IOSH is the voice of the occupational health and safety profession, headed up by Vanessa Harwood-Whitcher, who is speaking at our forthcoming MAD World Summit (this takes place on 17th October in London, for the full agenda and to register, see here).
Talking to her, it’s immediately apparent that she is an empathetic leader with an open and honest leadership style who says, being child free, she probably channels her nurturing instinct and desire to see others thrive, into her team.
Based in Leicester, a diversity hot spot, she was deeply upset by the right wing riots recently which affected some of her team’s confidence in bringing their whole selves to work; something she feels passionately that all employees should be able to do.
We caught up with her ahead of her appearance at MAD World to find out more…
You are taking part in the opening keynote at MAD World entitled ‘the big debate: individual versus institutional change’. Which side are you going to be arguing?
It’s a really interesting question because I think the answer is probably a blend of the two to be quite honest. But I would have to argue for the institutional side because organisations like mine, IOSH, are setting and improving standards around worker health and wellbeing for employers to implement. So, institutional change, you could say, is my day job!
What might you say to persuade someone of your case?
Well, firstly there is absolutely a legal duty to ensure worker health, safety and wellbeing is looked after, and avoiding this legal duty could mean large fines or being imprisoned. There is also a very strong moral argument for investing in safe and healthy work.
I think it’s really about going beyond compliance and realising that if you have a happy and healthy workforce, your employees are going to be more productive, and that is good for business and good for society as a whole.
It means people go home to their families happy. They’re bringing in an income. They are staying in work which is good, not only for their financial wellbeing, but their mental wellbeing too. Generally, that means they won’t put extra pressure on the wider community, so the ripple effects really outshine some of the compliance issues, making it a moral issue as well as legal.
In your experience, do organisations buy into the moral argument?
It really varies and often depends on what types of customers they’re serving and whether shareholders or investors are scrutinising their social sustainability and contribution towards the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
What would you say to a company that might think that giving their employees a meditation app is enough to cover their health and wellbeing as the main resource?
I’m sure it doesn’t do any harm, but actually I would really advocate looking at root causes of a lack of psychological safety and for mental health issues. An app can’t do that. It may help monitor in some way and I’m not denying it could have a role, but fundamentally businesses need to take a more strategic look at what they’re doing, their culture and what systems they have in place.
Typically, we would ask organisations to look at their risks. For example, is there anything causing the mental health issues? Are the right systems and procedures in place for people to speak up?
We talk a lot about creating the feeling that you can bring your whole self to work and be respected for your background and lived experience. Employees will not feel safe if they can’t do that. And feeling safe is part of the psychosocial safety contract between employer and employee.
So, basically, it’s far more complex than putting a set of apples out in your staff cafeteria on a Tuesday. I’m sure initiatives like this are appreciated by people but, fundamentally, they don’t get to the real core of what employers should be looking at.
You mentioned bringing your whole self to work. What would you say to those companies that are really against this idea of bringing your whole self to work?
Firstly, they probably won’t attract good talent because I think there’s an expectation in workers that companies should respect that. They’re probably cutting off their supply chain of good people longer term.
To me, enabling people to bring their whole selves to work just makes good business sense, and I struggle to understand arguments against it. I guess the issue here is some employers don’t want to address the things that are outside the scope of their people’s employment, such as an issue they are struggling with outside work.
What are your thoughts on supporting an employee with an issue they are struggling with outside work?
Companies have a duty of care to listen to employees and respect what they’re bringing to work. You may not be able to directly help, but you can signpost and put adjustments in place for that person that makes their working lives easier.
There are limitations on what an employer can do. But at least if you’re cognisant of the things that somebody is bringing with them, then you can at least try to help and support.
I think there’s a dividing line between the employer looking at what risks they might be causing the individual, and then understanding that individuals will come with a whole set of things which are not directly employment-related but will absolutely affect the way in which they’re performing in their job.
Ultimately, particularly in high-risk sectors like automotive and construction, if somebody’s mind isn’t on the job there will be a physical safety issue. That’s why we talk a lot about the link between mental ill health and accidents, because if someone is not concentrating or tired then it can create risks to theirs and others’ safety.
Where is IOSH particularly focusing attention?
In the UK, we’re seeking to influence the new Government, to ensure that occupational safety and health is high on the agenda. We set out our clear calls to action in our manifesto ahead of the General Election, and we have reached out to work with the Government.
We’re committed to ensuring this is the case in other countries as well, from parts of West Africa to the Middle East. This is all driven by our vision of a safe and healthy world of work for everyone, whether they’re directly employed, or they’re gig workers, or they’re trying to make a living in the informal economy.
