Tag Archives: pro_institutes

The Power Of Personal Profile – Warwick Business School


There is a lot of power and developmental transformation that you can mine from your personal profile if you can just give it the right attention and focus.

Your personal profile is beyond what is written. It is beyond the personal descriptive statement that you put on your social media ‘DP’ or on your resume. It is what characterize who you are, your accomplishments, strength and skills. This is about your future riding on your past.

Personal profile can be one of the most powerful elements in your business armoury, but you have to know what tools and techniques will help you build it, protect it and drive your success. Culturally, many of us are brought up not to “toot our own horns” or “shout about our successes.” But in today’s highly competitive world, if you don’t stand out, you’re likely to watch those with a higher profile pass you by on their way to the top. 

Throughout this interactive and practical session, Vanessa will share stories from her career; starting in Banking in the City at 16 and her rise to the C-suite. 

Vanessa will provide the top tips she’s picked up in corporates, as an entrepreneur and as a network leader, and encourage you to become comfortable with raising your profile.

The Power of Profile – Toot Your Horns

  • How to stop feeling like an imposter
  • How to focus on your personal brand and exhibit leadership behaviours
  • The importance of networking and building relationships for the future
  • Speed networking – Getting to know your fellow guests
  • Optimising your digital footprint 
  • Coach, Mentor, Sponsor – who can help you drive your career
  • The importance of giving back. 

Vanessa will provide guidance on a wide array of profile -raising opportunities that are easy to implement straight away.

She’ll help you take the next steps towards raising your profile and attracting opportunities to progress in your career and help others too.


The Power of Personal Profile: Event Date: 25 November 2020

You may also like;

Welcome to Worklife Feed articles and site-files indexing and adaptation series.

COVID-19 Legal HR Questions. Illegal If You Can’t Help?

COVID-19 Legal HR Questions. Illegal If You Can't Help

When it comes to HR legal issues these days, it’s all coronavirus all the time. COVID-19 legal HR questions that people can and will ask, should therefore be welcomed.

For the HR professional, navigating this seemingly endless and ever-changing legal maze can be quite daunting. Which issues are most important? What questions must I get answered? Where should my primary attention be?

“The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has advised that employers excluding employees from the workplace on the basis of age are in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.”

Jathan Janove asked prominent employment law attorneys from around the United States to share their “favorite” COVID-19-related legal HR question. He also asked them to offer a suggestion or two on how to address it. Here’s what they had to say.

1. We’ve provided telework to our employees in response to COVID-19. Will that set a precedent for the future when an employee seeks telework as an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?

According to Mark Tolman, an attorney with Jones Waldo in Salt Lake City, “it depends.”

Tolman explained that it is entirely plausible. That in post-pandemic times, an employee seeking telework as an ADA accommodation will point to the effectiveness of remote work during the pandemic.

The employee will point to this as evidence that onsite work is not essential or that telework does not impose an undue hardship.

As a practical matter, if your recent experience with telework is that it has been effective. That teleworkers have been able to productively accomplish all essential job duties. Such evidence likely will be used in the future to show that telework should be provided for an employee when necessary to accommodate a disability.”

You may also like, Career Trajectory On Ventilator, COVID Took My Ambition

However, you could have provided telework strictly out of pandemic necessity, and at the sacrifice of some essential duties.

Good communication can go a long way toward reducing anxiety and finding creative solutions that enable employees to remain productive while taking on the added role of at-home educator.”

Tolman said the mere provision of telework now, should not prevent you from arguing later. For example, that onsite work is essential or that telework imposes a hardship.

Three Key Actions to Support Employer’s Position

He suggested three actions HR professionals should take to better support an employer’s position that onsite work is required in the future:

  • When providing telework in response to COVID-19 concerns, notify employees in writing that telework is provided only in response to the pandemic. And that the company understands that its employees will not be able to perform all of the essential functions of their jobs while working remotely.
  • When employees return to onsite work, notify them in writing that the company looks forward to the resumption of all their essential job functions.
  • Review and revise job descriptions for onsite employees. If onsite work really is essential to a particular job, explain why such work is essential in the job description.

