SHRMingham

Engagement made easy

A few days ago I had a conversation with one of our HR Administrators in another center.  During our conversation she mentioned she was implementing a new project in her office, Operation Curb Turnover.  Her office has one of the highest turnover rates in our company. 

Her turnover woes are not due to the economic turnaround; it’s been a high turnover center for as long as I can remember, nature of the industry maybe.  During our conversation she asked what we did in our office to retain employees.  I gave her the simplest answer I could: we like to have fun.

We have a committee that meets several times a month to discuss activities and competitions, reason to bring in food, and any reason to harass the leadership team.  HR is not a member of this committee. The words “employee engagement” are likely never heard during their meetings. 

Last summer employees were given the chance to end work at 3pm on a Friday and throw water balloons at the leadership team or continue working.  That day ended with shredded balloons, empty garbage cans, discarded water guns, and some of the happiest employees you’ve seen.

Employees, while given the opportunity to have some much needed fun, are also kept informed of goals, new business, and expectations.  We have a central area where a white board is updated daily with current numbers and goals.  Each department has their own whiteboard for updating department specific numbers. 

I guess a more specific answer to how we curb turnover is we work hard, communicate with our employees, and from time to time we let them throw things at us.  Employee engagement is simple when you let the employees you’re trying to engage make the decision on what they find engaging.  

Culture Shock

There I was, lying on the floor in my new but mostly empty apartment, exhausted after carrying heavy boxes up steep and dangerous stairs, thinking about all the reasons that led me to pack up my stuff and move all the way across the country. You see, for relocating employees it's in those little moments that often catch you unaware where the real challenges lie. Because it's rarely anything major that can cause an already stressed out employee (Starting a new job and moving to a new area? Yeah, that's a lot of stress) to question their choices, most often it's a collection of little moments and culture shock. I don't care how good the opportunity, how great the company is, or even how wonderful a place it is to live, relocation takes its toll. Add in a family that probably left friends/jobs/school and the comfort of the known behind and it's a wonder anyone relocates at all.

 

Personally, I feel I'm in an ideal position for successful relocation. I'm relatively young, no children, no house to try to sell in a bad market, family scattered throughout the country, friends in the area, and I'm an Army brat so I'm used to moving frequently. Sure, I had been living in Minnesota for the last 18 years but moving is like riding a bike, right? And yet, for a few seconds anyway, I found myself wondering just what did I get myself into? Because at that moment, all those little stressful events caught up with me. The bad hotel, the huge bugs, the heat, the delay moving into the apartment, not knowing where anything was, feeling alone, feeling different, adjusting to different food/accents/mindsets/cultural norms. It's down right overwhelming. I mean, one morning I woke up to the news warning me about an escaped pig on the highway. Apparently, it was a big one. How am I supposed to deal with that? But these stressors are the exact same thing anyone who has relocated to a new area goes through. Except for the pig, I'm sure that's just around here. The problem occurs when there aren't enough positive moments happening that serve to counteract all the bad.

 

Personally, the key to dealing with the stress of relocation is simply to seek out the familiar and the exciting. And hopefully the funny. Moving across the United States might as well be the same as moving to a different country, but there are always things that we share as a nation. I may not care for fried okra or sweet tea, but these days you can find good Chinese/Japanese/Mexican/etc. almost anywhere and sometimes, even better than I had before. Most malls share the same major stores and now I get to find new ones. This is both a good thing for me and a bad thing for my wallet. A new home means new places to explore and new activites to try. I've spent the last couple of weekends driving around Birmingham, getting to know the area, enjoying the beautiful scenary, and looking at the pretty homes. I have quite enjoyed getting lost in Mountain Brook and roaming around Old Leeds Rd. It's also to important to stay connected with the family and friends I left behind at the same time I try to make new ones. Finally, as an HR professional, if you have an employee who just relocated to your company, go out of your way to check in on them. Sometimes a freindly, open, and fun workplace is the only thing keeping a stressed out employee sane, engaged, and sticking around.

Shauna Moerke is an HR professional with a diverse work history, a Master’s degree and a Professional in Human Resources (PHR) certification. As she continues to build her social media empire she finds herself serving as the current Ringmistress of the Carnival of HR, one of the Co-Founders of the Women of HR site, as well as the Co-Host of the HR Happy Hour, an online radio show which discusses current topics in Human Resources with leaders and experts in the field. Shauna blogs at the HR Minion. You can connect with Shauna on Twitter as @HR_Minion and on LinkedIn.

Don’t be stingy with the swag!

If swag brings so much joy, why are some companies so stingy when it comes to sharing it with their employees?  The cost of swag usually goes down when the number of items ordered increases.  Obviously the cost is minimal relative to the cost of replacing an employee.  I am going to speak for myself here…I’m not saying that I would stay with a company because they gave me a water bottle with the company logo on it, but when I regularly get things like that it begins to make me feel like I belong.  

Swag, also known as the tacky toys and office trinkets with company logos that get peddled at conferences like passing without one could jeopardize your career.  No, it doesn’t matter that your company already has an insurance carrier or that those decisions are made at the corporate office on the other side of the country.  You want that ink pen/highlighter/sticky note flag combo and you’re going to take it! Gathering swag can best be described as Halloween for grown-ups.  Tables of people can often be seen comparing loot and making swaps with their cohorts.  It really takes very little to make us feel like we have a treasure chest of goodies. 

 Using swag can create employee loyalty in addition to reminding them of your company’s mission and values.  Companies often use swag at conferences and conventions to get new customers and remind them of the services we can offer but what if that same swag could increase your employee loyalty resulting in decreased turnover and increased job satisfaction?

 The feeling of belonging can be shared in using swag as prizes for productivity and attendance, creating welcome kits for new hires and as holiday gifts.  Use it as a way to keep your company’s mission and vision right in front of your employees on mouse pads, calendars and such.  Being stingy with the swag will not get you that gazillion dollar contract but more importantly it will not remind your employees about how much you care.  

So, that’s it.  Get off your tush and give out the swag, give it out generously so your employees feel like they belong to a team, Your Team!

Editors note: Becci Cantrell, PHR is an HR professional specializing in training and development and public speaking.  She writes, edits and publishes technical training manuals, policies and soft skills programs.  Her training experience includes classroom, web based and computer formats.  The same passion and creativity  used to create training materials spills over into hobbies including scrapbooking and photography.

Take a Sip of the Zappos Kool-Aid With "Dr. Vik" (and Zappos Insights)

If you've been kicking around the blogoshere for at least a month, sampling different HR and Talent blogs, chances are you've come across the stylings of Zappos.  You know the company - widely espoused to be one of the most progressive workplace cultures in America, with the following features:

1.  All employees are on Twitter.
2.  They'll pay you $2,000 to leave the company after your training is complete.
3.  They've got a personal coach named "Dr. Vik" as part of their talent team.
4.  No offices, only cubes at Zappos, even for the CEO.
5.  The Zappos HR Team includes titles like "Assistant Cruise Ship Manager".

Ever want to dig in deeper to the Zappos vibe?  Now you can with a subscription service from Zappos called Zappos Insights.  I missed the launch of this, so here's how the service was described in late 2008 AdWeek:

"For those seeking brand religion, an unlikely shrine has emerged in the desert the past few years. It sits near the Las Vegas airport: the headquarters of online retailer Zappos.

Over the past few years, executives from dozens of companies, including Southwest Airlines and Best Buy, as well as ordinary customers, have made the trek to see its operations up close. The tour has undeniable Zappos touches: each department has its own greeting, and in-house motivational guru Dr. Vik has visitors sit in a throne for a Polaroid snapshot.

Now the company hopes to turn the intense interest in its culture and approach to business into a moneymaker. This week, it plans to roll out Zappos Insights, a subscription video service that lets companies ask questions about the Zappos way and get answers from actual Zappos employees. It will charge $39.95 per month for subscriptions.

The service, said CEO Tony Hsieh, is targeted at the "Fortune 1 million" looking to build their businesses. "There are management consulting firms that charge really high rates," he said. "We wanted to come up with something that's accessible to almost any business."

Zappos' legendary commitment to customer service has made it a darling of the marketing intelligentsia. In nine years, it's grown to be on track to sell $1 billion of goods this year, expanding from shoes into apparel and even electronics.

Despite the feel-good vibe, Zappos is not immune to the current economic turbulence. Last month, Zappos cut 8 percent of its workforce."

Interesting service and might be worth your time to check it out, if only for a few months.  Warning - I would pay the $40 only if you've got a chance to implement some of what you've learned.  If you can't, you'll more than likely be frustrated by all the cool stuff you see.

Additionally, be forewarned the site looks to be tailored as much to customer satisfcation as it does pure culture tools.  But, the more you dig in, the more you see they're strongly linked.  Zappos pursues the culture goal as a means to achieve higher customer satisfaction.

Even if you don't subscribe, lots of free tools out there for you to review.  My favorite?  An interview with "Dr. Vik", the personal coach.  Interesting as you listen to Vik speak.  If you're a traditional HR person, you're automatically thinking Vik is a gimmick.  Then you listen to what he's saying, and you change your mind.  At least I did. 

Check out the offerring at Zappos Insights, and if you do nothing else as a HR/Talent pro, check out the Dr. Vik interview here.

If you've been kicking around the blogoshere for at least a month, sampling different HR and Talent blogs, chances are you've come across the stylings of Zappos.  You know the company - widely espoused to be one of the most progressive workplace cultures in America, with the following features:

1.  All employees are on Twitter.
2.  They'll pay you $2,000 to leave the company after your training is complete.
3.  They've got a personal coach named "Dr. Vik" as part of their talent team.
4.  No offices, only cubes at Zappos, even for the CEO.
5.  The Zappos HR Team includes titles like "Assistant Cruise Ship Manager".

Ever want to dig in deeper to the Zappos vibe?  Now you can with a subscription service from Zappos called Zappos Insights.  I missed the launch of this, so here's how the service was described in late 2008 AdWeek:

"For those seeking brand religion, an unlikely shrine has emerged in the desert the past few years. It sits near the Las Vegas airport: the headquarters of online retailer Zappos.

Over the past few years, executives from dozens of companies, including Southwest Airlines and Best Buy, as well as ordinary customers, have made the trek to see its operations up close. The tour has undeniable Zappos touches: each department has its own greeting, and in-house motivational guru Dr. Vik has visitors sit in a throne for a Polaroid snapshot.

Now the company hopes to turn the intense interest in its culture and approach to business into a moneymaker. This week, it plans to roll out Zappos Insights, a subscription video service that lets companies ask questions about the Zappos way and get answers from actual Zappos employees. It will charge $39.95 per month for subscriptions.

The service, said CEO Tony Hsieh, is targeted at the "Fortune 1 million" looking to build their businesses. "There are management consulting firms that charge really high rates," he said. "We wanted to come up with something that's accessible to almost any business."

Zappos' legendary commitment to customer service has made it a darling of the marketing intelligentsia. In nine years, it's grown to be on track to sell $1 billion of goods this year, expanding from shoes into apparel and even electronics.

Despite the feel-good vibe, Zappos is not immune to the current economic turbulence. Last month, Zappos cut 8 percent of its workforce."

Interesting service and might be worth your time to check it out, if only for a few months.  Warning - I would pay the $40 only if you've got a chance to implement some of what you've learned.  If you can't, you'll more than likely be frustrated by all the cool stuff you see.

Additionally, be forewarned the site looks to be tailored as much to customer satisfcation as it does pure culture tools.  But, the more you dig in, the more you see they're strongly linked.  Zappos pursues the culture goal as a means to achieve higher customer satisfaction.

Even if you don't subscribe, lots of free tools out there for you to review.  My favorite?  An interview with "Dr. Vik", the personal coach.  Interesting as you listen to Vik speak.  If you're a traditional HR person, you're automatically thinking Vik is a gimmick.  Then you listen to what he's saying, and you change your mind.  At least I did. 

Check out the offerring at Zappos Insights, and if you do nothing else as a HR/Talent pro, check out the Dr. Vik interview here.

Fired for Talking Smack About the Company On Facebook...

Hey oversensitive legal departments - let's open up social networks at work and get the knowledge transfer/communication/business networking advantages that come with it. 

What's that?  You're afraid they'll say something derogatory?  Sure they will, but didn't they acknowledge all that legal stuff we have in the handbook?  Can't they be held accountable for that at anytime?

Plus, even if you restrict access, don't those policies apply when they talk about your company in unkind terms off the clock?

Sure they do - just ask the NFL's own Philadelphia Eagles, who just fired a worker for slamming the organization on Facebook.  From ESPN:

Dan Leone, who the Inquirer said worked as a west gate chief, was unhappy the team let Brian Dawkins sign with the Denver Broncos in free agency. According to the newspaper, Leone posted the following on his Facebook page: "Dan is [expletive] devastated about Dawkins signing with Denver ... Dam Eagles R Retarted!!"

Despite deleting the comment, Leone told the Inquirer the Eagles fired him by phone days later.

"I shouldn't have put it up there," Leone said, according to the Inquirer. "I was ticked off, and I let my emotions go, but I didn't offend any one person or target a specific individual. I was just upset that we lost such a great guy. Dawkins was one of my favorite players. I made a mistake."

Leone said he was shocked to lose his job of six years.

"I apologized for it," Leone said, according to the paper. "I apologized 20 million times. I never bad-mouthed the organization before. I made one mistake and they terminate me? And they couldn't even bring me into the office to talk to me? They had to do it over the phone? At least look me in the eye. To get done dirty like this, I can't believe it. I'm devastated."

Note to self - calling management "Retarted" may produce varying results.  Note to Facebook - can we get a little spellcheck over here?  Please? 

Open up the network.  They're doing it whether you prevent access or not. Get the benefits...

Hey oversensitive legal departments - let's open up social networks at work and get the knowledge transfer/communication/business networking advantages that come with it. 

What's that?  You're afraid they'll say something derogatory?  Sure they will, but didn't they acknowledge all that legal stuff we have in the handbook?  Can't they be held accountable for that at anytime?

Plus, even if you restrict access, don't those policies apply when they talk about your company in unkind terms off the clock?

Sure they do - just ask the NFL's own Philadelphia Eagles, who just fired a worker for slamming the organization on Facebook.  From ESPN:

Dan Leone, who the Inquirer said worked as a west gate chief, was unhappy the team let Brian Dawkins sign with the Denver Broncos in free agency. According to the newspaper, Leone posted the following on his Facebook page: "Dan is [expletive] devastated about Dawkins signing with Denver ... Dam Eagles R Retarted!!"

Despite deleting the comment, Leone told the Inquirer the Eagles fired him by phone days later.

"I shouldn't have put it up there," Leone said, according to the Inquirer. "I was ticked off, and I let my emotions go, but I didn't offend any one person or target a specific individual. I was just upset that we lost such a great guy. Dawkins was one of my favorite players. I made a mistake."

Leone said he was shocked to lose his job of six years.

"I apologized for it," Leone said, according to the paper. "I apologized 20 million times. I never bad-mouthed the organization before. I made one mistake and they terminate me? And they couldn't even bring me into the office to talk to me? They had to do it over the phone? At least look me in the eye. To get done dirty like this, I can't believe it. I'm devastated."

Note to self - calling management "Retarted" may produce varying results.  Note to Facebook - can we get a little spellcheck over here?  Please? 

Open up the network.  They're doing it whether you prevent access or not. Get the benefits...

Expensive Trips for High Performers in a Recession - Ditch Them Even if Someone Else Is Paying?

Most folks agree that in the middle of a recession and with the stinky reputation investment banks have garnered for all-expense junkets lately, incentive trips costing a company hundreds of thousand of dollars are a bad idea.  After all, how could you spend all that money while so many people are hurting in today's economy?

Of course, it's never that simple.  If it were simple, everyone could agree.

For example, here's the toughest question regarding travel rewards from my perspective as a VP of HR.  What do you do with "somewhat extravagant" reward trips for high performers when someone else is paying? (a company whose products you sell and needs access to your sales force, etc.)

Paul Hebert weighs in with his view, and remember, he's a rewards and incentive expert:

"The biggest misconception that is being propagated in the news is that these "junkets" are only for the top executives within a company.  I'm guessing the public has visions of fat, half-naked old men, sitting on pillows with young ladies dropping grapes in their mouths.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Most incentive participants are:

• The rank and file sales person whose job depends on ever-increasing levels of performance and contains risk most of us desk-jockeys couldn't imagine.  (Do you want your continued employment predicated on your prospect being in a bad mood after spilling hot coffee on his/her lap in the Starbucks drive-thru?)
• Employees who have exceeded, by a wide margin, the constraints of their job description and have increased the competitiveness of their company
• Members of a company's distribution channel who have stuck with the company to become top producers and advocates for the product, service, brand or company - people the company needs to remain competitive and innovative.
• The spouses, children, significant others, who attend with the person who earned the trip - providing much needed reward for the sacrifices they have made to allow the earner the time and attention being one of the best requires.

Incentive and meeting travel is a critical element in building relationships - especially in this predominately electronically connected world.  These relationships will help companies weather this economic storm, create new business ideas from collaborative conversations, foster innovations that will drive business, and reduce the costs of turnover within organizations.

Do not perpetuate the false information that is filling the airwaves, newsprint and electrons." 

Paul raises some good points related to travel rewards.  Travel rewards most commonly go to PRODUCERS - the sales pros who bring home the bacon, so the company can fry it up in the pan.  And if there's a group out there you want to keep motivated, it's the sales force.

So, why not continue rewards travel for that group, especially if someone else is buying, or the funding comes from the difference in revenue once a sales rep goes over 100% quota against an already aggressive plan?  The counter to this view is the employee relations cost.  After all, the regular folks don't get access to the quota spreadsheet, and they don't know if an affiliate/channel partner is paying for the outing.

They just see the trip, the cost and the brand of the hotel, which decidedly did not find your top sales performers staying at a Holiday Inn Express during the last junket.  With that in mind, my call would be to shelf the extravagant trips for 2009 company-wide, regardless of who pays or how critical the trip is said to be to sales force morale. 

After all, like the saying goes - salespeople can give themselves a raise by selling more.  Most of our employees who see the extravagant trip can't perform their way into being included on the junket, and it stings to see the trip going off as planned when they lost 2 people from their 8 person department last Friday.

Lose the junket for 2009.  I'm betting you won't lose your top sales performers. 

Working at One of the "100 Best Companies to Work For" - Meaningless If Your Manager Doesn't Rock...

OK - the latest list of Fortune's 100 Best Companies to Work For is out, and undoubtedly, there are a lot of great companies on the list.  After all, who doesn't want to work at some of the companies listed in the top 10.  Google?  Cisco?  Goldman Sachs?  Sign me up today, because it's all good.  I can't wait to experience the culture... the rewards... the freedom...

And that's just the reaction to the companies within the list that I know.  Also included are some incredible companies we don't know, who obviously have great environments where talent can bloom.

But, hid inside the underbelly of these environments is a dirty little secret.  The dirty little secret also applies to companies not listed as well.  I'll outline it for you two ways - one for the "best companies to work for, and one for "the unwashed masses".  It goes a little something like this:

--The golden rule - "A company's culture and attractiveness as a place to work is contingent on the effectiveness, approachability and progressiveness of your manager.  That means:

1.  A company often listed as a great place to work is often mocked by those within the company with an ineffective manager, and

2. A company not listed as a great place to work will receive many of the same retention benefits among employees, who have a great manager who reinforces, supports and leads.

Before you label me as a cynic, understand what I'm saying.  The leadership of a company can create an environment where talent can flourish, and tools, resources and freedom to innovate are present, etc.  Companies should strive to create that type of environment.  It's a good thing...

However, a bad manager can make it all worthless in the eye of an employee.  Consider the recent article about Google as reported by TechCrunch:

"In 2008 Google HR set up a private Google Group to ask former employees why they left the company. We’ve been forwarded what appears to be authentic posts to the thread by a number of ex-Googlers, which we reprint below minus identifying information other than their first names.

The thread shows a brutal honesty about what it’s like to work at Google, at least from the point of view of employees who were unhappy enough to resign. Top amongst the complaints is low pay relative to what they could earn elsewhere, and disappearing fringe benefits seemed to elevate the concern. Other popular gripes - too much bureaucracy, poor management, poor mentoring, and a hiring process that took months."

I would encourage anyone who feels like they aren't at a "best employer" to read the entire article.  The result for me is an understanding that the best employers in America struggle just like you do with many management issues, and the best way to ensure your employees are engaged is to be a good manager who coaches, cares, communicates and has flexibility.

What do your exit interviews say?  Most of the same stuff heard in the rundown at TechCrunch about Google.

Employee Generated Videos - If You Want to Make a Hit, You've Got to Make it Quick...

We've been experimenting a good bit on our company-based social network (affectionately named "Sourceapolooza") and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the killer app for any internal social network is video.  After all, YouTube rocks the casbah, and it's what people now expect/want in any web offering.

The only thing better than video on your internal flavor of Facebook?  EMPLOYEE generated videos.  When employees care enough to create their own videos, in my eyes that's pretty much the definition of engagement. 

Which is why the recent 401k contest sponsored by Best Buy is such a great idea.  More on the contest at BestBuy via HR Marketer:

"Last week one of our team members attended a Webinar about the power of Web 2.0 in talent management. One of the highlights was how Best Buy increased their 401k participation by 30%.

30%? How the heck did they do that?  With a contest. A video contest. They asked employees throughout the retail chain to submit motivating videos that would help increase overall 401k participation. They did just that and the winner is below."

You have to admit, that's pretty sweet, and if you're not the type of HR pro who has their wheels spinning as a result, then... well, you probably need to take a break and find your motivation or consider another career.

If I had to split hairs on the video, I'd say it's too long - if you want people to watch the whole thing, you have to bring a length no longer than a movie trailer - 2:30 tops. 

Still, that's mindless quibbling vs. the impact of employees caring enough to cut a video like this.  What can you do early in 2009 to give control to employees and empower them to get creative on video?

Coffeehouse Case Study - Does Fighting Unions Really Hurt the Starbucks Image and Culture?

As you may be aware, Starbucks (still love you SB, signed - KD) is in a bit of trouble these days. Let's count the ways.  First, people are generally less willing to pay $3 to $5 for a cup of coffee in this economy.  Even the people who can still afford it are questioning the legitimacy of their caffeine jones being satisfied by the green team at Starbucks. 

Next, the Seattle retailer seems to have hit a growth plateau.  For years, their year over year growth targets were satisfied by the fact they opened hundreds (if not thousands) of stores per year.  The Seattle retailer seems to have hit its store saturation point, as evidenced by the fact they closed hundreds of under-performing stores in 2008.  I'm still disappointed a Starbucks hasn't opened at the top of my cul-de-sac, but hey, maybe it will happen after we are out of the recession.

Finally, there are a lot of folks who claim the store environment and the service provided has become average, as Starbucks went from 2 to 50 locations in your town.  Additionally, like any other big retailer, Starbucks has developed some labor relations issues, having to react to small union organizing attempts at specific locations.

More on Starbucks' union organizing blues from BusinessWeek:

"Starbucks (SBUX), once the undisputed leader in premium-price caffeine fixes, has long cultivated a corporate image for social responsibility, environmental awareness, and sensitivity to workers' rights. Now that carefully crafted reputation is under assault, thanks to a messy legal dispute with a group called the Starbucks Workers Union (SWU) (part of the Industrial Workers of the World, or IWW), which started recruiting employees in 2004 and now claims 300 members.

The National Labor Relations Board found on Dec. 23 that Starbucks had illegally fired three New York City baristas as it tried to squelch the union organizing effort. The 88-page ruling also says the company broke the law by giving negative job evaluations to other union supporters and prohibiting employees from discussing union issues at work. The judge ordered that the three baristas be reinstated and receive back wages. The judge also called on Starbucks to end discriminatory treatment of other pro-union workers at four Manhattan locations named in the case. The decision marks the end of an 18-month trial in New York City that pitted the ubiquitous multinational corporation against a group of twentysomething baristas who are part of the Industrial Workers of the World.

Starbucks intends to appeal the decision. The company maintained during the trial that the baristas were fired for perfectly legal reasons, such as disrupting business in its stores or threatening a manager. "This is an issue with particular employees," says Tara Darrow, a Starbucks spokeswoman. "We felt we handled it consistently and fairly. In this particular situation the NLRB disagreed. We're disappointed with that."

Before you envision picket lines at your local coffee shop, let's keep things in perspective.  It appears by the article that no store has been organized or certified via a "yes" vote in an election.  Here's the scope of what we are talking about.  Starbucks has 70,000 employees, the labor union in question has been working for 4 years and counts 300 Starbucks employees who claim to be members.  That's less than half a percentage point.  It's something, but not necessarily impressive or staggering.

Now, let's mix the expectations of a Starbucks customer with the charges the company is appealing, and the normal M.O. of a union.  You know what I like when I walk into a well-managed Starbucks?  Hustle and cheerful service.  Be nice to me and hustle to get me in and out.  Starbucks claims they took action on the employees because they were disrupting business.  Here's how that works with a union - a union contract RESTRICTS the work each employee can perform.  I'm guessing the employees in question were disrupting business by refusing to multli-task behind the counter or other refusals that hurt the customer.  What would you do with that if you were Starbucks?  Is the customer the most important thing to the culture or not?

Finally, a note on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).  If the EFCA passes in 2009 as written (with card check front and center), the employees who disrupted the business flow of Starbucks are the ones who get together and approach co-workers as a team and ask them to sign a card authorizing a union.  Guess what happens with that version of the EFCA?  The employees who most typify the culture of Starbucks (service and hustle) lose the right to a confidential vote regarding whether they want to be unionized or not.  If they give in to the peer pressure or intimidation, they can't vote in private.  Their vote is gone.

So Starbucks, if you're out there and reading, count this frequent customer as one who believes that remaining union-free is in the best interest of the customer and consistent with the brand, culture and image of Starbucks.  

Now can I get that Venti Mild, stat?

Parties and Layoffs - Does Having One Mean You Shouldn't Have the Other?

Trick question....

-On one hand, if your company has had to lay off people, you probably need to be careful on the extravagance level of any party you hold...

-On the other hand, just because you have had some layoffs doesn't mean you stop attempting to get people engaged in the mission of the company.  Parties serve that end in some cultures, so it's probably unrealistic to think parties will be eliminated in corporate America?

Want a good example of the considerations?  Look no further than Yahoo, which annouced layoffs of over 10% of it's workforce, but channels the artist formerly known as Prince in deciding to party like it's 1999. (Hint - it's 2008, and didn't Prince record that in the mid-80's?  Unrelated shoutout to SHRM Florida for having Morris Day at their state convention)

But I digress. More on Yahoo from Valleywag:

"We haven't yet heard who will be the entertainment at Yahoo's Christmas party, scheduled for December 6, four days before the company proceeds with mass layoffs. Yet again, it's being held at a convention center by a racetrack — this year, with a Vegas theme. 2007's party featured a Neil Diamond cover band. For this year, how about Money For Nothing, the Dire Straits tributaries? We're sure they're cheap. Good thing, because a tipster familiar with Yahoo's budget says the company will spend $8 million to $10 million this year on holiday parties alone.

Not just the bash in San Mateo, but also festivities for Yahoo's offices in Los Angeles, New York, and around the world. Oh, and more for the divisions. "Each department below Jerry has a party, so you end up going to at least four parties, all for the same company," says our source. For Yahoo, this is just business as usual. "The company leadership is in denial and there are parties every week," our source continues."

What do you think?  For a number like $8 to $10 million, I guess I expected more than a cover band playing "Money for Nothing" multiple times in the same night.

I'd vote to ditch the parties, at least for the year...

Goodbye 2009 Bonus - We Barely Got to Know Each Other....

So, the economic crash of 2008 is well documented at this point.  Some of you have given up hope of your company or division hitting the 2008 numbers necessary for your annual bonus, while some of you are hoping for a delayed effect - maybe the numbers will hang on long enough for the company to pay out a bonus, even if a partial one.  Just maybe...

Here's another trend that's already being documented for 2009 - the elimination of the incentive pay plan, which many of us know as "bonus".  Ann Bares of Compensation Force has a nice rundown of the trend:

"Results of a recent Towers Perrin "pulse" survey were released today.  There are a number of interesting findings here, but one in particular caught my eye.  In examining how companies are likely to respond to the economic crisis in a number of reward areas, the survey asked about plans to reduce annual incentives/bonuses.  Survey participants responded as follows:

• Very likely - 18%
• Somewhat likely - 21%
• Somewhat unlikely - 23%
• Very unlikely - 25%
• Too soon to tell - 13%

My interpretation of this - which is important here - is that it indicates plans to reduce the incentive/bonus program and its award opportunities, not merely that the participants are expecting lower payouts due to lower results.  The latter makes complete sense, the former - to me - makes very little and prompts concern.  According to the survey, 39% of respondents are likely to reduce annual incentive/bonuses and another 13% haven't yet decided.  Meaning - again, if I am interpreting this accurately - that over half have not yet determined whether they will follow through on the commitments of their existing incentive/bonus plans."

Ann goes on to voice concerns regarding the fact that companies are looking to reduce the scope of the bonus program and award opportunities, citing the fact that a down economy should have nothing to do with whether companies offer bonus programs.  She's right - just because the economy is down is no reason to eliminate the bonus program, even if the economic circumstances make attainment of the payout triggers less likely.

For companies with real bonus programs that trigger payouts based on some combination of attaining revenue and profitability goals, there's no reason to eliminate the plan.  However, the revenue and profitability goals embedded in such plans may be less realistic than normal.  Think about it - a company that is seeing revenue fall year after year may be super aggressive in setting a goal that suggests revenue will remain flat for 2009 (when projections say revenue will likely fall 10-15%). 

