Should companies be required to have women in the boardroom? They should, according to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). Companies would have to report how they've complied with their internal quotas that address this inequality.

Women are woefully underrepresented in high-level positions across the UK. Their absence leaves them out of major company-wide decisions. They are missing out in how the company is run, and organisations lack higher-level opinions from women.

These numbers aren't changing. There are 135 female directors out of 1,076 people on the FTSE 100 boards; in other words, 12%. In 2009, there were 12.2% and 12% in 2008.

However, women are not absent in the workforce. Women represent nearly half of full-time employees and the gender pay gap is slowly disappearing (but it's not gone).

This decision has even broader implications for how companies are run. With a forced quota, companies will have a suitable number of female board members, but their credibility may be undermined.

Another view is business as usual - board members are elected based on merit, right? Are there not enough qualified women, few qualified women in senior positions, or is there something else at work here? Electing people for senior, decision-making positions has led to a gender imbalance in representation - even if they are qualified.

It seems that these options - quota or credibility - have drawbacks. Is there an alternative?

Performance management: post-recession review is an in-depth analysis of private sector employees’ views based on the ETS Employee Benchmark Database. The data is enriched with insights from ETS Business Psychologists.

The report focuses on three industries – Leisure, Professional Services and Manufacturing - that have undergone significant changes during and after the global economic downturn.

The review found that employees’ views are changing in the post-recession era:

Will your phone be switched on come Christmas day? If so, you won’t be the only one.

Over one third of HR professionals will not be switching off their phone during the Christmas holidays, according to an ETS poll. Does this mean that employees are more dedicated, or is there a culture of working longer?

What’s clear is that the UK workforce has been working harder, longer hours and taking fewer breaks. Taking it easy isn’t an option: there are few jobs openings and a growing unemployed population eager to snatch up any open position. Employees don’t have the opportunity to switch to a job with more reasonable hours. We are still in an economy where people need to hold onto the jobs they have.

However, the greater demands and longer hours at work are taking a toll; more people would like to work less. 40% of HR professionals cite a better work-life balance as their New Year’s resolution, according to the recent ETS research.

Working long hours isn’t good for us health-wise – but is it good for business? The shift to a long-hours culture is slowly returning, which suggests a healthier economy, according to the working hours in the recession analysis by the CIPD. But are extended hours good for individuals? Research suggests that people who work longer hours make more mistakes and aren’t as productive as those who work less.

Maybe it’s time to evaluate how to achieve greater staff productivity with less strain on employees. At the very least, we should replace the BlackBerry with Christmas pudding on the big day.

50% of HR professionals find job candidates with private sector backgrounds to be less attractive than those from the public sector, according to a recent ETS survey. Public sector workers seeking private sector employment are faced with challenges: their skills and capabilities may not be valued and they will compete those who are cut during the Comprehensive Spending Review.

It seems that HR professionals are concerned with the backgrounds of public sector candidates, and they’re not alone: 22% of public sector jobseekers worry that their past experience will put them at a disadvantage, according to the recent research from Hays.

The Comprehensive Spending Review redundancies will force hundreds of thousands of public sector employees to enter the job market. 85% of these job seekers are considering applying for employment in the public sector.

Private sector recruiters are reluctant to accept candidates from the public sector. 90% of employers believe that public sector experience is “not very important”, and that candidates need to better convey their skill set.

However, there is some good news. 40% of HR professionals from private sector companies believe that a candidate’s skillset determines their employability, not their sector background, according to the recent ETS survey. To be competitive in the job search, candidates must effectively convey their skills and competencies.

There seems to be a stigma attached to public sector, which both sectors need to overcome.

As we are slowly coming out of a global recession, when many businesses are rebuilding and many people are struggling to find jobs, I feel that I must reflect on how we define what it means to be ‘successful’. Is success personal or is it professional? Can it be measured numerically or is it more qualitative?

We all have different goals which drive us: whether it’s money or the ability to learn, to be able to grow in responsibility, to contribute to others, or to be recognized for your work. For some, a large pay check may be the ultimate objective, while for others, to be able to work in a job that they enjoy – regardless of the salary – may be the definition of success.

Measuring success is an essential metric within organisational growth, as well with personal development. However, the two may be connected. Are successful employees more engaged employees? If so, do engaged employees boost the achievements of the company?

There is a lot of research about the link between employee engagement and the success of the company – but what is the link? Towers Watson’s recent review of employee engagement argues that if employers embed targeted engagement processes with their companies’ culture, this creates engaged employees, which then leads to improved organisational performance.

It seems the key to success for an organisation is to figure out what drives employees, and to adjust to their preferences.

I believe that I see the link: if employees are successful, then the company has a stronger performance.

Even though work can be stressful, I am thankful to be employed. Many people are jobless and could be facing long-term unemployment.

One of the trends that I have recognised recently is the number of university graduates who are either seeking work, or have taken low-paid employment in sectors that don’t require a degree.

Why is this still happening? Are there not enough jobs or are there too many people without the right skills?

Young people applying for graduate schemes are typically competing with 1,000 other applicants for one spot. Now, with the Public Sector Spending Review, unemployed graduates will be up against those who have been made redundant during the cuts. Graduates who may not have the long-term experience or the right skills will have the challenge of facing an additional 500,000 to 775,000 jobseekers.

A potential “double-dip recession”, as a result of the Review, could be another obstacle for job hunters.

Ironically, the public sector is one of the few industries recruiting graduates.

One in 11 graduates are jobless six months after leaving university – the highest rate in 17 years – according to the Higher Education Careers Services Unit. Many businesses aren’t hiring (or if they are, there are few spots open).

The TUC has a bleak outlook on employment: long-term redundancy is likely to continue for people ages 18 to 24. The number of job vacancies is declining, and currently, there are five people for every one job opening.