2. If schools don’t reopen in the fall or follow a hybrid model with in-person and remote learning, what leave will employees be entitled to?

There are uncertainty regarding whether and in what manner schools will reopen in the fall.

The opinion of Attorneys Rita Kanno and Diane Waters of Lewis Brisbois, in San Diego and Dallas comes handy. Respectively, they believe it is critical for employers to understand the evolving leave entitlements under federal, state and local law.

“Under the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act [FFCRA]—which applies to employers with fewer than 500 employees—there are two ‘buckets’ of leave available for school or place-of-care closures or child care unavailability related to COVID-19: emergency paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave. An employee can use both buckets for this type of leave, but only for up to a total of 12 weeks of leave.”

Kanno and Waters noted other applicable conditions to be eligible for this leave. Another “suitable individual,” such as a co-parent, co-guardian or the “usual child care provider” must not be available to provide the care the child needs.

If a school opens for in-person instruction, but an employee voluntarily chooses the remote learning option for his or her child, is FFCRA leave available?

According to Kanno and Waters, generally speaking, no.

Eligibility For FFCRA Leave – Role of Physical Location Of Where The Child Receives Instruction

“In order to be eligible for FFCRA leave, the physical location where the child receives instruction or care must be closed. If, however, the school is operating at reduced capacity to comply with social-distancing guidelines, such that the employee’s child has no choice but to receive remote learning, or if the school uses a hybrid model where in-person instruction is only provided on certain days of the week, FFCRA may be available.”

Kanno and Waters recommended that employers plan ahead by facilitating discussions with their employees. This is to learn how school reopening plans may impact their work schedules.

Whether remote work is or remains an option. And whether any added flexibility to their schedules, such as working around the school day or taking intermittent leave, may provide adequate solutions.

Good communication can go a long way toward reducing anxiety and finding creative solutions that enable employees to remain productive while taking on the added role of at-home educator.”

3. Our company has adopted a mandatory work-from-home policy in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic. What are best practices for compensating employees for the expenses they have incurred as a result of working from home?

The shift to remote work, which for many employees is a requirement rather than an employer-offered convenience, presents some questions. For example, the question of whether employers must reimburse employees for expenses incurred while working at home.

According to Eric Mackie, an attorney with Ogletree Deakins in Chicago, some states require employers to reimburse employees for expenditures. This includes expenditures incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her employment duties.

Mackie also noted that under the Fair Labor Standards Act and its implementing regulations, employers are generally required to reimburse expenses incurred if those expenses would result in compensation below the federal minimum wage.

To minimize litigation exposure, Mackie said, employers should evaluate their employee expense reimbursement practices and refine or develop legally compliant policies.

Such policies could include, for example, a requirement for advance approval for any expenses over a specified amount. In all cases, effective communication and clear guidelines are key.”

4. Can I tell employees who are over age 65 to stay home from work for their own protection?

According to Jacqueline Cookerly Aguilera, an attorney with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Los Angeles, the answer is no.

She noted that initially, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said people over age 65 were at high risk for developing severe illness from COVID-19.

Now, the CDC uses an age gradient. Meaning that the risk for severe illness increases with age. The older the person, the greater the risk. For example, those in their 70s are at greater risk than those in their 50s.

Employee Exclusion Base on Greater Risk Of Contracting Serious Illness

“Regardless, an employer should not exclude an older employee from the workplace merely because the employee is at a greater risk for serious illness than a younger employee. Even if the reason is to protect the employee.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has advised that employers excluding employees from the workplace on the basis of age are in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

However, certain state and local sick-leave laws may require an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee who requests an accommodation for COVID-19 reasons based on age.

“But even absent state or city laws,” Cookerly Aguilera said, “I nonetheless recommend that employers offer to accommodate any employee who may be more susceptible to serious illness from COVID-19. Either by allowing them to telework or, if that’s not possible, providing them unpaid leave.” 


