
Monday, 7 April 2025
Ofcom wants UK to be ‘first in Europe’ to use direct-to-device satellite services

Saturday, 5 April 2025
Sky announces 2,000 job cuts
Friday, 21 March 2025
When is workplace chat ‘just gossip’ and when is it ‘sharing information’? It depends who’s doing it
When two junior employees bump into each other in the corridor and start chatting about their manager’s overbearing manner, it’s typically considered gossip. But what about when two managers have an off-record catch-up to discuss an under-performing employee?
Both scenarios meet traditional definitions of gossip – the information being shared is about other people, the people it’s about are absent, the information is shared in a way that casts judgement on those people, and it’s informal. Yet the two situations are viewed very differently.
What counts as gossip is much more slippery than we might think. I reviewed 184 academic articles to understand what really constitutes workplace gossip.
The key, I found, is not any set of objective criteria, but rather people’s shared agreement that a situation counts as gossip.
This understanding of gossip helps us make sense of the “workplace gossip paradox” – the idea that gossip can be considered both a reliable source of social information (“the inside word”) and an unreliable information source (“just gossip”).
My work also provides insights into how businesses can manage gossip before it becomes a scandal.
Knowledge is power – but power controls knowledge
How does recognising the slipperiness of gossip help us understand the workplace gossip paradox? The answer has to do with the role of power in legitimising information.
Leaders and managers need information to justify action. If a manager is going to investigate a sexual harassment claim, they can’t do so based solely on a hunch. They need to hear about it from someone.
If the victim of sexual harassment complains directly to their manager, an investigation is automatically justified. But what if the manager hears about harassment indirectly and unofficially (for example, through “gossip”), with the added complication that the alleged perpetrator is another manager?
If the manager does something about what they’ve heard and the source turns out to be unreliable, they could face negative consequences for acting on what was essentially “just gossip.” But if they don’t act, and the information turns out to be credible, they could face repercussions for ignoring the “inside word.”
There is evidence that such paradoxical situations play out quite frequently in real-world workplaces. For example, inside information about negligence towards patient safety in healthcare settings has, in the past, been dismissed as “just gossip” until it provoked a public scandal.
The same thing happened in a university where gossip shared through a “whisper network” was eventually corroborated by an independent inquiry. In this case, the inquiry also found official complaints had been ignored.
One case study from the United States found managers tended to keep an ear out for information passing through the grapevine and selectively use it to further their own interests.
If gossip threatened their power, they repressed it as “just gossip”. But if gossip provided “useful” information – ammunition against a subversive employee, for example – management legitimised gossip as “official information”.

How to manage the workplace gossip paradox
To avoid scandals stemming from when gossip is ignored, managers might consider “co-opting” gossip, bringing it into official communication channels.
But there’s a problem with this approach. Gossip gains its credibility as the inside word because it takes place outside official communication channels. Therefore, if managers try to co-opt gossip into formal management processes, it’s likely to have the unintended consequence of discrediting the shared information.
Instead, “managing gossip” requires a better understanding of its functions and motivations.
One function is to reduce uncertainty. Research suggests gossip often arises to fill information gaps. For example, people might speculate about a manager’s salary by gossiping about their expensive car or holiday.
Such gossip is likely to be exaggerated and counterproductive. However, it could be managed simply by being transparent about staff salaries, filling the information gap before gossip does.
Another key function of gossip is to warn against antisocial behaviours like bullying. But if employees feel comfortable speaking up about such behaviour — even when it’s perpetrated by those with official power – managers will not face the dilemma of whether to act on information that could turn out to be “just gossip.”
Gossip is a slippery and paradoxical form of communication. Some would say it’s unmanageable. But what can be managed are the workplace behaviours and hierarchical relationships that gossip loves to sink its teeth into.
The author would like to acknowledge Trish Corner, Helena Cooper-Thomas and Rachel Morrison for their contributions to developing this research.
James Greenslade-Yeats, Research Fellow in Management, Auckland University of Technology
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Wednesday, 19 March 2025
After a century of Monday to Friday, could the 4-day week finally be coming to Australia?
The reality of shorter working hours could be one step closer for many Australians, pending the outcome of the federal election.
The Greens, who could control crucial cross bench votes in a hung parliament, have announced plans for a four-day working week, with no loss of pay. They say the policy would alleviate stress and burn out, and increase women’s participation in the workforce.
Earning the same money for fewer hours would appeal to most workers. But is it too good to be true? Could it really be rolled out cost free to all workplaces, especially to “client facing” companies and service providers?
Or does research suggest the Greens could be onto something?
The Greens’ plan
The Greens’ policy would involve a new National Institute for the Four Day Work Week and a test case through the Fair Work Commission.
A series of national trials would be set up in a number of different industries, whereby workers would work 80% of their normal hours, while maintaining 100% of their pay.
According to Greens Senator Barbara Pocock, it’s a win-win for everyone:
It can increase productivity, reduce absenteeism, improve recruitment and retention and give employees more time to manage their home life. This change will allow workers to create a working week that works for them.
The 100:80:100 model
The four-day work week being proposed in this instance is commonly regarded as the 100:80:100 model.
It delivers 100% of the pay, for 80% of the hours, in return for maintaining 100% of productivity.
This is unlike other forms of shorter working weeks, which compress five days’ worth of work into four longer days. This obviously disadvantages some employees.
Recent research conducted by Swinburne University of Technology involved interviews with ten Australian firms that have already adopted the 100:80:100 model.
They were a mixture of small and medium sized private sector businesses, including management consulting firms, a shipping and logistics company, and recruitment and marketing agencies.
The research underlined the potential for a range of positive outcomes for both employers and employees.
Workers reported having better work-life balance, more time to complete “life administration” tasks, and more time to invest in hobbies, exercise, wellness and self-care. Bosses cited productivity gains, reduced sick days, and significant improvements in recruitment and retention rates.
However, the 100:80:100 model is viewed with scepticism in some quarters. There is still doubt that productivity and output would be maintained, or in some cases improved, when workers are working one day fewer per week.
Also, there could be costs associated with the implementation of this work model for front-line roles, such as retail, schools, hospitals and nursing homes. Additional workers may need to be hired, at extra expense, to cover the hours dropped by the existing workforce.
100 years of working 5 days a week
The year 2026 will mark the 100th anniversary of the five-day work week.
It was car maker Henry Ford who reduced the working week in the United States from six days to five. Other sectors and countries followed suit. This was at a time when the average life expectancy of Australian workers was just 55 and households typically only had one bread-winner.
Despite the time saved by the many technological breakthroughs in the past 100 years – from the photocopier, desktop computer and fax machine, to the internet, mobile phones and AI – the average Australian is now working longer hours in paid and unpaid labour than ever before.
The Greens point out Australian society is changing. More women and carers are either in the workforce or would be encouraged into the workforce by more flexible arrangements:
yet we are constrained by archaic labour laws that see the fruits of our efforts swallowed up in profits for bosses and shareholders.
The role of generative AI technologies in the workplace may also deliver benefits to workers. Separate Swinburne research has revealed an increasing expectation among workers that they will receive a share in the time saved by future technologies in the form of improved work-life balance and wellbeing gains.
Time to enter the 21st century
Earlier this year, 200 UK companies signed up to the 100:80:100 model, as part of a campaign to “reinvent Britain’s working week”. Large scale trials are also underway in Canada and several European countries.
The global interest in a shorter working week is not surprising, and has likely been fuelled by the COVID pandemic, which has caused workers and employers to re-imagine their working lives.
If the Greens are in a position to leverage any balance of power after the coming election, it could be Australia’s turn to recognise the conventional five-day working week is no longer fit for purpose.
John L. Hopkins, Associate Professor of Management, Swinburne University of Technology
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Friday, 7 February 2025
Leema clinches South Asian Business Excellence Award