Of course, our members drive change on the ground, and we support them in this work. A lot of the changes that we brought in with our competency framework was focusing around topics like social sustainability, psychosocial risks and people strategy, really trying to understand what a business is trying to achieve with its people. All these focuses reflect – again and again – that you can’t just ‘fix’ one part of a person, you’ve got to look at a person as a whole.
And we partner with businesses across global supply chains to assure lasting change to their cultures of good safety, health and wellbeing and to build their maturity and performance. For 30 years now, our training courses, IOSH Managing Safely® and IOSH Working Safely® have been delivered by an international network of trainers to over 1.5 million people. This improves awareness of safety and health which contributes to better working environments and reduced hazards and risks for employees and employers.
What role do you think government plays in instigating corporate cultural change?
Obviously, government sets policy and the rules and regulations around how businesses operate, which can create the conditions for better, more productive work.
I think it has a duty, for example, to pay attention to when the International Labour Organization is saying people have a fundamental right to a safe and healthy working environment, and that we need countries to ratify all of the related conventions. But the UK hasn’t yet.
But yet the UK has a very poor productivity rate and high presenteeism, so obviously something isn’t working?
I think that comes down to the law of diminishing returns; the harder you work people, the more exhausted they get, and if you’re not creating that supportive environment people just stop being productive.
That to me is the business case reason why employers need to look at safety, health and wellbeing at work.
There also needs to be a fundamental business shift from looking at inputs to looking at outputs and outcomes.
It shouldn’t be about how many hours a person puts in to get an outcome; ultimately the employer wants to know if they are achieving the desired profitability or impact.
Do you think there’s reason to feel optimistic about the new government?
Yes, I think there are signs they are putting people first, and the new Employment Rights Bill is addressing many areas that IOSH has been focused on for some time. For example, rights for gig workers, modern slavery and other tricky issues.
So that’s really positive. We’re advocating at the moment to make sure that the Government understands that health and safety needs to be part of that agenda.
You’ve been in your role three years, and at IOSH six years. Have you seen much change on this front?
Yes, definitely.
The role of an occupational safety and health professional is growing and extending so much, with many emerging risks such as the future of work, the impact of technology or climate change.
These are things that may not have been front of mind for employers in the past, but they are now.
I’ve always thought that people come first and that the adage ‘culture eats strategy for breakfast’ is so true. If you can get a culture where you put people first, where you respect them and you listen to them and you understand their needs, then you get a happy and productive workforce. And, while many businesses will want to try to measure that, I think it’s so important that employers also understand that – sometimes – it’s not possible to do so.
It’s great to see a female in the Chief Executive position. You’re clearly a very open leader. Can you tell us more about the type of leader you think organisations need going forward?
I’m a big believer in the fact that leaders need to be authentic individuals. If you don’t talk openly, then you’re not actually very credible. That’s one reason why, for example, I talk openly about my experience of the menopause: to normalise the conversation at work.
We are all human beings and just because you’re a Chief Executive doesn’t mean that you are superhuman. We all have moments of worry, stress, depression etc.
I will definitely share with my colleagues if I’m having something that’s going on in my life that is affecting me. If they see you doing it, I believe it allows them to speak up about their experiences and bring their whole selves to work, which I think is very important.
The Leaders’ Summit at MAD World is an event driving excellence in workplace culture, employee health and wellbeing
The Summmit on 17th October 2024, will bring together speakers and attendees from across sectors and with a range of job titles for two tracks of leading-edge content that showcase best practice and provide insights and inspiration for all those looking to achieve maximum engagement with initiatives, optimise investment, stay one step ahead and really make a difference.
The stellar lineup of speakers includes: Professor Dame Carol Black GBE FRCP FMed Sci; Peter Cheese, CEO, CIPD, Vanessa Harwood-Whitcher, Chief Executive, The Institute of Occupational Safety & Health (IOSH), Dhavani Bishop, Head of Group Colleague Health & Wellbeing, Tesco, Kirstin Furber, People Director, Channel 4, Dr Clare Fernandes, Chief Medical Officer, BBC, Christian van Stolk, Executive Vice President, RAND Europe, Andrew Gibbons, Group Head of Wellbeing, Recognition and Hybrid Working, HSBC, Karen Brookes, Chief People Officer, Sir Robert McAlpine, Jaimy Fairclough, Wellbeing Specialist – People Division, Sainsbury’s, Dr Femi Oduneye, Vice President Health, Shell International B.V. and many more. You can find out more and register to attend here.
You might also like:
