Here are three simple but important tips to keep morale and productivity high.

1. Be approachable, listen carefully and seek input: keep your door open (metaphorically) and make time for each person so he or she feels like a valued team member
2. Invest in staff development: provide your employees with opportunities to study or take on extra responsibilities and watch them grow professionally and personally
3. Give regular feedback in a constructive format: get into the habit of letting your staff know if and how they’re doing a good (or perhaps not-so-good) job – and don’t just save it up for the annual performance review.

So that’s the tried-and-true and, we hope, fairly intuitive approach to engaging staff. But what about the really little things that don’t require a whole lot of planning and don’t sound like much in isolation but can really make a difference on a minute-by-minute (rather than quarterly) basis? How about:

• Buying your employee a coffee to get them going if you know they’ve come in early to meet a tight deadline for you
• Letting your employee go home early … just because
• Paying for your employees’ parking in a secure facility so they don’t have to walk a long way to their on-the-street park in the dark
• Bringing in a cake for morning tea
• Making a long weekend out of Cup Day by giving your team the Monday as well as the public holiday Tuesday off (only applies to Melbournites I’m afraid)
• Sending a drinks trolley around on Friday afternoon
• Acquiring a company bike for the team to share to help them get errands done in their lunch hour or to travel to nearby meetings …

We’d love to hear what other ideas you’ve got (we might even steal a few of them!).

Brandy Munro is a Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, a business-to-business communications agency that knows how to engage, inform and inspire from the inside out.

So garbles Swedish pop star Kesha. No, I’m not at a concert singing along to what I consider to be a finely crafted piece of poetry. Instead, I’m at work and this delightful ring tone has alerted its owner, and the rest of the office, to the fact that she has an incoming call.

Luckily for me, I don’t mind hearing this catchy chorus pierce the room at random times throughout the day … yet. Actually, I admit (somewhat ashamedly) that I hum to the beat while my head shakes rhythmically. Or at least I like to think it does. And although highly unlikely, I also delight in imagining that the toes of my fellow office dwellers are tapping in unison across the whole room.

However, when the request goes out for some Barry Manilow to be played on the communal iPod, I have to draw the line. That’s right, there it is: a solid line right down the middle of our office. Take that.

Thus starts the debate over open versus closed. Office plans that is. Music and mobile phones are just two examples on a long list of things about which workmates may have wildly divergent views. As is the smell of last night’s Indian takeaway wafting through the room, enough to bring back to reality those who dare to daydream. Then there are the varying degrees of desk tidiness – a conversation favourite in our office, predictably resulting in those who are not bound by the laws of order and structure protesting that they are simply demonstrating the benefits of ‘creative’ organisation to the rest of us. Hmmm, I’m not quite sold on that one.

Interest in this topic was recently renewed when a study by Queensland University of Technology reported that open-plan offices are a health hazard. The findings included high stress levels, high staff absenteeism and turnover, increased workplace conflict, reduced concentration levels, lack of privacy, greater spread of infectious diseases and lowered productivity in 90 per cent of the research conducted. Despite the fact that the majority of offices are now open plan, the study recommended a return to the past. Back to those enclosed, small, private offices of yesteryear.

Of course, there are a number of reasons why open-plan offices became so popular in the first place. They can promote communication, teamwork, a communal work environment and improved workflow. Gone are the barriers separating senior management from junior employees. And having fewer walls is also kinder on that all-important bottom line, with cheaper office fit-outs, higher worker density and reduced energy bills.

But does it really need to be one or the other? Providing a safe, happy and productive office setting is definitely important. How a business reaches this ideal isn’t necessarily as obvious. Could it be possible that a mix of both open and closed is the way to go? There’s probably no right or wrong answer – it’s just a matter of getting the fit (and fit-out) right for the individual workplace.