Thursday, 6 February 2025
WEF 2025: Infosys to expand Hyderabad campus, create 17,000 jobs
Hyderabad, (IANS): IT major Infosys Limited will expand its presence in Hyderabad to create 17,000 jobs.
Monday, 27 January 2025
Is linking time in the office to career success the best way to get us back to work?
Working from home introduced in response to the harsh pandemic lockdowns in 2020 was expected to be a short term arrangement with staff returning to the office as soon as restrictions were lifted.
Yet, almost four years later, most office workers are still following hybrid arrangements - splitting their week between home and office, with no plans to return full-time to the workplace anytime soon.
In what some employees consider an aggressive move by their bosses to get them back where they can be seen, some companies are now linking office attendance to pay, bonuses and even promotions.
It pays, for some, to return to the office
Linking office attendance with pay has taken off after Citibank workers in the UK were told last September their bonuses could be affected if they didn’t work a minimum of three days per week from the office.
In Australia Origin and Suncorp, have done the same thing, as has ANZ where staff are required to work at least half their hours – averaged over a calendar month – in the office.
If these conditions are not met, it may be taken into consideration in performance and remuneration reviews at the end of the next year.
“If you are one of our people who are yet to be spending more than half your time in the workplace, we need you to adjust your patterns unless you have a formal exception in place,” an internal email to ANZ staff said.
In the US, Amazon has told corporate employees they may miss out on promotion if they ignore the company’s return-to-office mandate, which requires employees to be in the office at least three days a week.
A post on Amazon’s internal website viewed by CNBC said:
Managers own the promotion process, which means it is their responsibility to support your growth through regular conversations and stretch assignments, and to complete all the required inputs for a promotion
If your role is expected to work from the office 3+ days a week and you are not in compliance, your manager will be made aware and VP approval will be required.
Not everyone is happy
To say the reaction to these measures has been divisive is an understatement. Up to now, some hybrid work arrangements may have been ill-defined, and employee expectations confusing.

The messaging offered here is clear, employees know what is expected of them in terms of office attendance, and the repercussions they may face if they don’t meet those expectations.
And it’s important to remember that these initiatives are only aimed at incentivising workers to attend the office for part of the week, typically 2-3 days out of 5, which still represents a significant flexibility gain compared to what these firms offered before the pandemic.
Is showing up the best measure of performance?
However, critics have raised concerns that linking attendance to pay could hurt high achievers who don’t meet their in-office quotas - will they miss out on bonuses or a promotion simply because they don’t show up to the office enough, regardless of how well they are doing their job otherwise?
Is office attendance really that important, compared to other performance and outcome metrics, and will employees feel they are being treated like school children?
There are also fears about the impact strict attendance requirements will have on diversity, with women, parents, and people with neurodiverse needs more likely to favour a higher proportion of remote working.
Additionally, monitoring and managing attendance creates additional work for managers, and could lead to regular awkward conversations about attendance expectations.
Measuring office attendance may not be as simple as it first sounds either.
If an employee is required to maintain an average of 50% office attendance and they are invited to visit a client interstate for a day, or travel overseas to present at a conference, do these count as “in office days” or “WFH” days? This needs to be established and communicated to staff in writing.
One-size doesn’t fit all
With hybrid work arrangements there is no one right or wrong strategy. Different companies will take different approaches, based on the specific needs of their particular organisation and staff, and only time will tell how successful their respective strategies prove to be.
What we can be certain of is the fact hybrid work will not be disappearing anytime soon, so the focus for 2024 needs to be how to make this arrangement as efficient as possible, rather than trying to turn the clock back to 2019.
John L. Hopkins, Associate professor, Swinburne University of Technology
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Thursday, 16 January 2025
Inauguration of World’s Largest 2nd Gen. Ethanol Plant Will Cut Emissions by 30% with Sugar Cane

Wednesday, 1 January 2025
Drug companies pay doctors over A$11 million a year for travel and education. Here’s which specialties received the most