But, that doesn't mean they have to eliminate the plan, it just means that employees have to understand that maintaining current revenue trends will take an incredible effort.  But, your workforce still needs to know that a great year in a recession will be rewarded.

As to companies who don't tie annual bonus programs to revenue, profitability or some mix thereof, to Ann's point, those really aren't bonus or incentive programs.  They're more like a company "holiday ham" program, delivered based on the whims of the company. 

The less bonus programs are tied to revenue or profitability, the less understanding employees have regarding how the company is doing.  Also, discretionary bonus programs paid multiple years in a row without being tied to numbers are dangerous, since they can become employee entitlements that everyone takes for granted.

Kind of like the company ham during the holidays.  There's probably going to be less of those this year as well.

So, the economic crash of 2008 is well documented at this point.  Some of you have given up hope of your company or division hitting the 2008 numbers necessary for your annual bonus, while some of you are hoping for a delayed effect - maybe the numbers will hang on long enough for the company to pay out a bonus, even if a partial one.  Just maybe...

Here's another trend that's already being documented for 2009 - the elimination of the incentive pay plan, which many of us know as "bonus".  Ann Bares of Compensation Force has a nice rundown of the trend:

"Results of a recent Towers Perrin "pulse" survey were released today.  There are a number of interesting findings here, but one in particular caught my eye.  In examining how companies are likely to respond to the economic crisis in a number of reward areas, the survey asked about plans to reduce annual incentives/bonuses.  Survey participants responded as follows:

• Very likely - 18%
• Somewhat likely - 21%
• Somewhat unlikely - 23%
• Very unlikely - 25%
• Too soon to tell - 13%

My interpretation of this - which is important here - is that it indicates plans to reduce the incentive/bonus program and its award opportunities, not merely that the participants are expecting lower payouts due to lower results.  The latter makes complete sense, the former - to me - makes very little and prompts concern.  According to the survey, 39% of respondents are likely to reduce annual incentive/bonuses and another 13% haven't yet decided.  Meaning - again, if I am interpreting this accurately - that over half have not yet determined whether they will follow through on the commitments of their existing incentive/bonus plans."

Ann goes on to voice concerns regarding the fact that companies are looking to reduce the scope of the bonus program and award opportunities, citing the fact that a down economy should have nothing to do with whether companies offer bonus programs.  She's right - just because the economy is down is no reason to eliminate the bonus program, even if the economic circumstances make attainment of the payout triggers less likely.

For companies with real bonus programs that trigger payouts based on some combination of attaining revenue and profitability goals, there's no reason to eliminate the plan.  However, the revenue and profitability goals embedded in such plans may be less realistic than normal.  Think about it - a company that is seeing revenue fall year after year may be super aggressive in setting a goal that suggests revenue will remain flat for 2009 (when projections say revenue will likely fall 10-15%). 

But, that doesn't mean they have to eliminate the plan, it just means that employees have to understand that maintaining current revenue trends will take an incredible effort.  But, your workforce still needs to know that a great year in a recession will be rewarded.

As to companies who don't tie annual bonus programs to revenue, profitability or some mix thereof, to Ann's point, those really aren't bonus or incentive programs.  They're more like a company "holiday ham" program, delivered based on the whims of the company. 

The less bonus programs are tied to revenue or profitability, the less understanding employees have regarding how the company is doing.  Also, discretionary bonus programs paid multiple years in a row without being tied to numbers are dangerous, since they can become employee entitlements that everyone takes for granted.

Kind of like the company ham during the holidays.  There's probably going to be less of those this year as well.

Vetting the Candidate's Spouse For Fun and Profit...

So, you're a seasoned pro and know what you can and can't ask in an interview.  Good for you - you're a legal eagle.

Ever drift into a conversation about spouses with a candidate?  Happens all the time, especially with candidiates you've developed a good conversation flow with who are...well...married.

Let's hope you didn't hear the following:

"Yeah, life with Sheryl has been great, except for":

1. "She's got a life threatening disease that may cause me to miss a year in the near future.  So obviously I like the quality of your medical plan."

2. "That episode where her expense reports were misinterpreted by the authorities.  We had to move to get a fresh start."

3. "The booze. And at times, the pills. It tends to make our family a bit of a roller coaster."

To be fair to HR pros who recruit and hiring managers everywhere, I've heard versions of all of these from candidates during my time as a HR player.  To be fair to me (like you), I didn't ask - I guess I made the candidate comfortable enough where they just told me all this stuff.

What's a HR pro to do?  Be thankful for most of your positions, vetting the stability and skills of the spouse isn't a requirement, because the higher you go in corporate America, the more it matters. 

More on vetting the spouse from the New York Times:

"IMAGINE the plight of the modern corporate director: you want to find the perfect chief executive to lead your organization, someone with top credentials and impeccable character. You know there is a heavy social component to the job — dinners, fund-raisers, travel — and so there is just one last thing you want to know.

