In this forward-thinking episode of the Big Careers, Small Children podcast, Verena Hefti MBE speaks with Dominic Holmes, Employment Law Partner at Kilgannon Law and Leaders Plus mentor.
Dominic shares his expert insights on the evolving landscape of employment law, the future of flexible working, and how the UK workplace needs to adapt if we’re serious about equality and productivity.
A working parent himself, Dominic reflects on going part-time early in his legal career and how that shift transformed his effectiveness both at work and at home.
Together, they explore:
✔️ Why flexible working should be the default, and what proposed legal reforms might mean for employees and employers alike.
✔️ How organisations can move beyond presenteeism and value output over hours worked.
✔️ The personal and organisational benefits of part-time leadership.
✔️ Why the current legal system still fails many working parents—especially women—and how to build a better one.
✔️ The real reason we need a cultural and mindset shift around productivity and long-hours culture.
✔️ How Dominic manages senior client relationships while working a four-day week.
✔️ What a fair, inclusive future of work might look like for the next generation.
What You’ll Learn in This Episode
🔹 Why reduced hours can make you a more focused and effective leader
🔹 How legal reforms could reshape employer obligations around flexibility
🔹 Why traditional “commitment” metrics fail working parents
🔹 The risks of defaulting to full-time roles without justification
🔹 Practical ways to challenge assumptions about career progression and presence
Show Notes:
- Connect with Dominic Holmes on LinkedIn
- Learn more about Kilgannon Law at kilgannonlaw.co.uk
- Learn more about the Leaders Plus: Big Careers, Small Children podcast and explore additional resources at leadersplus.org.
- Follow Leaders Plus on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Bluesky.
- Connect with our CEO, Verena Hefti MBE on LinkedIn.
- Find out more about the work of Leaders Plus by signing up to our Newsletter.
Our multi-award-winning Leaders Plus Fellowships support parents committed to career growth while enjoying family life. Expertly designed to keep parents on the leadership path, our programme tackles gender pay gap issues and empowers parents to thrive. Learn more here: Leaders Plus Fellowship.
More BCSC episodes you might love:
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:02):
Welcome to the Big CareersSmall Children Podcast. My name is
Verena Hefti. I believe thatno one should have to choose between
becoming a CEO and enjoyingtheir young children for much too
long. Amazing people like I'msure you listening right now have
found themselves stuck on thecareer ladder when they have children
(00:22):
and that leads to genderinequality in senior leadership because
because those people don'tprogress to senior leadership and
the same stale, often malemiddle class people leading our organizations.
We must change this togetherand I hope that many of you listening
right now will progress to themost senior leadership roles that
you like where you can makethe decisions that make our world
(00:43):
a better place. Outside of thepodcast, I am the CEO and founder
of the social enterpriseLeaders Plus. We exist to help working
parents progress their careersto senior leadership in a way that
works for you and for yourfamilies. We have free events and
resources on leadersplus.orgwhere you can download helpful toolkits
(01:04):
such as on returning frommaternity leave, share parental leave,
securing a promotion, dealingwith workload challenges, or managing
as a dual career couple. Wealso have an award winning fellowship
community which is global forworking parents who have big dreams
for their careers but don'twant to sacrifice their family. You'll
join an absolutely wonderfulgroup of people, a very tight knit,
(01:29):
supportive group of parentswho have your back. Together. You'll
explore what your careeraspirations are and you'll get advice
from senior leaders who arealso working parents about how to
achieve those aspirations.You'll get new ideas to combine your
hopes for your careers withyour hope for your family and you
are supported by people whoare experiencing what you're experiencing
(01:50):
yourself. I'm really delightedthat a larger majority of our fellows
have made tangible changesfollowing the program, be that becoming
more senior in their roles,working shorter hours, having a better
flexible working arrangement.They always impress me so much with
the courage that they instillin each other to do what is right
for them without apologizingfor having a family or apologizing
(02:14):
for wanting that. Top jobDetails are on leadersplus.org/Fellowship
this week I am chatting toDominic Holmes, employment law partner
in a law firm and also Leadersplus Mentor about his view of the
future of work, what he thinksis going to change with flexible
(02:38):
working and his predictionsfor the future, as well as a bit
of an analysis of the changesthat have been put into motion with
UK employment law. It soundsquite dry now I'm introducing it
actually, but I really, reallyenjoyed the conversation. Dom is
just an absolutely fabulousperson and I'M sure you will too.
(03:00):
A very warm welcome back tothe podcast. Thank you so much for
letting me rope you in again.For the listeners who don't remember
the previous episodes we didtogether, could you introduce who
you are, what you do for workand who is in your family?
Yes. Hello everyone. Nice tobe back. So my name is Dom Holmes.
I am an employment lawyer, soI'm a partner at a firm called Kilgannon
(03:22):
Law. So we're a nicheemployment immigration practice comprised
mostly of experienced lawyerswho work largely remotely and I live
on the south coast. I live insunny Bournemouth and with my wife
and my two children. I've gota daughter, Jemima, who's just turned
six and my little son Tommyhas just turned three. So that's
(03:43):
our little family.
Lovely. I've got a three andsix year old as well, so I can imagine
your house being busy. So weasked this of all podcast guests
and I'm going to ask it of youagain. Can you recall anything that
changed in your thinking aboutcombining a big career with young
children that you used tobelieve 10 years ago that you don't
(04:04):
subscribe to anymore?
Yes, I mean, I've talked aboutthis a lot. I think it was a bit
of a light bulb moment for mewhen we had our daughter, our eldest
child, because I was fortunateenough to have a month's paternity
leave. And then as it came tothe end of it, it suddenly dawned
on me that I was going back towork and I thought, how on earth
am I going to go back to thecareer and life I had before my daughter
(04:29):
was born? And the biggestmisconception I had was that actually
it was a little bit of eitheror. You couldn't have both. There
would have to be a sacrificeon one side or the other. And frankly,
the more I thought about itand looked into it, the less I realized
that was true. It is perfectlypossible to be a full time parent
(04:51):
in terms of giving all theintention and love to your children
that you can and having afulfilling and rewarding career.
It requires some selfdiscipline and time management and
you may want to do thingsslightly differently. So one of the
things I did is I went parttime fairly early on. I went down
to four days a week, which Idon't regret for a minute, but it
is perfectly possible to doboth. What it did is it made me more
(05:11):
efficient at work and moreefficient at home.
Thank you for sharing. You'vespent the last few months digesting
and understanding the recentchanges proposed to flexible work
and employment law generally,as a result of the UK elections,
we should say, in the UKrecently there have been elections
(05:32):
and some massive changes havebeen proposed to the way that our
employment is structured. I'minterested. What topic have you received
the most questions on?
That is an interestingquestion, Verena, because certainly
in the UK there's been a lotof headlines about we have a new
Labour government.Traditionally when that happens,
(05:53):
it results in more employeefriendly reforms to the law. So we
haven't had this really since1997. So it's a generational thing
in the UK and there's been alot of noise around things like zero
hours contracts and banningthem. The law is not going to do
that, actually. And peoplehaving dismissal protection from
(06:15):
day one rather than having towait for two years. So those have
generated all the headlines.But actually, I think the biggest
change which has slightly goneunder the radar a little bit is there
are proposed changes to theway employers will have to treat
flexible working requests. Soat the moment, an employee has the
right to request flexibleworking arrangements, whether that's
(06:40):
location or hours or somethingelse. But the employer can say no
as long as it has one or moreof eight specified business reasons.
And they are fairly broadlydrafted. So that's things like impact
on the team, impact on abilityto deliver services to customers,
et cetera, et cetera. What thenew proposals are, and they are only
proposals, so they're subjectto consultation, is effective to
(07:03):
flip that around. So inpractice, an employer will have to
say yes unless it has a goodreason not to. So the way the government
phrases it is flexible workingwill be the default unless it is
not reasonably feasible. Sothat makes it much harder, I suspect,
if it goes through in itscurrent form for employers just to
(07:25):
say no, we can't allow you togo down to four days a week because
we've got customer demands. Wecan't backfill it the other way.
They're going to have to showa higher degree of reasonableness
before they can justify that decision.
Interesting. I'm interested inyour long term prediction. Obviously
this is an important step andit will change hopefully some people's
(07:48):
lives. But at the moment,what's your gut feeling? Where is
flexible working going? Whatdo you think flexible working will
look like in the UK in 15years time when your children start
entering the job market?
That would be a bigprediction. Look, I think the rule,
the proposed changes to the.The rules are important and I say
(08:08):
this from someone who actsprimarily for employers in my day
job. So I mostly adviseEmployers, I think generally it is
a good thing and should bewelcomed. The slight wrinkle in the
current regime, aside fromemployees being able to say no quite
easily, which I think is goingto be retained, is this concept that
flexible working a few yearsago became what we call a day one.
(08:31):
Right. So previously you hadto have had six months employment
with an employer before youcould request flexible working. Now
you can request it on day one.I mean, I don't have an issue with
that in principle because itgoes more broadly to my view that
individuals should be able towork as flexibly as can be allowed
in the circumstances. Myconcern is that it leads to a situation
(08:55):
where employees and employerssign up to a particular set of arrangements.
So you an employer hires for ajob, the individual turns up and
a week later changes theirmind and moves the goalposts, which
again can be managed by anemployer if it has a wide scope to
say no. If that flips aroundand it's very hard for the employer
to say no under the newregime, I do wonder whether the rules
(09:19):
should change so that and thelaw needs to adapt to this as well
so that employers and jobcandidates can have open and honest
discussions about flexibleworking arrangements during the recruitment
process. They agree it as partof the job offer and then you lock
it in for a period of time soit gives certainty to employer and
employee. I mean longer term Ican only see a shift towards greater
(09:43):
individual autonomy overworking time. I'm slightly concerned
that some employers are makingstrident efforts in some cases to
enforce working from officerules and making sure people are
in the majority of the time,maybe four or five days a week in
(10:03):
some cases in circumstanceswhere actually it's probably not
necessary, it's just thatthey'd like to go back to the old
pre Covid way of doing things.So I think ultimately individual
autonomy will win out on that.And as part of a sort of open minded
inclusive society, we shouldbe encouraging flexible working as
(10:24):
much as possible. Unless a jobabsolutely has to be done on site.
And some jobs do, obviously,you know, some, some types of work
cannot be done from home orwherever you choose to do your work.
But where they can, I thinkthat should be the default.
Yeah, it's interesting. I dida podcast a number of episodes ago
on the topic of work style andthis idea that we should, rather
than having flexible and nonflexible work, we should have just
(10:48):
accept everyone has their workstyle where they are most likely
to produce outcomes and so toallow for that differentiation. But
I'm just thinking and this maybe me looking at it too darkly. It's
quite a dreary morning here inLondon where I'm recording this.
(11:09):
Isn't there a risk of a twoclass society to emerge? So one group
of people who readily come tothe office who are willing to work
not just full time but forfull time plus, you know, 120% of
their allocated hours versuspeople who are not able to do that
and who are, who will takeadvantage of that right to request
(11:31):
flexible working. Won'temployers be incentivized to almost
filter those people out atrecruitment stage?
Potentially, But I think this,again, this is where the law can
provide protection wherebyobviously they will advertise a role.
And there have been moves, Ithink, to sort of for employers to
advertise where roles areflexible or not, etc. I mean, that
(11:53):
kind of rule hasn't come in,but the law is there to try and promote
that kind of conversation notbeing taboo or not disadvantaging
people because they arerequesting flexible working. I think
there are two points to makeon that. The first is I'm certainly
not saying that people whowant to work 120% of their allocated
hours and who want to be inthe office and have that kind of
(12:16):
working culture, so theyshould be allowed to do that and
employers will likely welcomethat. There will need to be safeguards
in place to ensure that peoplewho choose to work more flexibly
are not disadvantaged in termsof promotion, remuneration, etcetera,
etcetera. But working longerdoes not necessarily mean working
better or working moreefficiently. And if we continue to
(12:40):
encourage working practiceswhich prioritise people's presence
in the office over theirefficiency and their actual value
and output. So input versusoutput, effectively. So lawyers is
a really good example.Traditionally judged on how many
hours of time they put ontheir timesheet. Now it could be
(13:02):
eight hours of rubbish timethat doesn't really generate any
value for clients, or it couldbe three hours of really focused
time that not only delivers agreat output for the client, but
actually costs them less. Sothere's a kind of mind shift there
as well. I take the pointabout that. But I think if we continue
to be closed off to flexibleworking, you're just excluding people
(13:24):
who are incredibly talentedfrom even having the opportunity
to go for those higher rolessimply because of their circumstances.
They may have healthconditions, they may have caring
responsibilities, not justschool age children, they may have
caring responsibilities athome, but that doesn't mean they
can't contribute and be asValuable to an employer as someone
who is at a stage of theirlife or has the circumstances where
(13:48):
they can put loads of hours inand be in the office all the time.
I'm gonna ask anotherchallenging prediction question again,
thinking about 15 years timewhen your kids may start, or my kids
as well may start getting intothe employment market.
I hope so by then.
Or they may not live verypossible. I just had an email this
(14:13):
morning from someone who saidmy 30 year old son is still at home
to save up a deposit, so whoknows what will come? But I'm interested.
So in 15 years time, if wepicture a world where genuinely your
progression chances aren'taffected by whether or not you work
part time or full time, whatdo you think you would need to have
(14:36):
happened? And I'm saying thisjust for our listeners, the context
is in the UK today, if youwork part time, you are paid less
per hour than someone workingfull time. So if we picture that
change, you know, it doesn'tmatter. They might say, oh, I want
to do a rock climbing course,so I'm just going to work three and
a half days a week and trainas a rock climbing instruction. I
mean, is it even realistic ordo you want to tell me, well, actually
(14:59):
it's not going to happen. Andif it is realistic that you can still
progress on three and a halfdays a week, what change would need
to happen?
So I think it is veryrealistic. I mean, I can't speak
obviously for all employers inall circumstances and as I said before,
certainly just some roles justcannot be performed as flexibly as
others. You know, think aboutpublic sector roles. Some of, you
(15:24):
know, some people sort offirst responders, you know, there
are certain jobcharacteristics which makes it more
difficult. The thing thatwould make that happen. I mean, I
think ultimately for employersit is seeing the benefits of that
and seeing the evidence thatit really works. And that can only
happen by individuals who haveflexible working arrangements demonstrating
(15:48):
to their employer the valuethat they add, not just despite the
fact that they might workthree and a half days a week, but
perhaps because they workthree and a half days a week in terms
of coming to it fresh, lesstime off sick because they're not
burnt out, their ability tomanage their time better and do things
which derive most value. So Ithink one of the things I found when
(16:10):
I moved to four days a weekwas I stopped doing a load of stuff
that I just used to fill myday with. So that I was working full
time, I was really focused onthe types of work I did at certain
times of day when I was mosteffective, I got better at saying
no. And the proof that I wasworking was that in the time I was
(16:30):
working four days per week, Igenerated more revenue for my firm,
I had better clientrelationships and I built a practice
and managed the team. All ofwhich I was much better at on four
days a week because I had myFridays with my children. So I think
it's an evidence based thing.Employers need to see that it works
(16:52):
rather than thinking thatflexible working is for people who
aren't as committed or, youknow, just want to take their foot
off the gas a bit. I mean,that is a complete misconception.
All the people I speak to whohave part time arrangements, that
is not the case. It is becausethey want to deliver as much contribution
as possible and continue toprogress their careers that they
want to go part time becauseotherwise they feel they couldn't
(17:15):
manage it.
(21:23):
Very well said. Thank you. I'minterested though. You talked about
part time, that being a normalthing, that we can be part time in
senior roles. Aren't thereskills that we need to make that
work both as employees andmanagers? Because at the moment it
(21:45):
is not the normal thing. Youare clearly a talent in setting boundaries,
in confidently going againstthe tide. Those are unique talents.
Not many people are brilliantat that. And you seem to. I mean,
I'm sure it's not always thateasy, but it just seems that you
are actually rather good atthose things. What do you think we
need to change in ourcapabilities to make that world of
(22:08):
work work?
Well, I think obviously someof it's on the employer side in terms
of embracing part time workingand perhaps getting people in who
do it already to teach othershow it's done. I mean, I learned
from others. I'm not atrailblazer. I mean, there are loads
of people who've been on yourpodcast, Verena, who done it fantastically
(22:29):
well. And I learned lots ofstuff of them. I mean, in terms of
individual skills, it is, youknow, firstly an acceptance that
it's not always going to beperfect. Okay, so someone who's in
a client facing role like Iam, sometimes I have to accept that,
you know, people will stillwant me on a day which I've designated
(22:50):
as a non working day. And thenthe question is, okay, well how,
how do I put in place a filtersystem to ensure that doesn't impact
on my child care or whateverit is I'm doing on that non working
day? So for me it's childcareand the Way I used to do it in my
previous firm when I had a bigteam around me, is I would become
(23:12):
much better at delegating. Youknow, I think that's one. If you've
got people in your team whoare maybe also know those customers
or job share or whatever itis, you have to be able to let go.
Okay? And that's not alwayseasy for ambitious people. They've
got where they've got to bygrabbing hold of things, doing it
themselves. But you have toembrace the talents around you. You
(23:33):
have to value your own timeand get others to value your own
time. So when you are in theoffice or on your working days, big
bugbear. So people just putmeetings in your diary for half an
hour. Even though they onlyneeded to talk to you for five or
10 minutes, they felt the needto fill that that whole half hour
because it was there. So it'sbeing really efficient and being
(23:53):
available to your colleaguesor your team, but on the basis that
they respect that you havelimited time available and therefore,
let's make the most of it. So,yeah, I think there are steps and
skills that individuals candevelop to help them do that. And
also messages andcommunications they can give to other
people, which ensures thateveryone is just working much more
(24:15):
respectfully and effectively.Does that make sense?
It absolutely does. And Iwould add there are skills that senior
leaders need to develop tomanage by outcomes much better, to
manage workload better,especially when you have people in
junior roles who perhaps haveless freedom. And also to quantify
activities that it's easier ina sales role or a role like yours.
(24:39):
But we need to be able toquantify thought leadership if that's
part of your role orinnovation and so on. I've heard
some lawyers say that law canchange the world. And I'm interested
if you had a magic wand. Doyou have any laws that you would
like changing to create thefuture of work that you would love
(25:03):
for your children?
It's an interesting question,Varina. I mean, my observation is
the law often lags behindwhere society wants to be. So the
law is playing catch up. Andalthough law can contribute, effective
legal regulation cancontribute to better outcomes in
(25:23):
terms of future of work. Thefact just having a law in place does
not stop unlawful activity. Sowe've had discrimination legislation
in this country for nearly 50years. Unfortunately, you know, people
from ethnic minorities,females in the workplace are still
disadvantaged and are stilldiscriminated against. And I mentioned
(25:46):
just those twocharacteristics. Obviously they've
been added to over the yearsand it still happens. And the statistics
show that, you know,particularly female workers still
don't have the sameopportunities, pay progression, whatever
you want to call it that youknow that it is not an equal workplace
50 years on. So I don't thinkthe law is like the, the magic bullet
(26:09):
that is going to solve it. Ithink law creates a framework which
then encourages societalchange. And I'd like to get to a
position where actually thelaw is keeping up. It's never going
to be ahead of the curvebecause that's just not the way it
works. And also I think we'reslightly constrained by the fact
that particularly in the uk wehave two quite different political
(26:32):
philosophies which dominateour political landscape. There is.
So we currently have a Laborgovernment. So our current government
professes itself to be probusiness and pro worker, which I
think is a refreshingapproach. But traditionally those
kinds of governments tend toput in place more regulation on employers,
more red tape and then itflips over. And then maybe, however
(26:53):
many years in advance, wemight go back to a different political
philosophy which is freemarket, everyone, light touch, let's
cut all the red tape. Soyou're never going to get that perfect
balance. But I mean I think, Idon't think law can change the world.
I think it can contribute to abetter world. But it should be doing
it on the basis of encouragingpeople to exhibit behaviors that
(27:17):
reflect society more generallyor where we want to be, rather than
trying to impose sanctions fornon compliance. And that's a very
hard thing for the law to do.
That's so not what I expectedyou to say. Don't. I thought as a
lawyer. Yeah, no, it's goodto, it's good to be surprised. I,
I mean I'm a bit biasedbecause I have some lawyers in my
family who will absolutely saythat of course the law is, rules
(27:40):
the world. So thank you foryour refreshing perspective. I'm
interested in thepracticalities of some of the changes.
Do you think now someone isgoing to apply for a job in the uk?
Will it physically lookdifferent or not? Do you think it's
just a bit of hot air. And inreality there's not that much change.
(28:03):
As I said, there are onlyproposals. So they might be subject
to some tweaking. I meanultimately, I think given the size
of our government's majority,those reforms will come in. And the
main point being that thedefault is flexible working. Will
it change how people apply forjobs or how jobs are put on the market?
(28:26):
That's an interesting questionbecause I think the assumption will
be that when you apply for arole, there's a discussion to be
had about flexible working. Ithink there will be a shift towards
that. So at the moment youoften see roles saying this is three
days per week role or it's ajob share, or this is a full time
role. I think we might see alittle bit less of that. What I think
(28:49):
will be interesting is to seehow defensive some employers might
go in stating from the outset,this has to be a full time in the
office or in the workplacerole because. Because they have to
justify why they wouldn't beable to offer flexible hours. You
might see a shift there wherepeople are explaining why the job
(29:14):
has to be done a certain way.I think that'd be interesting. I
don't really know. I think itdepends how the final laws pan out.
But I can certainly see thatwould be one way that employers might
say, okay, we accept that inmost cases flexible working is probably
actually not a bad thing andwe can embrace it more just in the
(29:34):
way that we had to embrace ita few years ago during lockdown.
Overnight, you flick a switch,everyone works from home if they
can. And for those who can'twork from home and have to go into
the workplace, all theseobviously very important safeguards
are in place so it can bedone. I don't know how employers
(29:56):
will adapt to that new world,but that might be one way that they
do. That was quite a ramblinganswer, Verena, so you might want
to add it to that.
Not at all. Very interesting,very interesting. And I'm not making
it easy for you by asking youall these predictions. I should have
given sent you a littlecrystal ball as part of this podcast
interview. But I really findyour thoughts interesting. So I'm
(30:19):
going to continue asking youabout your predictions. So another
one which is about theparental rights, maternity rights,
what's your prediction there?
Well, again, there are somechanges in the proposed government
reforms, things like paternityleave and parental leave. And also
(30:42):
extending some existingprotections we have in place for
employees returning frommaternity leave, extending it to
other forms of family leave.So I'll just explain very briefly.
We have various types offamily leave or family related leave
that people can take in theuk. Maternity leave, we have paternity
leave, we have adoption leave,they're all fairly self explanatory.
(31:05):
We also now have sharedparental leave, which is where effectively
the mother or main adopter ofa child can curtail their maternity
or adoption leave and share itwith their partner. That is quite
complex. In practice, butthat's been I think an interesting
development. And you also havethings like emergency time off for
dependence leave where youhave to drop everything and go, and
(31:28):
parental leave, which isdifferent to shared parental leave.
Again quite confusing, butthat is basically you can have blocks
of time off during yourchild's first 18 years, but it's
unpaid. So the things that arechanging are that paternity leave
and that unpaid parental leaveare going to become day one rights.
So at the moment you need atleast six months employment to have
(31:52):
paternity leave. Right. And ayear's employment to have parental
leave. Right. So they're goingto become day one, Right. And the
existing protections thatapply to employees returning from
maternity leave, effectivelythey have certain levels of protection
from redundancy. So you canput them at risk of redundancy, but
if there is a suitablealternative vacancy for them in the
(32:15):
business, they basically getthe right to jump the queue and have
first right of refusal onthat. The government's looking to
extend that to other forms ofleave and also to other reasons for
dismissal potentially as well.So I'm not quite sure how that will
work in practice actually, butthat's what they're proposing. So
(32:36):
the way the law has developedon family leave is gradually has
expanded to increaseprotection and it's become less focused
on mothers. So it's becomemuch more inclusive in terms of father's
rights, partners rights, allthat kind of thing. I don't know
how much more it will expandbeyond that in terms of pay during
(32:59):
periods of leave, dismissal,protection, that kind of thing. Because
actually I think we got to aposition now where actually is relatively
inclusive. So how much more itexpands beyond that I don't know.
But I do know that we aregoing to have some reforms in our
employment rights bill whichmake those types of leave and rights
more available to a greaterpool of individuals.
(33:20):
Let's watch this space andhope for the best in the best possible
way. I was on an advisoryboard for a university study into
share parental leave and youmight have seen press release but
essentially it found that itjust didn't work, it wasn't taken
up, it was way toocomplicated, wasn't paid enough,
(33:41):
and so on so forth. So havingproperly paid non birthing partner
only leave, I think that wouldbe on my wish list for future governments
loss in the future.
I think that's an interestingpoint because I think it was very
well intentioned sharedparental leave and clearly it has
benefited some people. Butyou're right, it's far too Complicated.
(34:01):
I mean, every time I get askeda question about it by a client,
I have to go back and read itagain. I have to go and read it again.
And that's you as an expert.Right, so how is a normal person
going to deal with it?
Well, quite. Because all theseconditions have to be satisfied depending
on which partner in therelationship you're talking about.
And obviously complicationsarise because the pay. Lots of employers
(34:25):
offer enhanced pay, somedon't. So then you're talking about
statutory only pay and twoemployers having to talk to each
other and work it all out.It's very tricky, and actually really
tricky from individual'sperspective to understand what their
rights are and what works bestfor them in terms of one partner
in the relationship has a moregenerous employer than the other.
(34:47):
How do you kind of work thatsystem? So you get both the best
financial outcome, butprobably more importantly the best
outcome for the children thatare being born into your family or
being adopted.