The above is a reformatted version of the original. The original write up is by Jathan Janove, J.D. and it is available on the SHRM Weblink below.

SHRM, the Society for Human Resource Management, provides content as a service to its readers and members. It does not offer legal advice, and cannot guarantee the accuracy or suitability of its content for a particular purpose. Disclaimer. Access to some SHRM resources may be limited by membership.

Go to SHRM Weblink for more on 4 COVID-19 Legal Questions You Should Answer


Related Posts


Future of HR – People Profession 2030 Hackathon

Future of HR People Profession 2030 Hackathon
Thank you for your interest in the Future of HR – People Profession 2030 virtual Hackathon.

The CIPD is committed to leading the way in understanding and shaping the future of the people profession, setting it up for sustainable success in the future. This is the focus of our Future of HR – People Profession 2030 research, and the Hackathon is the next stage of this project. 

Our aim is to better understand what trends may be shaping the profession, and the impact of these over the long term. 

To better understand this future, we need you.

To sign up to the Hackathon, follow the ‘Sign up here’ button and then click ‘register’.

After you have submitted your details, you will receive a verification email to confirm your account. Once your account has been verified, you’ll then receive a confirmation email with further details about the Hackathon. 

Background On Future of HR – People Profession 2030 Hackathon


From 10 – 20 August 2020, people professionals from a diverse range of industries, sectors, levels, specialism and geographies will come together virtually.

They will collaborate, discuss, raise ideas and answer questions on the key trends that may be shaping our profession 

Your may also like, Why should employers be concerned about the financial well-being of their staff?

The information gathered will ultimately equip us with the insights and knowledge needed. This will be used to provide the tools and resources people professionals need to thrive in a changing world of work and make their best impact. 

Welcome on Board


We look forward to welcoming you on 10 August to start co-creating your collective vision of the future with people professionals from across the world.

You’ll be able to take part in as many discussions and challenges as you like. This you will be able to do, over as many days as you like. 

How often and for how long you participate is completely up to you. All we’d ask is that you actively participate. Add ideas, comment on other people’s, vote, or add interesting and relevant articles. 

After you have registered, we’ll be sending you regular updates. This will have information, ideas and resources to help you make the most of your participation.

Want to start preparing now?

Find out the trends and themes we’ll be discussing each day with our event programme

After signing up, visit peopleprofession.cipd.org/insights. Here, you will be able to read some of our latest research and what it might mean for the people profession in the future. 

For more, go to, Future of HR – People Profession 2030 Hackathon


Related Posts


Worklife with face mask policy – big battles ahead

Myfwl Post Latest Updates 17/7/2020: Worklife with face mask – Boris Johnson says he hopes for ‘return to normality, possible in time for Christmas. Unveils £3bn of funding for NHS in England, along with ‘biggest ever’ flu vaccination programme and new powers to impose local lockdowns.

  • Health Minister, Matt Hancock orders urgent review of PHE Covid-19 death figures.
  • Oxford vaccine team aim to start lab-controlled human trial soon.

“It is my strong and sincere hope that we will be able to review the outstanding restrictions and allow a more significant return to normality from November at the earliest possibly in time for Christmas.

If we continue to pull together, as we have done so far, I know we can beat this virus. We are hoping for the best, but planning for the worst. And it is in that spirit that we must carry on waging this long, hard fight against coronavirus.” – Boris Johnson

In something of a surprise U-turn, the government of UK has announced (on 14th July) that it will be mandatory to wear a face mask in shops in England after 24 July. That is, having worklife with face mask. This is prompting much furore over whether shop workers could reasonably be expected to help the police enforce this.

At the same time, Downing Street said it would keep the guidance on worklife with face mask or coverings in other settings, such as offices, under review, with conflicting messages from different ministers on this then ensuing.

The big question is, will office staff be required to wear face mask – and would this work?

So just how likely is it that the government will mandate mask wearing in the office? And what would be the effect on the timescale in which desk-based workers are likely to return to their workplaces? 

Is it looking likely that office workers will need to wear face masks?

Health secretary Matt Hancock told Sky News the government has no plans to make people wear face coverings in offices. However, environment secretary George Eustice said he hadn’t ruled out the idea of telling people to cover their faces in offices and other workplaces, according to The Telegraph. 

The most up-to-date government guidance states that everyone should still work from home where possible, and that the evidence of the benefit of using a face covering to protect others is weak.

Latest update:

“From 1 August, we will update our advice on going to work.

We’re going to give employers, more discretion and ask them to make decisions about how their staff can work safely. That could mean continuing to work from home. This is one way of working safely and which has worked for many employers and employees. Or it could mean, making workplaces safe.” – Boris Johnson

However, the government’s position on face mask wearing has radically, and in some instances rapidly, changed over the course of the crisis, particularly in relation to retail settings. In the early days of the pandemic, the government insisted there was no, or weak, evidence that masks worked.

Not all worklife with face masks

Not all worklife with face mask, except those in the health sector, some claimed. So they privately scrambled to source enough of face mask for health and social care workers. And this was followed by their mandatory introduction on public transport, but in no other settings. 

Regarding shops, cabinet minister Michael Gove remarked as recently as the weekend that wearing face coverings in shops was “basic good manners” but not an appropriate area for legislation. This was swiftly followed by the announcement that they would be compulsory in stores from the end of July.

But Rachel Suff, senior employment relations adviser at the CIPD, is still sceptical. She highlighted that “there’s no indication yet that the government will change its guidance on face coverings for offices”.

She adds that ”current guidance makes clear one could be marginally beneficial as a precautionary measure in terms of protecting others. But wearing one, is not a replacement for other ways of managing risk of Covid-19 infection at work”.

What would the benefits be?

Rachel McCloy, associate professor in applied behavioural science at the University of Reading, says wearing face masks could help efforts to reopen offices. Getting business back is something government is reportedly very keen to make headway on to preserve the economic prosperity of city centres.

It is reported that Johnson is expected to announce a ‘roadmap’ for getting people back to offices as soon as this week. (see latest updates inserted)

“Wearing masks in situations where we cannot easily adhere to strict social distancing may help businesses. It will reduce social distancing from two metres to one metre, making the prospect of reopening more realistic,” she says. 

What would the drawbacks be?

“Mask wearing at work (or worklife with face mask) is likely to be more uncomfortable for people than it is for shorter periods while shopping or on public transport. It can impact social interactions. Facial expressions are less easy to read and conversations may be harder to follow,” McCloy says.

It would also pose a challenge for HR. Employees may challenge whether it’s reasonable to make someone wear a mask in the office. There’s nothing in employment law to help employers enforce this, adds Ed Griffin, HR director of consultancy and research at the Institute for Employment Studies. 

If this is mandated, there will be an inevitable expectation on employers to provide masks rather than assume employees will buy their own. This could also be financially burdensome for many companies at a time when they need to reduce costs, Griffin adds.

“Reducing cost could be critical to survival. If more things have to be bought, that’s prohibitive. For a large office with hundreds of people, the cost of providing two or three masks to each employee per day would quickly escalate dramatically,” he says. 

There will also be issues to overcome regarding enforcement, particularly where employers share a building with others. “In shared buildings, who’s responsible for enforcement? The poor person on the reception desk? And lifts are incredibly difficult to use because, in theory, they should be cleaned after every use,” says Griffin.

What would employers need to consider to make this work?

Of course none of these drawbacks necessarily mean the government won’t eventually enforce this if it’s deemed necessary to get people back to offices safely. Experts agree that employers making a success of such a policy will depend on how it is implemented. 

Organisations would need to determine who is responsible in each workplace for ensuring this is rolled out. Including what standard of mask an employer will be providing, how many masks will be issued to individual staff per day and where masks will be disposed of, says Griffin.

“Specifics around this will be incredibly important in terms of adherence,” Griffin says. “Including the use of telephones – my guess is that this will be an issue.”

Would a policy requiring face mask wearing in offices speed up or delay office workers returning to work?