Even though the outlook is uncertain, it is not fixed: companies may start to invest in growth strategies that will bolster their graduate schemes.

Is now the time that companies could be taking advantage of hiring highly skilled workers for less?

60% of HR professionals agree that the Comprehensive Spending Review will have an impact on their business and over a third, according to a recent ETS survey. The Spending Review is the controversial austerity measure put forth by the coalition government, which will result in large-scale public sector redundancies.

The estimation of losses in public sector jobs fluctuates – depending on who you talk to: the CIPD estimates estimates that total number of public sector jobs losses by 2014-15 will be around 750,000, while the coalition government suggests that the losses will amount to 490,000. However, the Spending Review will add about 75,000 adult apprenticeships each year, until the end of the Review.

It seems that those who lose their jobs in the public sector will be able to shift to the private sector. Who will this bill affect the most – and who will benefit?

Some sectors will be able to recover more rapidly, such as Finance, Media and HR. However, the ETS study found all sectors will experience the reform: a quarter of business project an impact on their client base, resulting from a budget tightening and client base restructuring.

However, there is good news: all of the HR professionals surveyed by ETS – across sectors such as Finance, IT, Retail, Luxury – reveal that they will be hiring in the next quarter.

Regardless of what sector you operate in, this Review will alter previous business practices. Large-scale redundancies will impact not only jobs, but the moral of the company. Investing in measures the target employee engagement is more important now than ever before.

It is too soon to know how these changes will affect business. We’ll have to wait and see.

There are a lot of debates out there regarding 360-degree feedback. Which is better: anonymous or face-to-face assessment? Should 360s be used to inform performance appraisal or to assist employee development? Is an annual process beneficial or are ad hoc 360s better?

Or, most importantly: does 360 degree feedback really make a difference, or is it just another ‘soft’ HR practice?

360-degree feedback, also known as multi-rater feedback, is a method in which colleagues, managers and sometimes customers assess an individual’s performance through direct reports, face-to-face conversations and online performance management systems.

This procedure is a strategic organisational process that enhances employee engagement, promotes retention and develops the individual’s skills and competencies.

The recent studyconducted by ETS examined responses from 100 private-sector HR directors and managers from blue-chip UK and international companies and firms regarding their perceptions and uses of 360-degree feedback. The results indicate that some of the ‘traditional’ practices are changing:

However, measuring employees is not enough to generate positive change; instead, there needs to be a follow-up programme. The ETS study found that the best support is provided by a coach. Internal or external coaches help the individuals to interpret the feedback, plan performance and to behave in ways that are valued by the organisation. In my practice, I find that feedback workshops and follow-up 360s have significant benefits also.

According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, performance improvement is a continuous process, not a one-time event. In order to be effective, several support structures are needed.

So, to answer my earlier question: yes, 360-degree feedback does matter, but only if it is supported beyond the measurement process.

There are a lot of debates out there regarding 360-degree feedback. Which is better: anonymous or face-to-face assessment? Should 360s be used to inform performance appraisal or to assist employee development? Is an annual process beneficial or are ad hoc 360s better?

Or, most importantly: does 360 degree feedback really make a difference, or is it just another ‘soft’ HR practice?

360-degree feedback, also known as multi-rater feedback, is a method in which colleagues, managers and sometimes customers assess an individual’s performance through direct reports, face-to-face conversations and online performance management systems.

This procedure is a strategic organisational process that enhances employee engagement, promotes retention and develops the individual’s skills and competencies.

The recent studyconducted by ETS examined responses from 100 private-sector HR directors and managers from blue-chip UK and international companies and firms regarding their perceptions and uses of 360-degree feedback. The results indicate that some of the ‘traditional’ practices are changing:

However, measuring employees is not enough to generate positive change; instead, there needs to be a follow-up programme. The ETS study found that the best support is provided by a coach. Internal or external coaches help the individuals to interpret the feedback, plan performance and to behave in ways that are valued by the organisation. In my practice, I find that feedback workshops and follow-up 360s have significant benefits also.

According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, performance improvement is a continuous process, not a one-time event. In order to be effective, several support structures are needed.

So, to answer my earlier question: yes, 360-degree feedback does matter, but only if it is supported beyond the measurement process.

The Equality Act came into force on 1st October. This Act is one of many forms of legislation addressing the gender pay gap. The UK has had legislation protecting against the pay gap since the 1970s, but research shows that very little has changed.

Will this Act protect against discrimination based on gender?

According to the Government Equalities Office, women are paid less than men: 21% less in hourly pay and 13% for those working full time. In Finance or IT, full-time women earn less than half of the pay of men in the same positions.

Similarly, a study published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found some shocking patterns in unequal pay. Full-time female employees earn, on average, one fifth of the annual incentive pay (bonuses) of the men in the same sector.

There are many reasons why the pay gap - more like the abyss - in the UK persists: different career ambitions, flexible hours, childcare, job segregation, and many more. However, can these factors still justify the pay gap?

'How Fair is Britain?', the recent compilation of evidence-based discrimination in Britain, found that as Britain becomes more diverse - ethnically and religiously - new forms of inequality are emerging. Women are more likely to go to university than men by a ratio of 4:3 and are more likely to receive a first-class or upper second-class degree, but they tend to pursue courses which lead to poorer paid careers.

Hopefully, this new Act will be the catalyst for real changes in work-based inequality. However, I must pose the question: do we need more regulation, or tangible social change within the workplace?

This inequality causes me to reflect on the link between pay and motivation: can we expect women to be as engaged as their male colleagues if their work isn't valued the same?

While we all deserve the chance to fulfil our potential, we also deserve to be fairly compensated for our time.