Absolutely. Obviously allthese laws are in place partly because,
like I said, there's a lot ofdiscrimination out there and we notice
(35:09):
that because we always havepeople applying to the fellowship
who have experienced maternitydiscrimination. So just to say, if
you're listening and thatapplies to you, please apply, because
we have highly, highlysubsidized, essentially free spaces,
I think something like £30 orso instead of £4,000 for a really
brilliant program. So. Andsupport some of the people going
(35:31):
through this horrendousexperience. I'm interested in your
thinking about the globalpicture as well. Sorry, this is also
a question that hasn't been onthe briefing, but I'm just. It just
crossed my mind because thereare obviously countries that do things
slightly differently, not toexpect that, you know, all the laws
(35:52):
globally, but I'm justinterested, are there good practices
that you would love to importfrom abroad or. Not even laws, but,
you know, setups or stuff likethe four day working week or job
shares that we are now doingquite a lot in in the uk. Is there
anything you've come across globally?
I mean, not in terms of sortof family rights and flexible working?
(36:14):
I mean, I. I think actuallythe UK seems to be relatively progressive
on that, although we'd like itto be improved in some ways, you
know, compared to somejurisdictions. Reasonably forward
thinking, I would say. Outsideof that, an interesting discussion
that has been had recently isaround the right to switch off. So
(36:35):
some countries areimplementing this already, whereby
effectively there are periodsof time, let's say for argument's
sake, 7pm to 7am, whereemployees are not expected to respond
to emails, deal with workrelated issues, etc. Etc. And I think
that as a concept is quiteinteresting. I mean, I've heard stories
(36:56):
in the past about very seniorexecutives in big corporations just
suffering from burnout andbasically having to come back and
have these guardrails inplace. And I think in an environment
where people are working fromhome more and there's a tendency
for work to leak into personaltime, so you just end up checking
(37:18):
your emails because you arecontactable a lot more than we were
when I started being a lawyer.And we've all got email, we've all
got personal devices. Andhowever, sometimes I do this, however
much I can shut the door on mystudy here and leave my devices in
here, I will occasionally popin after the kids have gone to bed
(37:39):
just to check that something'sbeing progressed or no one needs
me. And so this kind of rightto switch off sounds like it's not
being going to come into forcein the UK anytime soon perhaps because
some of the other changes arequite significant and the government
maybe feels that it's quitehard for employers to stomach that
as well. But again, it's aninteresting. And I don't want to
(38:01):
come across as sounding likeI'm all for people doing as little
work as possible and, youknow, not putting the hours in or
whatever. I mean, absolutely,they, they should and it's what I
still do. But I do think weneed to treat individuals like grown
ups and allow them to work attimes that best suit them. As long
as you are delivering for youremployer and the clients or whatever
(38:24):
it is that whatever theoutputs your job requires, you should
be able to do that as far aspossible on your own terms.
Agree. But I think to achievethat and to measure whether outputs
have been achieved, you needemployers and directors who are able
to measure those outputs. Evenfor roles that aren't client driven.
I think there is a massiveskills gap there. Just what you're
(38:46):
saying there, it made me thinkof the productivity crisis in the
uk. So UK has one of the worstlevels of productivity in the OECD
and yet works actually reallylong hours. And I think that's interesting
because switching off, there'sresearch that shows that that increases
productivity, actually workingshorter hours increases productivity.
(39:06):
So I think we need to rethinksome of that. Again, like it's to
me, obviously I come fromtraining and development, so I would
say this, but I see it througha skills lens. I see senior directors
not understanding how tocreate productivity.
I think the long Hours culturewhich has developed. I mean, I've
seen it in the legalprofession since I joined. I was
(39:28):
obviously caught up on thathamster wheel for many years myself.
I think it is entirely wrongto assume that the harder you work,
the more effective you willbe. And that is something we have
simply got to get away from.And maybe it will take a fundamental
shift in how people doflexible working to make more people
(39:51):
realize that. I always used tofind just, I mean, just anecdotally
I see this and I used to thinkit was strange working in a law firm,
sometimes working very latehours into night, thinking I am probably
about 30% effective at themoment because I've been sat here
for 15, 16 hours and I've gotmore work ahead of me. How are we
(40:13):
justifying charging this timeto a client where I am nowhere near
as awake or aware as Iprobably was at 9:00 this morning?
It just seemed to be acomplete. There's a complete mismatch
again between input and output.
Absolutely. And just to add tothis, looking at it from a different
sector, there's a research toshow that nurses make a lot more
(40:36):
mistakes towards the end of a12, 13 hour shift, which is quite
regular. And I'm assuming thesame. I haven't seen the data, but
I'm assuming the same is truefor doctors. And I think that's,
that's a real issue. I mean, Idon't want to be operated by someone
who has been at work for 12hours, possibly without a break.
It's a really good point. Andit's those kind of little things,
stuff you might not noticenecessarily, but cumulative. And
(40:58):
you've got a whole bunch ofpeople working together all over,
not, not 100% on their game.That's when stuff slips through the
net, whether it's in themedical profession or elsewhere.
I think, yeah, that's aninteresting point of view. How we
need to create organizationsand work patterns that allows people
to be on the 100% of theirgame as much as possible. We're never
all going to be all the timeon 100%. But how do you create this?
(41:23):
I think that's, that's theimportant question. You talk to employers
all the time secretly, as innot secretly, but as in not. You're
not allowed to say what you'retalking to them. But is there anything
interesting that you can seebubbling up? So I'm quite excited,
as I said, about four day workweek, job jest. Can you see models
that have bubbled up that youthink might Possibly be scaled up
(41:47):
in the future.
I think four day week is areally interesting concept. I feel
slightly biased about thisbecause I've done this for a long
time, albeit not at 100% pay.I have to say my personal experience
is it's worked really well forme and worked really well for the
organisations that I've workedfor and the clients that I've serviced.
So it can work. Can it beapplied across the board, across
(42:10):
sectors and professions? Ithink we need to start from an open
minded position where it canuntil it is shown otherwise. And
I'm really encouraged to seeemployers adopting a trial. You know,
some it will work and some itwon't. And the four day week campaign
I think is a reallyinteresting thing. Obviously a lot
of discussion about how ourcurrent, what we call traditional
(42:33):
work pattern was forged, youknow, way back in history. Is it
right for the modern world ifwe've got all benefits, all this
fantastic technology, why arewe still working? Like we work to
daylight hours and seasons andall this kind of stuff? It doesn't
make any sense, does it? Ithink the thing that I found most
disappointing this is earlythis year, I think there was one
(42:56):
of the local councils inEngland trialed a four day working
week that did not go down wellwith the central government. And
I recall there were someheadlines about them basically being
told to stop it, which Ithought was really interesting because
again, if you're thinkingpurely from a public policy perspective,
what's going to deliver themost value for the taxpayer that
funds that local council? Whyshould we automatically assume that
(43:20):
the people who collect thebins or work in the council offices
or manage the parks can't do abrilliant job on four days a week?
And if they can get round allthe properties in four days and clear
your recycling or whatever itis, then why shouldn't they? Because
then we can manage theresource a lot, a lot better. So
I just thought that was aninteresting. It's an interesting
(43:42):
development. I think it isprogressing quite slowly. But I think
again, the more employees, Ithink that's evidence base that we're
talking about earlier, themore employers try it and find that
it works and implement iteither completely or to a certain
degree, the more word will getout actually this might be the way
forward and we don't have togo back to a world where we're 9
(44:03):
to 5, Monday to Friday andbefore that we only had, you know,
Sunday afternoons off orwhatever it was, and we all work
stupid hours. These thingswork for a reason.
Yeah, I couldn't agree more.And we definitely have to recognize
that it is our thinking aboutwork is so ideology driven even that
there is a separation betweenwork and family. When you had a farm,
(44:24):
the myth in Switzerland isthat when you had a farm you were
always working, but you werealso always. The rest was incorporating
in it. Because they had somany religious holidays, they were
always in the Catholic partespecially. I mean, my mother still
seems to have a day off everymonth just because of some other
saint. And I think thatideology just shapes how we see work
(44:45):
and we need to try to breakfree from that and use evidence base.
So if anybody in the listenersis doing an interesting experiment
around working patterns ortheir organization is doing interesting
stuff, please let us know. Isthere anything else that you really
desperately wanted to discussabout future work that I haven't
asked you about?
(45:06):
No, I don't think so, Rin. Ithink we've had a really interesting
discussion and hopefullyenough there that is sort of, I don't
know, prompted some. Promptingsome of your listeners to sort of
think about things a littlebit differently. I appreciate. And
again, I'm a big advocate forflexible working, whether that's
part time or where you workor, or whatever. I accept it can
(45:28):
be challenging fororganisations as well, you know.
So I'm not just sayingemployers should always agree to
all flexible working requests,however difficult they might be to
accommodate. There is always ascope for a constructive discussion.
And I talk to people who areabout to ask for flexible working.
I always say you should go inand explain to the employer how it
(45:51):
will work for them, not justhow it will work for you. And you're
more likely to convince themat least a trial is worth going for.
So it has to work on bothsides. I just think that these changes
to the law are overall apositive thing.
Absolutely. And a big thankyou to all the employers who are
willingly, fully embracingthis. And I know some of our listeners
(46:12):
are absolutely in HR trying todrive change. Thank you so much,
Dom. It's been an absolutepleasure chatting to you again and
I'll keep thinking of excusesto have conversation with you. It's
always very enjoyable.
Well, I appreciate it.
Yeah. As I alluded to, we dohave two previous podcasts with Dom
in the series where he talksmore about his own personal story
(46:34):
of working flexibly in asenior role. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
I really appreciate youlistening. Thank you so much. And
I always love to hear from ourlisteners. If you want to connect
with me on LinkedIn, just goto Verena Hefti and I'd be delighted
to hear your feedback and yoursuggestions or just have you say
(46:56):
hi. Likewise, if you do feelpassionately about gender equality
and you want to support afemale led podcast, then please do
leave a review and share itwith a friend. Just because at the
moment, podcasting is still avery, very male dominated environment.
Most of the top chargingpodcasts are led by men. I really
(47:18):
love all the people who'vejoined from the podcast our fellowship
program, and if you want to dothe same, then please head over to
leadersplus.org/Fellowship inorder to get access to a community
of support to help you combinean ambitious career with young children
together with people who haveyour back. See you next week.
Welcome to the Big CareersSmall Children Podcast. My name is
Verena Hefti. I believe thatno one should have to choose between
becoming a CEO and enjoyingtheir young children for much too
long. Amazing people like I'msure you listening right now have
found themselves stuck on thecareer ladder when they have children
(00:22):
and that leads to genderinequality in senior leadership because
because those people don'tprogress to senior leadership and
the same stale, often malemiddle class people leading our organizations.
We must change this togetherand I hope that many of you listening
right now will progress to themost senior leadership roles that
you like where you can makethe decisions that make our world
(00:43):
a better place. Outside of thepodcast, I am the CEO and founder
of the social enterpriseLeaders Plus. We exist to help working
parents progress their careersto senior leadership in a way that
works for you and for yourfamilies. We have free events and
resources on leadersplus.orgwhere you can download helpful toolkits
(01:04):
such as on returning frommaternity leave, share parental leave,
securing a promotion, dealingwith workload challenges, or managing
as a dual career couple. Wealso have an award winning fellowship
community which is global forworking parents who have big dreams
for their careers but don'twant to sacrifice their family. You'll
join an absolutely wonderfulgroup of people, a very tight knit,
(01:29):
supportive group of parentswho have your back. Together. You'll
explore what your careeraspirations are and you'll get advice
from senior leaders who arealso working parents about how to
achieve those aspirations.You'll get new ideas to combine your
hopes for your careers withyour hope for your family and you
are supported by people whoare experiencing what you're experiencing
(01:50):
yourself. I'm really delightedthat a larger majority of our fellows
have made tangible changesfollowing the program, be that becoming
more senior in their roles,working shorter hours, having a better
flexible working arrangement.They always impress me so much with
the courage that they instillin each other to do what is right
for them without apologizingfor having a family or apologizing
(02:14):
for wanting that. Top jobDetails are on leadersplus.org/Fellowship
this week I am chatting toDominic Holmes, employment law partner
in a law firm and also Leadersplus Mentor about his view of the
future of work, what he thinksis going to change with flexible
(02:38):
working and his predictionsfor the future, as well as a bit
of an analysis of the changesthat have been put into motion with
UK employment law. It soundsquite dry now I'm introducing it
actually, but I really, reallyenjoyed the conversation. Dom is
just an absolutely fabulousperson and I'M sure you will too.
(03:00):
A very warm welcome back tothe podcast. Thank you so much for
letting me rope you in again.For the listeners who don't remember
the previous episodes we didtogether, could you introduce who
you are, what you do for workand who is in your family?
Yes. Hello everyone. Nice tobe back. So my name is Dom Holmes.
I am an employment lawyer, soI'm a partner at a firm called Kilgannon
(03:22):
Law. So we're a nicheemployment immigration practice comprised
mostly of experienced lawyerswho work largely remotely and I live
on the south coast. I live insunny Bournemouth and with my wife
and my two children. I've gota daughter, Jemima, who's just turned
six and my little son Tommyhas just turned three. So that's
(03:43):
our little family.
Lovely. I've got a three andsix year old as well, so I can imagine
your house being busy. So weasked this of all podcast guests
and I'm going to ask it of youagain. Can you recall anything that
changed in your thinking aboutcombining a big career with young
children that you used tobelieve 10 years ago that you don't
(04:04):
subscribe to anymore?
Yes, I mean, I've talked aboutthis a lot. I think it was a bit
of a light bulb moment for mewhen we had our daughter, our eldest
child, because I was fortunateenough to have a month's paternity
leave. And then as it came tothe end of it, it suddenly dawned
on me that I was going back towork and I thought, how on earth
am I going to go back to thecareer and life I had before my daughter
(04:29):
was born? And the biggestmisconception I had was that actually
it was a little bit of eitheror. You couldn't have both. There
would have to be a sacrificeon one side or the other. And frankly,
the more I thought about itand looked into it, the less I realized
that was true. It is perfectlypossible to be a full time parent
(04:51):
in terms of giving all theintention and love to your children
that you can and having afulfilling and rewarding career.
It requires some selfdiscipline and time management and
you may want to do thingsslightly differently. So one of the
things I did is I went parttime fairly early on. I went down
to four days a week, which Idon't regret for a minute, but it
is perfectly possible to doboth. What it did is it made me more
(05:11):
efficient at work and moreefficient at home.
Thank you for sharing. You'vespent the last few months digesting
and understanding the recentchanges proposed to flexible work
and employment law generally,as a result of the UK elections,
we should say, in the UKrecently there have been elections
(05:32):
and some massive changes havebeen proposed to the way that our
employment is structured. I'minterested. What topic have you received
the most questions on?
That is an interestingquestion, Verena, because certainly
in the UK there's been a lotof headlines about we have a new
Labour government.Traditionally when that happens,
(05:53):
it results in more employeefriendly reforms to the law. So we
haven't had this really since1997. So it's a generational thing
in the UK and there's been alot of noise around things like zero
hours contracts and banningthem. The law is not going to do
that, actually. And peoplehaving dismissal protection from
(06:15):
day one rather than having towait for two years. So those have
generated all the headlines.But actually, I think the biggest
change which has slightly goneunder the radar a little bit is there
are proposed changes to theway employers will have to treat
flexible working requests. Soat the moment, an employee has the
right to request flexibleworking arrangements, whether that's
(06:40):
location or hours or somethingelse. But the employer can say no
as long as it has one or moreof eight specified business reasons.
And they are fairly broadlydrafted. So that's things like impact
on the team, impact on abilityto deliver services to customers,
et cetera, et cetera. What thenew proposals are, and they are only
proposals, so they're subjectto consultation, is effective to
(07:03):
flip that around. So inpractice, an employer will have to
say yes unless it has a goodreason not to. So the way the government
phrases it is flexible workingwill be the default unless it is
not reasonably feasible. Sothat makes it much harder, I suspect,
if it goes through in itscurrent form for employers just to
(07:25):
say no, we can't allow you togo down to four days a week because
we've got customer demands. Wecan't backfill it the other way.
They're going to have to showa higher degree of reasonableness
before they can justify that decision.
Interesting. I'm interested inyour long term prediction. Obviously
this is an important step andit will change hopefully some people's
(07:48):
lives. But at the moment,what's your gut feeling? Where is
flexible working going? Whatdo you think flexible working will
look like in the UK in 15years time when your children start
entering the job market?
That would be a bigprediction. Look, I think the rule,
the proposed changes to the.The rules are important and I say
(08:08):
this from someone who actsprimarily for employers in my day
job. So I mostly adviseEmployers, I think generally it is
a good thing and should bewelcomed. The slight wrinkle in the
current regime, aside fromemployees being able to say no quite
easily, which I think is goingto be retained, is this concept that
flexible working a few yearsago became what we call a day one.
(08:31):
Right. So previously you hadto have had six months employment
with an employer before youcould request flexible working. Now
you can request it on day one.I mean, I don't have an issue with
that in principle because itgoes more broadly to my view that
individuals should be able towork as flexibly as can be allowed
in the circumstances. Myconcern is that it leads to a situation
(08:55):
where employees and employerssign up to a particular set of arrangements.
So you an employer hires for ajob, the individual turns up and
a week later changes theirmind and moves the goalposts, which
again can be managed by anemployer if it has a wide scope to
say no. If that flips aroundand it's very hard for the employer
to say no under the newregime, I do wonder whether the rules
(09:19):
should change so that and thelaw needs to adapt to this as well
so that employers and jobcandidates can have open and honest
discussions about flexibleworking arrangements during the recruitment
process. They agree it as partof the job offer and then you lock
it in for a period of time soit gives certainty to employer and
employee. I mean longer term Ican only see a shift towards greater
(09:43):
individual autonomy overworking time. I'm slightly concerned
that some employers are makingstrident efforts in some cases to
enforce working from officerules and making sure people are
in the majority of the time,maybe four or five days a week in
(10:03):
some cases in circumstanceswhere actually it's probably not
necessary, it's just thatthey'd like to go back to the old
pre Covid way of doing things.So I think ultimately individual
autonomy will win out on that.And as part of a sort of open minded
inclusive society, we shouldbe encouraging flexible working as
(10:24):
much as possible. Unless a jobabsolutely has to be done on site.
