanne Ingram, Sheffield University Management School,
5 October 2015
A large and diverse group attended this fascinating session, hosted by Leanne Ingram,
Doctoral Researcher at the Sheffield University Management School. This is certainly a
hot topic at the moment! (Did you know that the number of publications about
Mindfulness has increased tenfold from 2003–2013?)
According to research from Harvard University, our minds are wandering
approximately 50 per cent of the time (Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010). Described as ‘paying
attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally, to the unfolding of
experience moment to moment’ (Kabat-Zinn, 2003), Mindfulness-Based Interventions
(MBIs) have been proven to reduce stress and to improve wellbeing – and this is gradually
catching on within organisational life. Whilst research on mindfulness in the workplace is
struggling to catch up with the more general boom, Leanne gave the group an up-to-date
summary of the research that currently exists regarding MBIs – and the potential positive
impact that these interventions can have at both the individual, and the organisational level.
The group shared their thoughts on the use of mindfulness in the workplace. Key
discussion points included consideration of how the concept of ‘compassion’ could find
a place at work. The group agreed that some working environments/organisational
cultures may find that this jars with their normal operating style and behaviour.
Discussion also focused on how mindfulness practitioners can engage organisations on
the potential benefits of MBIs – and how this could be a really positive addition to an
organisation’s wellbeing agenda.
34 OP Matters No. 28 December 2015