Current guidance that staff should work from home if they can is still in force. Many employers are therefore reportedly reluctant to return employees to the office in a way that would contravene official government guidance. Indeed, many have said staff will be working from home until at least the end of the year. Others, such as Twitter and Shopify, have made bold statements around staff being allowed to work from home potentially forever. Especially now that home working has been proved to be such a success.

But Rob Briner, professor of organisational psychology at Queen Mary University of London, argues that the introduction of face masks in the workplace will in fact incentivise workers to return. “One thing putting people off going back to work is the feeling that the world outside their home isn’t safe. If masks help give people a greater sense of safety, I expect it may encourage rather than discourage employees from returning,” he says. 

RELATED: https://worklifefeed.com/2020/07/06/coronavirus-is-this-the-end-of-office-working-in-wales/

“One thing we are learning during this crisis is that, on the whole, people are quite good at working out how to get the same things done but in different ways. It’s bound to feel strange to begin with, but the strangeness soon wears off and we just get on with it.”

Other positive benefits to the rescue

Others feel mandatory face mask wearing could be another reason that can put employers off returning staff to offices any time soon. Why after all should any one suffer uncomfortably in a mask all day? Especially when colleagues will not be unable to take advantage of true in-person interaction because they can’t properly see your facial expressions. And why bother, when you could conduct even face-to-face meetings quite happily, and in fact more effectively, via Zoom? 

McCloy says the positives of coming together in an office will need to outweigh such inconveniences, especially if mask wearing isn’t to deter office workers returning even further. Employers need to give careful thought on this.

“Whether it impacts on a return to work will depend on, if there are other positive benefits to working from the office as opposed to more remote working,” she says.

What about people who can’t wear face mask?

Concerns are also being raised around those for whom worklife with a face mask is difficult or impossible, including people with disabilities or mental illness. For example, face masks can be a real challenge for people who lip read, Griffin says. Although there are some versions of masks appearing that have clear plastic mouth windows where people can see lip movements. “But I don’t know how clear they are – there’s certainly still an issue there,” he says. 

“Some people will say they’re unable to wear face masks all day. People will potentially feel claustrophobic, whereas for others it will become the norm.” 

And for people who are clinically more vulnerable to Covid-19, there is still uncertainty around infections in the air, he adds. And there is not enough clarity on the extent to which infected droplets stay in the air after someone coughs or sneezes. “There’s still not enough clarity for some people in terms of what equates to acceptable risk. Science hasn’t told us yet what the levels of risk are,” Griffin says. 

Myfwl Post updates on writing by Jessica Brown for People Management Magazine under the title, “Will office staff be required to wear face coverings – and would this work?”

Click here to continue reading from the original web page at; https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/will-office-staff-be-required-to-wear-face-coverings-and-will-this-work

CIPD Voice: Why should employers be concerned about the financial well-being of their staff?

In April 2020, a CIPD survey of over 1,000 workers found that 39% of them had said that their financial security has worsened as a result of the Covid-19 lockdown. By contrast, just 12% had reported an improvement. While the economic impact of Covid-19 is having a negative impact on the financial wellbeing of the workforce, the question is whether this is something that organisations should be concerned about?

Those most likely to indicate a worsening in their financial security include: 

  • Those whose household income is less than £20,000 a year,
  • People working in Scotland,
  • Those with a disability,
  • Female workers; and
  • Private-sector workers.

For employees, money worries can result in:

  • Physical fatigue due to lack of sleep,
  • Inability to do their job and difficulty in keeping a focus at work,
  • Spending time dealing with financial problems, both during and outside of the working day.

For employers, this has implications for productivity, customer service, innovation and, ultimately, the bottom line.

Click here to view original web page at http://www.cipd.co.uk/news-views/cipd-voice/issue-24/why-should-employers-concerned-financial-being-staff?utm_source=mc

Charles has recently led research into the business case for pensions, how front line managers make and communicate reward decisions, and managing reward risks, as well as the creation of a good practice guide on the annual pay review process. He is also responsible for the CIPD’s public policy work in the area of reward and is a Chartered Fellow of the CIPD.