And some jobs do, obviously,you know, some, some types of work
cannot be done from home orwherever you choose to do your work.
But where they can, I thinkthat should be the default.
Yeah, it's interesting. I dida podcast a number of episodes ago
on the topic of work style andthis idea that we should, rather
than having flexible and nonflexible work, we should have just
(10:48):
accept everyone has their workstyle where they are most likely
to produce outcomes and so toallow for that differentiation. But
I'm just thinking and this maybe me looking at it too darkly. It's
quite a dreary morning here inLondon where I'm recording this.
(11:09):
Isn't there a risk of a twoclass society to emerge? So one group
of people who readily come tothe office who are willing to work
not just full time but forfull time plus, you know, 120% of
their allocated hours versuspeople who are not able to do that
and who are, who will takeadvantage of that right to request
(11:31):
flexible working. Won'temployers be incentivized to almost
filter those people out atrecruitment stage?
Potentially, But I think this,again, this is where the law can
provide protection wherebyobviously they will advertise a role.
And there have been moves, Ithink, to sort of for employers to
advertise where roles areflexible or not, etc. I mean, that
(11:53):
kind of rule hasn't come in,but the law is there to try and promote
that kind of conversation notbeing taboo or not disadvantaging
people because they arerequesting flexible working. I think
there are two points to makeon that. The first is I'm certainly
not saying that people whowant to work 120% of their allocated
hours and who want to be inthe office and have that kind of
(12:16):
working culture, so theyshould be allowed to do that and
employers will likely welcomethat. There will need to be safeguards
in place to ensure that peoplewho choose to work more flexibly
are not disadvantaged in termsof promotion, remuneration, etcetera,
etcetera. But working longerdoes not necessarily mean working
better or working moreefficiently. And if we continue to
(12:40):
encourage working practiceswhich prioritise people's presence
in the office over theirefficiency and their actual value
and output. So input versusoutput, effectively. So lawyers is
a really good example.Traditionally judged on how many
hours of time they put ontheir timesheet. Now it could be
(13:02):
eight hours of rubbish timethat doesn't really generate any
value for clients, or it couldbe three hours of really focused
time that not only delivers agreat output for the client, but
actually costs them less. Sothere's a kind of mind shift there
as well. I take the pointabout that. But I think if we continue
to be closed off to flexibleworking, you're just excluding people
(13:24):
who are incredibly talentedfrom even having the opportunity
to go for those higher rolessimply because of their circumstances.
They may have healthconditions, they may have caring
responsibilities, not justschool age children, they may have
caring responsibilities athome, but that doesn't mean they
can't contribute and be asValuable to an employer as someone
who is at a stage of theirlife or has the circumstances where
(13:48):
they can put loads of hours inand be in the office all the time.
I'm gonna ask anotherchallenging prediction question again,
thinking about 15 years timewhen your kids may start, or my kids
as well may start getting intothe employment market.
I hope so by then.
Or they may not live verypossible. I just had an email this
(14:13):
morning from someone who saidmy 30 year old son is still at home
to save up a deposit, so whoknows what will come? But I'm interested.
So in 15 years time, if wepicture a world where genuinely your
progression chances aren'taffected by whether or not you work
part time or full time, whatdo you think you would need to have
(14:36):
happened? And I'm saying thisjust for our listeners, the context
is in the UK today, if youwork part time, you are paid less
per hour than someone workingfull time. So if we picture that
change, you know, it doesn'tmatter. They might say, oh, I want
to do a rock climbing course,so I'm just going to work three and
a half days a week and trainas a rock climbing instruction. I
mean, is it even realistic ordo you want to tell me, well, actually
(14:59):
it's not going to happen. Andif it is realistic that you can still
progress on three and a halfdays a week, what change would need
to happen?
So I think it is veryrealistic. I mean, I can't speak
obviously for all employers inall circumstances and as I said before,
certainly just some roles justcannot be performed as flexibly as
others. You know, think aboutpublic sector roles. Some of, you
(15:24):
know, some people sort offirst responders, you know, there
are certain jobcharacteristics which makes it more
difficult. The thing thatwould make that happen. I mean, I
think ultimately for employersit is seeing the benefits of that
and seeing the evidence thatit really works. And that can only
happen by individuals who haveflexible working arrangements demonstrating
(15:48):
to their employer the valuethat they add, not just despite the
fact that they might workthree and a half days a week, but
perhaps because they workthree and a half days a week in terms
of coming to it fresh, lesstime off sick because they're not
burnt out, their ability tomanage their time better and do things
which derive most value. So Ithink one of the things I found when
(16:10):
I moved to four days a weekwas I stopped doing a load of stuff
that I just used to fill myday with. So that I was working full
time, I was really focused onthe types of work I did at certain
times of day when I was mosteffective, I got better at saying
no. And the proof that I wasworking was that in the time I was
(16:30):
working four days per week, Igenerated more revenue for my firm,
I had better clientrelationships and I built a practice
and managed the team. All ofwhich I was much better at on four
days a week because I had myFridays with my children. So I think
it's an evidence based thing.Employers need to see that it works
(16:52):
rather than thinking thatflexible working is for people who
aren't as committed or, youknow, just want to take their foot
off the gas a bit. I mean,that is a complete misconception.
All the people I speak to whohave part time arrangements, that
is not the case. It is becausethey want to deliver as much contribution
as possible and continue toprogress their careers that they
want to go part time becauseotherwise they feel they couldn't
(17:15):
manage it.
(21:23):
Very well said. Thank you. I'minterested though. You talked about
part time, that being a normalthing, that we can be part time in
senior roles. Aren't thereskills that we need to make that
work both as employees andmanagers? Because at the moment it
(21:45):
is not the normal thing. Youare clearly a talent in setting boundaries,
in confidently going againstthe tide. Those are unique talents.
Not many people are brilliantat that. And you seem to. I mean,
I'm sure it's not always thateasy, but it just seems that you
are actually rather good atthose things. What do you think we
need to change in ourcapabilities to make that world of
(22:08):
work work?
Well, I think obviously someof it's on the employer side in terms
of embracing part time workingand perhaps getting people in who
do it already to teach othershow it's done. I mean, I learned
from others. I'm not atrailblazer. I mean, there are loads
of people who've been on yourpodcast, Verena, who done it fantastically
(22:29):
well. And I learned lots ofstuff of them. I mean, in terms of
individual skills, it is, youknow, firstly an acceptance that
it's not always going to beperfect. Okay, so someone who's in
a client facing role like Iam, sometimes I have to accept that,
you know, people will stillwant me on a day which I've designated
(22:50):
as a non working day. And thenthe question is, okay, well how,
how do I put in place a filtersystem to ensure that doesn't impact
on my child care or whateverit is I'm doing on that non working
day? So for me it's childcareand the Way I used to do it in my
previous firm when I had a bigteam around me, is I would become
(23:12):
much better at delegating. Youknow, I think that's one. If you've
got people in your team whoare maybe also know those customers
or job share or whatever itis, you have to be able to let go.
Okay? And that's not alwayseasy for ambitious people. They've
got where they've got to bygrabbing hold of things, doing it
themselves. But you have toembrace the talents around you. You
(23:33):
have to value your own timeand get others to value your own
time. So when you are in theoffice or on your working days, big
bugbear. So people just putmeetings in your diary for half an
hour. Even though they onlyneeded to talk to you for five or
10 minutes, they felt the needto fill that that whole half hour
because it was there. So it'sbeing really efficient and being
(23:53):
available to your colleaguesor your team, but on the basis that
they respect that you havelimited time available and therefore,
let's make the most of it. So,yeah, I think there are steps and
skills that individuals candevelop to help them do that. And
also messages andcommunications they can give to other
people, which ensures thateveryone is just working much more
(24:15):
respectfully and effectively.Does that make sense?
It absolutely does. And Iwould add there are skills that senior
leaders need to develop tomanage by outcomes much better, to
manage workload better,especially when you have people in
junior roles who perhaps haveless freedom. And also to quantify
activities that it's easier ina sales role or a role like yours.
(24:39):
But we need to be able toquantify thought leadership if that's
part of your role orinnovation and so on. I've heard
some lawyers say that law canchange the world. And I'm interested
if you had a magic wand. Doyou have any laws that you would
like changing to create thefuture of work that you would love
(25:03):
for your children?