Drug companies are paying Australian doctors millions of dollars a year to fly to overseas conferences and meetings, give talks to other doctors, and to serve on advisory boards, our research shows.
Our team analysed reports from major drug companies, in the first comprehensive analysis of its kind. We found drug companies paid more than A$33 million to doctors in the three years from late 2019 to late 2022 for these consultancies and expenses.
We know this underestimates how much drug companies pay doctors as it leaves out the most common gift – food and drink – which drug companies in Australia do not declare.
Due to COVID restrictions, the timescale we looked at included periods where doctors were likely to be travelling less and attending fewer in-person medical conferences. So we suspect current levels of drug company funding to be even higher, especially for travel.
What we did and what we found
Since 2019, Medicines Australia, the trade association of the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, has published a centralised database of payments made to individual health professionals. This is the first comprehensive analysis of this database.
We downloaded the data and matched doctors’ names with listings with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra). We then looked at how many doctors per medical specialty received industry payments and how much companies paid to each specialty.
We found more than two-thirds of rheumatologists received industry payments. Rheumatologists often prescribe expensive new biologic drugs that suppress the immune system. These drugs are responsible for a substantial proportion of drug costs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).
The specialists who received the most funding as a group were cancer doctors (oncology/haematology specialists). They received over $6 million in payments.
This is unsurprising given recently approved, expensive new cancer drugs. Some of these drugs are wonderful treatment advances; others offer minimal improvement in survival or quality of life.
A 2023 study found doctors receiving industry payments were more likely to prescribe cancer treatments of low clinical value.
Our analysis found some doctors with many small payments of a few hundred dollars. There were also instances of large individual payments.
Why does all this matter?
Doctors usually believe drug company promotion does not affect them. But research tells a different story. Industry payments can affect both doctors’ own prescribing decisions and those of their colleagues.
A US study of meals provided to doctors – on average costing less than US$20 – found the more meals a doctor received, the more of the promoted drug they prescribed.

Another study found the more meals a doctor received from manufacturers of opioids (a class of strong painkillers), the more opioids they prescribed. Overprescribing played a key role in the opioid crisis in North America.
Overall, a substantial body of research shows industry funding affects prescribing, including for drugs that are not a first choice because of poor effectiveness, safety or cost-effectiveness.
Then there are doctors who act as “key opinion leaders” for companies. These include paid consultants who give talks to other doctors. An ex-industry employee who recruited doctors for such roles said:
Key opinion leaders were salespeople for us, and we would routinely measure the return on our investment, by tracking prescriptions before and after their presentations […] If that speaker didn’t make the impact the company was looking for, then you wouldn’t invite them back.
We know about payments to US doctors
The best available evidence on the effects of pharmaceutical industry funding on prescribing comes from the US government-run program called Open Payments.
Since 2013, all drug and device companies must report all payments over US$10 in value in any single year. Payment reports are linked to the promoted products, which allows researchers to compare doctors’ payments with their prescribing patterns.
Analysis of this data, which involves hundreds of thousands of doctors, has indisputably shown promotional payments affect prescribing.

US research also shows that doctors who had studied at medical schools that banned students receiving payments and gifts from drug companies were less likely to prescribe newer and more expensive drugs with limited evidence of benefit over existing drugs.
In general, Australian medical faculties have weak or no restrictions on medical students seeing pharmaceutical sales representatives, receiving gifts, or attending industry-sponsored events during their clinical training. They also have no restrictions on academic staff holding consultancies with manufacturers whose products they feature in their teaching.
So a first step to prevent undue pharmaceutical industry influence on prescribing decisions is to shelter medical students from this influence by having stronger conflict-of-interest policies, such as those mentioned above.
A second is better guidance for individual doctors from professional organisations and regulators on the types of funding that is and is not acceptable. We believe no doctor actively involved in patient care should accept payments from a drug company for talks, international travel or consultancies.
Third, if Medicines Australia is serious about transparency, it should require companies to list all payments – including those for food and drink – and to link health professionals’ names to their Ahpra registration numbers. This is similar to the reporting standard pharmaceutical companies follow in the US and would allow a more complete and clearer picture of what’s happening in Australia.
Patients trust doctors to choose the best available treatments to meet their health needs, based on scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness. They don’t expect marketing to influence that choice.
Barbara Mintzes, Professor, School of Pharmacy and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney and Malcolm Forbes, Consultant psychiatrist and PhD candidate, Deakin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Monday, 11 November 2024
Amazon invests in X-energy, unveils SMR project plans

Friday, 11 October 2024
Doyen of India Inc, Tata Group's Ratan Tata passes away
Sunday, 6 October 2024
Malabar Group announces $1.9 million in scholarships for more than 21,000 female students in India
Saturday, 21 September 2024
India moving in right direction to become global chip hub: Industry players