My experience? Well, I’m happy to say that I’m firmly entrenched in the minority here. I thoroughly enjoy the open-plan office that I inhabit with others for hours each weekday. A great mix of personalities sees extroverts, introverts and those in between drawing out the best in each other. It doesn’t hurt that everyone seems to have a similar work ethic and knows what has to get done. But there’s also a lot of laughter and a genuine feeling of being part of a team. Nobody here is withering away in isolation. However, I will concede that not everything is perfect and in reality a few lessons on office etiquette wouldn’t go astray. So, any ideas on how to break it to a colleague that Barry Manilow is best appreciated in private?

Brandy Munro is a Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, a business-to-business communications agency where diversity (displayed to its fullest in an open-plan space) breeds creativity.

Some say things have improved for the better, others that this is the beginning of the end. And if you can’t be bothered reading the rest of this article because the internet has shortened your concentration span (as discussed by Nick Carr in his online article ‘Is Google Making Us Stupid?’), in summary it doesn’t matter which corner you sit in because there is no turning back. Resistance is futile.

If you google ‘How much information is on the internet?’ 234,000,000 hits come up in 0.26 seconds. That’s a lot of zeroes. (In comparison, try ‘Internet information overload’ for a paltry 1,280,000 results.) Online information is ballooning at the seams like an overfed – albeit questionably nourished – sumo wrestler. And the quality of the web’s countless websites and links is, to put it mildly, heterogeneous; valuable and useful online content is girt by absolute rubbish. Want to see some examples of the latter? Try Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopaedia, or www.mostannoyingwebpage.com (honestly not worth your time but I know curiosity will get the better of you).

Further interesting facts about this information situation can be found at www.cartridgesave.co.uk. According to this website, it would take a single ink-jet printer 3,805 years to print everything on the internet and then you would have to spend 57,000 years (non-stop) to read through it all. Such figures are both amazing and frightening at the same time.

So why does it matter? Isn’t bigger better? Well, to put it in perspective, data gathered in the US by research firm Basex showed that information overload cost the country US$900 billion in lost productivity during 2008 – and the figure continues to rise. Tackle this issue effectively and the savings could be significant.

Ah, if only it were that simple.

Navigating the internet without getting bogged down or distracted can be hard. The signal-to-noise ratio is on an upward spiral. There’s so much stuff to surf, oops I mean, search, before you find what you are actually looking for. A number of resources are available that purport to help you take back control. Some of these cost an exorbitant amount but there is also plenty of free advice. The only thing is: who has the time to go through each of the 827,000 hits to see which ones are worth reading? I certainly don’t.

But if everybody could become just that little bit more efficient at using this ever-expanding database, the potential benefits are not hard to imagine – and they extend well beyond the office or the boardroom. People might be able to leave work on schedule, spend more time with the family, see a play, go out for dinner, read a book, bake a cake, take the dog for a walk and generally enjoy the little things in life. The human race might reconnect. Remember that?

The internet is both friend and foe, but the bottom line is it’s here to stay. So the question is do we grimace or rejoice at the information it provides? My approach? I throw my hands behind my head, lean back and enjoy the ride – especially when I’m booking a holiday with little more than a wave of my hand. I accept that I cannot and should not try to use everything on the internet, and instead appreciate what I can do with it. Finally, I repeat the following mantra: ‘viva la internet!’ If you’ve got a better idea, I’d love to hear it.

Brandy Munro is a vet turned writer at WellmarkPerspexa, with 142,000 Google hits to her name.

So where does brand fit in relation to CSR and sustainability reporting? Dr Stephen Downes, Principal of market research and brand strategy firm, QBrand Consulting, recently shared his views on this topic at a corporate reporting open-day event organised by WellmarkPerspexa.

Firstly, what is a brand? According to Dr Downes, what he described as the neuro-psycho-cultural brand paradigm views a brand as:

• a network of associations in the mind of the customer
• a cultural icon with symbolic social meaning
• having specific structural and biochemical correlates in the brain.

Under each of these conceptualisations, brands shape customer attitudes, perceptions, expectations and behaviour – whether rational or irrational, tangible or intangible, conscious or unconscious, he said. ‘And it’s important to realise that customers can’t, and often won’t, separate what’s happening with CSR and sustainability reporting from everything else they see, hear and know about a brand.’

Dr Downes explained that CSR reporting has often been used inappropriately, and even cynically, as disposable packaging, a cost of doing business, brand ‘insurance’ or economic self-interest. ‘The concepts of “greenwashing” and “necessary evil” are self-evidently insincere and can’t build sustainable brand resonance. Viewing CSR as brand “insurance” positions it as a grudge purchase to counter future problems. And, while economic self-interest at least recognises that CSR is positive for business, it fails to understand the leverage that comes from doing things that are good for the bottom line and good for the brand in the long run,’ he said. These usages, Dr Downes continued, do not lend themselves to making the brand look authentic or credible. ‘CSR reports provide a real opportunity to capture more about the brand, but many companies don’t recognise this.’

CSR has the most to offer, in terms of brand building, when it reflects something deep about the brand’s character and its values, according to Dr Downes. ‘The reporting should genuinely reflect what the brand believes in, what it stands for, what it will fight for. Brand values can’t simply be conjured up, created by a brand consultant or borrowed from a celebrity endorser. You can’t just add a new logo with a new set of values attached, as some companies mistakenly try to do.

‘Authentic brand values have to be about life, about society, about big-picture issues, about the world. They shouldn’t just be about the company,’ said Dr Downes. ‘But that’s the problem with many global corporations – it’s all about them. They should be telling people what they think is important. Values have to come from the heart and soul of the brand.’ He emphasised that input and support for CSR and sustainability must come from all levels of the company, top-down and bottom-up.

That begs the question: how do you find the values that are true to a brand? Many methods are available but Dr Downes particularly likes the ‘tombstone’ exercise. ‘If the brand disappeared today, what would people write on its tombstone? What would they miss about the brand?’ he asked. ‘What kind of brand-related behaviours are most highly regarded and rewarded in the company?’ In fact, we can start even further back with brand vision and thinking about how the brand will make the world a better place, he said. ‘A lot of good-quality, really successful brand strategy has started from this perspective.’

When companies are integrating brand and CSR/sustainability reporting, they need to know what’s in the hearts and minds of customers, Dr Downes said. ‘Not just consumers but also business buyers, business partners, shareholders and analysts – this is a two-way dialogue where corporations look for values they have in common with their target audiences. However, it’s not realistic for them to say they care about exactly everything their audiences care about.’

Dr Downes also highlighted some common pitfalls. ‘Not acknowledging issues of concern is a real risk because it’s so easy for people to find out the truth. Companies need to honestly address concerns to defuse cynicism and counter-arguments,’ he said. Not using plain, easy-to-understand language is another no-no. Some reports really take on their own language and the whole message of CSR and sustainability gets lost, he said.

‘CSR and sustainability reporting is a huge opportunity for companies to emphasise authentic, meaningful and differentiating brand values. Let the brand show its character and be real,’ Dr Downes advised.

So brands build corporate value … but values build brands. Food for thought.

Brandy Munro is a Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, one of the first agencies to design and produce sustainability reports for some of Australia’s largest corporate entities.

• The capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely.
• Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
• Capable of being maintained at a steady level without exhausting natural resources or causing severe ecological damage.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of definitions but it does give you the picture. ‘Sustainable’ is a word that has established itself in our vocabulary – it’s here to stay and rightly so.

The last few years have seen an extraordinary shift in our perceptions. It wasn’t so long ago that we had little understanding (or desire to understand) the impact of our lifestyle on the environment. Today, climate change is a very real problem staring us right in the face and it’s not going away. There will always be a small minority who continue to deny its existence but, in general, the masses are starting to sit up, take notice and demand action from governments and themselves. The word is spreading quickly and if you haven’t taken heed yet, it will only be a matter of time before you do.