It's an interesting question,Varina. I mean, my observation is
the law often lags behindwhere society wants to be. So the
law is playing catch up. Andalthough law can contribute, effective
legal regulation cancontribute to better outcomes in
(25:23):
terms of future of work. Thefact just having a law in place does
not stop unlawful activity. Sowe've had discrimination legislation
in this country for nearly 50years. Unfortunately, you know, people
from ethnic minorities,females in the workplace are still
disadvantaged and are stilldiscriminated against. And I mentioned
(25:46):
just those twocharacteristics. Obviously they've
been added to over the yearsand it still happens. And the statistics
show that, you know,particularly female workers still
don't have the sameopportunities, pay progression, whatever
you want to call it that youknow that it is not an equal workplace
50 years on. So I don't thinkthe law is like the, the magic bullet
(26:09):
that is going to solve it. Ithink law creates a framework which
then encourages societalchange. And I'd like to get to a
position where actually thelaw is keeping up. It's never going
to be ahead of the curvebecause that's just not the way it
works. And also I think we'reslightly constrained by the fact
that particularly in the uk wehave two quite different political
(26:32):
philosophies which dominateour political landscape. There is.
So we currently have a Laborgovernment. So our current government
professes itself to be probusiness and pro worker, which I
think is a refreshingapproach. But traditionally those
kinds of governments tend toput in place more regulation on employers,
more red tape and then itflips over. And then maybe, however
(26:53):
many years in advance, wemight go back to a different political
philosophy which is freemarket, everyone, light touch, let's
cut all the red tape. Soyou're never going to get that perfect
balance. But I mean I think, Idon't think law can change the world.
I think it can contribute to abetter world. But it should be doing
it on the basis of encouragingpeople to exhibit behaviors that
(27:17):
reflect society more generallyor where we want to be, rather than
trying to impose sanctions fornon compliance. And that's a very
hard thing for the law to do.
That's so not what I expectedyou to say. Don't. I thought as a
lawyer. Yeah, no, it's goodto, it's good to be surprised. I,
I mean I'm a bit biasedbecause I have some lawyers in my
family who will absolutely saythat of course the law is, rules
(27:40):
the world. So thank you foryour refreshing perspective. I'm
interested in thepracticalities of some of the changes.
Do you think now someone isgoing to apply for a job in the uk?
Will it physically lookdifferent or not? Do you think it's
just a bit of hot air. And inreality there's not that much change.
(28:03):
As I said, there are onlyproposals. So they might be subject
to some tweaking. I meanultimately, I think given the size
of our government's majority,those reforms will come in. And the
main point being that thedefault is flexible working. Will
it change how people apply forjobs or how jobs are put on the market?
(28:26):
That's an interesting questionbecause I think the assumption will
be that when you apply for arole, there's a discussion to be
had about flexible working. Ithink there will be a shift towards
that. So at the moment youoften see roles saying this is three
days per week role or it's ajob share, or this is a full time
role. I think we might see alittle bit less of that. What I think
(28:49):
will be interesting is to seehow defensive some employers might
go in stating from the outset,this has to be a full time in the
office or in the workplacerole because. Because they have to
justify why they wouldn't beable to offer flexible hours. You
might see a shift there wherepeople are explaining why the job
(29:14):
has to be done a certain way.I think that'd be interesting. I
don't really know. I think itdepends how the final laws pan out.
But I can certainly see thatwould be one way that employers might
say, okay, we accept that inmost cases flexible working is probably
actually not a bad thing andwe can embrace it more just in the
(29:34):
way that we had to embrace ita few years ago during lockdown.
Overnight, you flick a switch,everyone works from home if they
can. And for those who can'twork from home and have to go into
the workplace, all theseobviously very important safeguards
are in place so it can bedone. I don't know how employers
(29:56):
will adapt to that new world,but that might be one way that they
do. That was quite a ramblinganswer, Verena, so you might want
to add it to that.
Not at all. Very interesting,very interesting. And I'm not making
it easy for you by asking youall these predictions. I should have
given sent you a littlecrystal ball as part of this podcast
interview. But I really findyour thoughts interesting. So I'm
(30:19):
going to continue asking youabout your predictions. So another
one which is about theparental rights, maternity rights,
what's your prediction there?
Well, again, there are somechanges in the proposed government
reforms, things like paternityleave and parental leave. And also
(30:42):
extending some existingprotections we have in place for
employees returning frommaternity leave, extending it to
other forms of family leave.So I'll just explain very briefly.
We have various types offamily leave or family related leave
that people can take in theuk. Maternity leave, we have paternity
leave, we have adoption leave,they're all fairly self explanatory.
(31:05):
We also now have sharedparental leave, which is where effectively
the mother or main adopter ofa child can curtail their maternity
or adoption leave and share itwith their partner. That is quite
complex. In practice, butthat's been I think an interesting
development. And you also havethings like emergency time off for
dependence leave where youhave to drop everything and go, and
(31:28):
parental leave, which isdifferent to shared parental leave.
Again quite confusing, butthat is basically you can have blocks
of time off during yourchild's first 18 years, but it's
unpaid. So the things that arechanging are that paternity leave
and that unpaid parental leaveare going to become day one rights.
So at the moment you need atleast six months employment to have
(31:52):
paternity leave. Right. And ayear's employment to have parental
leave. Right. So they're goingto become day one, Right. And the
existing protections thatapply to employees returning from
maternity leave, effectivelythey have certain levels of protection
from redundancy. So you canput them at risk of redundancy, but
if there is a suitablealternative vacancy for them in the
(32:15):
business, they basically getthe right to jump the queue and have
first right of refusal onthat. The government's looking to
extend that to other forms ofleave and also to other reasons for
dismissal potentially as well.So I'm not quite sure how that will
work in practice actually, butthat's what they're proposing. So
(32:36):
the way the law has developedon family leave is gradually has
expanded to increaseprotection and it's become less focused
on mothers. So it's becomemuch more inclusive in terms of father's
rights, partners rights, allthat kind of thing. I don't know
how much more it will expandbeyond that in terms of pay during
(32:59):
periods of leave, dismissal,protection, that kind of thing. Because
actually I think we got to aposition now where actually is relatively
inclusive. So how much more itexpands beyond that I don't know.
But I do know that we aregoing to have some reforms in our
employment rights bill whichmake those types of leave and rights
more available to a greaterpool of individuals.
(33:20):
Let's watch this space andhope for the best in the best possible
way. I was on an advisoryboard for a university study into
share parental leave and youmight have seen press release but
essentially it found that itjust didn't work, it wasn't taken
up, it was way toocomplicated, wasn't paid enough,
(33:41):
and so on so forth. So havingproperly paid non birthing partner
only leave, I think that wouldbe on my wish list for future governments
loss in the future.
I think that's an interestingpoint because I think it was very
well intentioned sharedparental leave and clearly it has
benefited some people. Butyou're right, it's far too Complicated.
(34:01):
I mean, every time I get askeda question about it by a client,
I have to go back and read itagain. I have to go and read it again.
And that's you as an expert.Right, so how is a normal person
going to deal with it?
Well, quite. Because all theseconditions have to be satisfied depending
on which partner in therelationship you're talking about.
And obviously complicationsarise because the pay. Lots of employers
(34:25):
offer enhanced pay, somedon't. So then you're talking about
statutory only pay and twoemployers having to talk to each
other and work it all out.It's very tricky, and actually really
tricky from individual'sperspective to understand what their
rights are and what works bestfor them in terms of one partner
in the relationship has a moregenerous employer than the other.
(34:47):
How do you kind of work thatsystem? So you get both the best
financial outcome, butprobably more importantly the best
outcome for the children thatare being born into your family or
being adopted.
Absolutely. Obviously allthese laws are in place partly because,
like I said, there's a lot ofdiscrimination out there and we notice
(35:09):
that because we always havepeople applying to the fellowship
who have experienced maternitydiscrimination. So just to say, if
you're listening and thatapplies to you, please apply, because
we have highly, highlysubsidized, essentially free spaces,
I think something like £30 orso instead of £4,000 for a really
brilliant program. So. Andsupport some of the people going
(35:31):
through this horrendousexperience. I'm interested in your
thinking about the globalpicture as well. Sorry, this is also
a question that hasn't been onthe briefing, but I'm just. It just
crossed my mind because thereare obviously countries that do things
slightly differently, not toexpect that, you know, all the laws
(35:52):
globally, but I'm justinterested, are there good practices
that you would love to importfrom abroad or. Not even laws, but,
you know, setups or stuff likethe four day working week or job
shares that we are now doingquite a lot in in the uk. Is there
anything you've come across globally?
I mean, not in terms of sortof family rights and flexible working?