Thursday, 29 August 2024
Revealed: Top 5 Office Colours for Enhanced Workplace Success
- Functionality First: Align the colour with the purpose of the space – calming tones for focus, energetic colours for creativity.
- Light and Size Matters: Consider natural light and room size; lighter colours for spaciousness and openness, darker for coziness.
- Brand Identity: Reflect corporate branding to enhance recognition and create a cohesive visual identity.
- Employee Preferences: Include employee feedback to ensure the colour choice resonates with the people working in the space, promoting a more comfortable and productive environment.
- Sage green is also known to symbolize growth and renewal, making it a positive and refreshing colour choice for a productive workspace.
- Light Blue: Light blue is a popular colour for offices as it promotes a sense of calm and stability. This shade of blue is known for its calming effects on the mind, helping to reduce stress and anxiety. It is often associated with clear skies and peaceful oceans, creating a serene backdrop for focused work. Light blue is also linked to feelings of trust and reliability, fostering a sense of security in the workplace. Incorporating this colour into your office can contribute to a harmonious and balanced environment.
- Soft Grey: Soft grey is a versatile and sophisticated colour choice for an office, promoting a calm and neutral atmosphere. This neutral shade allows for easy pairing with other colours and provides a timeless backdrop that doesn’t overwhelm the senses. Gray is associated with balance and focus, making it an ideal choice for a workspace where concentration is essential. It also symbolizes a sense of composure and can create a professional and calming environment.
- Pale Yellow: Pale yellow is a gentle and uplifting colour that can bring a sense of warmth and positivity to an office or workspace. This soft hue is associated with happiness and optimism, making it an excellent choice for creating a cheerful atmosphere. Pale yellow can help stimulate creativity and foster a sense of energy without being overly stimulating. It symbolizes clarity of thought and a sunny disposition, contributing to a space that feels inviting and comfortable. Incorporating pale yellow into your office can enhance the overall ambiance, promoting a balance between calmness and a positive work environment.
- Muted Lavender: Muted lavender is a subtle and elegant colour that adds a touch of warmth and serenity to an office. This soft purple hue is known for its calming and soothing properties, making it an excellent choice for a workspace. Lavender is often associated with relaxation and mindfulness, creating a pleasant environment for concentration and creativity. This colour can also symbolize introspection and balance, contributing to a harmonious and calming workspace Revealed: Top 5 Office Colours for Enhanced Workplace Success
Wednesday, 21 August 2024
Mental Health Awareness Month: Managing Workplace Stressors
- Performance issues and notable declines or inconsistencies in work
- Mistakes and errors arising in work outputs
- Diminished motivation and commitment
- Frequent forgetfulness
- SignsMood shifts and irritability
- Over-reactions to minor issues
- Difficulty in getting along with colleagues
- Decreased social interaction
- Frequent absences
- Arriving late to work
- Increased criticism of colleagues
- Difficulty in relaxing and defining boundaries between personal and work life
- Neglecting personal appearance and hygiene
- Fatigue and persistent tiredness
- Headaches related to work tensions
- Detach Psychologically from Work: Dedicate time daily to engage in activities unrelated to work (like video games, reading, or cooking) to mentally disconnect and facilitate relaxation.
- Utilise Micro-Breaks: Schedule brief, frequent breaks during the workday to stretch, hydrate, or have a quick social interaction, which can help rejuvenate your focus and energy.
- Choose Preferred Recovery Activities: Opt for activities that genuinely interest you during breaks or downtime, whether it’s a solo hobby or relaxing in a way that suits you, to maximise the benefits of recovery.
- Engage in High-Energy Recovery Activities: Participate in activities that require more dedication and focus, such as exercise, learning new skills, or volunteering. These can replenish your energy and improve your work performance after recovery.
- Optimise Your Environment: Enhance your workplace with elements of nature, open windows for fresh air, take walks in nearby parks, or use nature imagery to boost recovery and reduce stress.
- Incorporating Meditation: Regular meditation can reduce cortisol levels by 25%, limit mind wandering, and be more aware of your well-being.
- Nutrition for Brain Health: Include brain foods in your diet such as proteins, Omega-3 fatty acids, B vitamins, and Vitamin D for optimal brain functioning.
- Adequate Sleep: Ensure sufficient sleep to restore brain health and reduce stress.