I recently attended the Sustainable Living Festival at Federation Square in Melbourne. Now in its eleventh year, this event raises awareness about the environmental and social challenges we face as a community and offers some potential solutions. As a frequent public transport user, I was pleased to see that sustainable transport was on the agenda.

Speakers for a session hosted by the Metropolitan Transport Forum included economist, Professor Ross Garnaut; Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Water, Greg Hunt MP; and Federal member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson MP. If Professor Garnaut’s name sounds familiar it’s probably because you’ve heard of the 2008 Garnaut Climate Change Review, his independent study about the effects of climate change on the Australian economy.

There was consensus among the speakers that sustainable transport, both public and private, is critical to the functionality of any city. It affects our economy, society and liveability. It affects individuals, businesses and governments. Our transport has to meet the needs of a growing population (which in Melbourne’s case is very rapid), be economically viable and minimise environmental harm.

Professor Garnaut had several interesting points to make. He drew attention to the grim reality that Australia leads all developed countries in total greenhouse gas emissions per capita (yes, we’re even ahead of America). We use more private transport (mainly cars) than most of the developed world and all of our larger cities (Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth) are in the bottom third of developed cities when it comes to using public transport, walking or cycling.

He described how only 27% of Melbournians regularly commute to work via public transport, walking or cycling (and in doing so, lead every other Australian city) compared to 82% of Hong Kong’s population. Astonishing when you consider the fact that Hong Kong has approximately 3 million more people than Melbourne. Clearly, we have a long way to go.

And it may come as a surprise to hear that if we all changed to electric cars tomorrow, this would actually increase our greenhouse gas emissions significantly. The reason, Professor Garnaut explained, is that Melbourne (and most of Australia) still relies heavily on coal for electricity. So electric cars are good but only if they are powered by clean energy such as solar, water or wind.

He also spoke of reviewing the distribution of finance between the states and territories. Funds that could be used to improve infrastructure are often diverted away from our biggest cities, Melbourne and Sydney – the ones that need them most. This is in contrast to well-known international cities like London.

As a proud Melbournian, I feel passionately about the health of this city. I believe that moving people onto public transport is more achievable than a mass switch to electric cars and simultaneous overhaul of our electricity supply to clean energy (at least in the short term anyway). It would also combat the growing congestion on our roads. But encouraging public transport use starts with a reliable and sustainable system that can be used by all. Unfortunately this description does not currently apply.

Governments, at all levels, often overlook long-term planning for the ‘quick fix’ to impress voters. Over time, the lack of investment in Melbourne’s infrastructure has become all too apparent. For example, it’s ludicrous that rail workers may have to hose down the train tracks on hot days because they start to buckle. I only hope it isn’t drinking water they use while the rest of us observe the 155L target set by the government (that would be very ironic indeed). We have seen the subsequent train cancellations bring the city to a grinding halt on more than one occasion.

In short, on hot days our public transport becomes a game of chance and in a city where the mercury often heads north of 35°C, that’s a game we play too often. How long are we prepared to put up with a third-world public transport system?

Professor Garnaut concluded his talk by saying Melbourne must be re-designed in order to move forward. It’s a huge project that will take decades but it needs to happen. Given that our population is projected to grow a further 1.5 million by 2036, it’s clear that Melbourne needs rescuing now. Not tomorrow. Not next year. This great city just won’t cope otherwise.

Say ‘no’ to more roads and to expanding Melbourne’s urban growth boundary.

Say ‘yes’ to better public transport and a more sustainable Melbourne.

I’ve had my say. Now it’s your turn. Complete the Metropolitan Transport Forum’s public transport survey at http://www.pt4me2.org.au/. The results will be presented to the major parties in May ahead of the state elections later this year.

Brandy Munro is a Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, specialising in passionate (and sustainable) marketing communications for the B2B, healthcare and corporate sectors.