(36:14):
I mean, I. I think actuallythe UK seems to be relatively progressive
on that, although we'd like itto be improved in some ways, you
know, compared to somejurisdictions. Reasonably forward
thinking, I would say. Outsideof that, an interesting discussion
that has been had recently isaround the right to switch off. So
(36:35):
some countries areimplementing this already, whereby
effectively there are periodsof time, let's say for argument's
sake, 7pm to 7am, whereemployees are not expected to respond
to emails, deal with workrelated issues, etc. Etc. And I think
that as a concept is quiteinteresting. I mean, I've heard stories
(36:56):
in the past about very seniorexecutives in big corporations just
suffering from burnout andbasically having to come back and
have these guardrails inplace. And I think in an environment
where people are working fromhome more and there's a tendency
for work to leak into personaltime, so you just end up checking
(37:18):
your emails because you arecontactable a lot more than we were
when I started being a lawyer.And we've all got email, we've all
got personal devices. Andhowever, sometimes I do this, however
much I can shut the door on mystudy here and leave my devices in
here, I will occasionally popin after the kids have gone to bed
(37:39):
just to check that something'sbeing progressed or no one needs
me. And so this kind of rightto switch off sounds like it's not
being going to come into forcein the UK anytime soon perhaps because
some of the other changes arequite significant and the government
maybe feels that it's quitehard for employers to stomach that
as well. But again, it's aninteresting. And I don't want to
(38:01):
come across as sounding likeI'm all for people doing as little
work as possible and, youknow, not putting the hours in or
whatever. I mean, absolutely,they, they should and it's what I
still do. But I do think weneed to treat individuals like grown
ups and allow them to work attimes that best suit them. As long
as you are delivering for youremployer and the clients or whatever
(38:24):
it is that whatever theoutputs your job requires, you should
be able to do that as far aspossible on your own terms.
Agree. But I think to achievethat and to measure whether outputs
have been achieved, you needemployers and directors who are able
to measure those outputs. Evenfor roles that aren't client driven.
I think there is a massiveskills gap there. Just what you're
(38:46):
saying there, it made me thinkof the productivity crisis in the
uk. So UK has one of the worstlevels of productivity in the OECD
and yet works actually reallylong hours. And I think that's interesting
because switching off, there'sresearch that shows that that increases
productivity, actually workingshorter hours increases productivity.
(39:06):
So I think we need to rethinksome of that. Again, like it's to
me, obviously I come fromtraining and development, so I would
say this, but I see it througha skills lens. I see senior directors
not understanding how tocreate productivity.
I think the long Hours culturewhich has developed. I mean, I've
seen it in the legalprofession since I joined. I was
(39:28):
obviously caught up on thathamster wheel for many years myself.
I think it is entirely wrongto assume that the harder you work,
the more effective you willbe. And that is something we have
simply got to get away from.And maybe it will take a fundamental
shift in how people doflexible working to make more people
(39:51):
realize that. I always used tofind just, I mean, just anecdotally
I see this and I used to thinkit was strange working in a law firm,
sometimes working very latehours into night, thinking I am probably
about 30% effective at themoment because I've been sat here
for 15, 16 hours and I've gotmore work ahead of me. How are we
(40:13):
justifying charging this timeto a client where I am nowhere near
as awake or aware as Iprobably was at 9:00 this morning?
It just seemed to be acomplete. There's a complete mismatch
again between input and output.
Absolutely. And just to add tothis, looking at it from a different
sector, there's a research toshow that nurses make a lot more
(40:36):
mistakes towards the end of a12, 13 hour shift, which is quite
regular. And I'm assuming thesame. I haven't seen the data, but
I'm assuming the same is truefor doctors. And I think that's,
that's a real issue. I mean, Idon't want to be operated by someone
who has been at work for 12hours, possibly without a break.
It's a really good point. Andit's those kind of little things,
stuff you might not noticenecessarily, but cumulative. And
(40:58):
you've got a whole bunch ofpeople working together all over,
not, not 100% on their game.That's when stuff slips through the
net, whether it's in themedical profession or elsewhere.
I think, yeah, that's aninteresting point of view. How we
need to create organizationsand work patterns that allows people
to be on the 100% of theirgame as much as possible. We're never
all going to be all the timeon 100%. But how do you create this?
(41:23):
I think that's, that's theimportant question. You talk to employers
all the time secretly, as innot secretly, but as in not. You're
not allowed to say what you'retalking to them. But is there anything
interesting that you can seebubbling up? So I'm quite excited,
as I said, about four day workweek, job jest. Can you see models
that have bubbled up that youthink might Possibly be scaled up
(41:47):
in the future.
I think four day week is areally interesting concept. I feel
slightly biased about thisbecause I've done this for a long
time, albeit not at 100% pay.I have to say my personal experience
is it's worked really well forme and worked really well for the
organisations that I've workedfor and the clients that I've serviced.
So it can work. Can it beapplied across the board, across
(42:10):
sectors and professions? Ithink we need to start from an open
minded position where it canuntil it is shown otherwise. And
I'm really encouraged to seeemployers adopting a trial. You know,
some it will work and some itwon't. And the four day week campaign
I think is a reallyinteresting thing. Obviously a lot
of discussion about how ourcurrent, what we call traditional
(42:33):
work pattern was forged, youknow, way back in history. Is it
right for the modern world ifwe've got all benefits, all this
fantastic technology, why arewe still working? Like we work to
daylight hours and seasons andall this kind of stuff? It doesn't
make any sense, does it? Ithink the thing that I found most
disappointing this is earlythis year, I think there was one
(42:56):
of the local councils inEngland trialed a four day working
week that did not go down wellwith the central government. And
I recall there were someheadlines about them basically being
told to stop it, which Ithought was really interesting because
again, if you're thinkingpurely from a public policy perspective,
what's going to deliver themost value for the taxpayer that
funds that local council? Whyshould we automatically assume that
(43:20):
the people who collect thebins or work in the council offices
or manage the parks can't do abrilliant job on four days a week?
And if they can get round allthe properties in four days and clear
your recycling or whatever itis, then why shouldn't they? Because
then we can manage theresource a lot, a lot better. So
I just thought that was aninteresting. It's an interesting
(43:42):
development. I think it isprogressing quite slowly. But I think
again, the more employees, Ithink that's evidence base that we're
talking about earlier, themore employers try it and find that
it works and implement iteither completely or to a certain
degree, the more word will getout actually this might be the way
forward and we don't have togo back to a world where we're 9
(44:03):
to 5, Monday to Friday andbefore that we only had, you know,
Sunday afternoons off orwhatever it was, and we all work
stupid hours. These thingswork for a reason.
Yeah, I couldn't agree more.And we definitely have to recognize
that it is our thinking aboutwork is so ideology driven even that
there is a separation betweenwork and family. When you had a farm,
(44:24):
the myth in Switzerland isthat when you had a farm you were
always working, but you werealso always. The rest was incorporating
in it. Because they had somany religious holidays, they were
always in the Catholic partespecially. I mean, my mother still
seems to have a day off everymonth just because of some other
saint. And I think thatideology just shapes how we see work
(44:45):
and we need to try to breakfree from that and use evidence base.
So if anybody in the listenersis doing an interesting experiment
around working patterns ortheir organization is doing interesting
stuff, please let us know. Isthere anything else that you really
desperately wanted to discussabout future work that I haven't
asked you about?
(45:06):
No, I don't think so, Rin. Ithink we've had a really interesting
discussion and hopefullyenough there that is sort of, I don't
know, prompted some. Promptingsome of your listeners to sort of
think about things a littlebit differently. I appreciate. And
again, I'm a big advocate forflexible working, whether that's
part time or where you workor, or whatever. I accept it can
(45:28):
be challenging fororganisations as well, you know.
So I'm not just sayingemployers should always agree to
all flexible working requests,however difficult they might be to
accommodate. There is always ascope for a constructive discussion.
And I talk to people who areabout to ask for flexible working.
I always say you should go inand explain to the employer how it
(45:51):
will work for them, not justhow it will work for you. And you're
more likely to convince themat least a trial is worth going for.
So it has to work on bothsides. I just think that these changes
to the law are overall apositive thing.
Absolutely. And a big thankyou to all the employers who are
willingly, fully embracingthis. And I know some of our listeners
(46:12):
are absolutely in HR trying todrive change. Thank you so much,
Dom. It's been an absolutepleasure chatting to you again and
I'll keep thinking of excusesto have conversation with you. It's
always very enjoyable.
Well, I appreciate it.
Yeah. As I alluded to, we dohave two previous podcasts with Dom
in the series where he talksmore about his own personal story
(46:34):
of working flexibly in asenior role. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
I really appreciate youlistening. Thank you so much. And
I always love to hear from ourlisteners. If you want to connect
with me on LinkedIn, just goto Verena Hefti and I'd be delighted
to hear your feedback and yoursuggestions or just have you say
(46:56):
hi. Likewise, if you do feelpassionately about gender equality
and you want to support afemale led podcast, then please do
leave a review and share itwith a friend. Just because at the
moment, podcasting is still avery, very male dominated environment.
Most of the top chargingpodcasts are led by men. I really
(47:18):
love all the people who'vejoined from the podcast our fellowship
program, and if you want to dothe same, then please head over to
leadersplus.org/Fellowship inorder to get access to a community
of support to help you combinean ambitious career with young children
together with people who haveyour back. See you next week.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.