What is the candidate’s spouse like?  It is an all-too-common situation that pits Miss Manners against decades of labor and anti-discrimination law. No, in states like New York, a board of directors cannot even legally ask job candidates if they are married.

But yes, this sort of vetting goes on regularly.

The spouse has always been a silent part of the executive package, with committed partners doing everything from packing overnight bags to throwing client-entertaining dinner parties. Sitcom spouses of the 1950s and 1960s were assumed to be job appendages for their husbands: Lucy cooked and ran the home when she was not trying to horn in on important business meetings, while Samantha on “Bewitched” tried not to cast too many spells on Darrin’s advertising clients.

Today, it is still widely understood that a charming and organized spouse can be a boon to an executive who must rub elbows and raise money. The demands may differ from field to field — in academia, for instance, the spouse may play a different role than in politics, corporate America or the nonprofit world — but in each case it is a big help if the spouse fits in."

Can you imagine having to go to dinner with the spouse of every candidate you hired?  WOW, or as they say in the Hindenburg business, "oh the humanity". 

It's hard enough to get sign-off on one person as the primary recruiter, so I'm glad the spouse doesn't have to be approved in most circumstances.  Still, if you're a player and bound for that Fortune 500 EVP of HR role, brace yourself - there will be some candidate with spouse dinners in your future. 

Let's just hope he or she doesn't have 3 Kojaks down before you're halfway done with your tea.

Most Bad Bosses Were Once Sweet Individual Contributors...

Let's call it what it is.  You know people in your company who are really good at one thing, but really stink at a bunch of other things.  That's not a huge issue when the person is an individual contributor (let's call them a savant to focus on the fact they are super in one important area to your business).  As an individual contributor, you can usually wall them off and keep them out of harm's way. 

Except for email.  You probably wish you could take that away from them, but you can't.  Apparently, this Internet thing isn't a fad.

Back to the issue - The problem with the savants in your organization is that their critical strength is projected to other areas, like managing others.  From Steve Roesser at All Things Workplace:

"Do Any of These Situations Look Familiar?

Global Operations Director who hits all of the monetary goals but no one wants to work with her. They don't trust her because she withholds information and doesn't include other managers in decisions that impact how they do their work.

Brilliant Vice President of Finance who can't conduct meetings, doesn't like to plan, and knows more ways to help the company earn money on its money than its bankers do. Up for promotion for top job. Really doesn't want it. People love working with him because they learn from him. He wants to continue developing investment methods and models.

Let's call it what it is.  You know people in your company who are really good at one thing, but really stink at a bunch of other things.  That's not a huge issue when the person is an individual contributor (let's call them a savant to focus on the fact they are super in one important area to your business).  As an individual contributor, you can usually wall them off and keep them out of harm's way. 

Except for email.  You probably wish you could take that away from them, but you can't.  Apparently, this Internet thing isn't a fad.

Back to the issue - The problem with the savants in your organization is that their critical strength is projected to other areas, like managing others.  From Steve Roesser at All Things Workplace:

"Do Any of These Situations Look Familiar?

Global Operations Director who hits all of the monetary goals but no one wants to work with her. They don't trust her because she withholds information and doesn't include other managers in decisions that impact how they do their work.

Brilliant Vice President of Finance who can't conduct meetings, doesn't like to plan, and knows more ways to help the company earn money on its money than its bankers do. Up for promotion for top job. Really doesn't want it. People love working with him because they learn from him. He wants to continue developing investment methods and models.

This Bud's For You - And I'm Going to Need You to Use Both Sides When You Make Copies...

There's nothing more interesting to talk about than when two cultures come together through an acquisition.  How will the cultures mesh?  What's the fit between products/services?  And the big questions if you're an HR Pro - are there going to be fewer jobs, and who's got the better benefits?  If I'm involved in executing the transition, that's what I've got to sell, so those are the key info points for me.

But of course, there are small cultural items that ultimately will mean just as much to employees day to day.  Take the Anheuser-Busch acquisition by InBev for $52 Billion, which BusinessWeek reports may result in Budweiser employees using both sides of the paper to make copies:

"To pay for those deals, Brito (InBev CEO) cuts costs to the bone: The native of Brazil orders his executives to fly coach on most flights, is stinting with standard industry perks like company cars and free beer, and encourages employees to photocopy on both sides of each sheet of paper.

By contrast, InBev's new bride, Anheuser-Busch, comes to the marriage with expensive tastes. The company has spent lavishly on New Media ventures. There was ESPN in the 1970s and more recently the ill-fated BudTV.com. Longtime CEO August Busch III routinely made the 10-mile commute to work by helicopter and once mused whether to buy a castle in Europe for a commercial shoot. His successor and son, August Busch IV, continues the tradition: Employees enjoy free admission to the company's theme parks and get two free cases of beer each month. "I think even the Clydesdales [stabled at Anheuser-Busch headquarters] get better treatment than your average InBev employee," jokes one industry consultant. Executives at Anheuser-Busch and InBev declined comment for this story.

This InBev CEO is known more as a steely operator than motivator.  Brito recalled how he once chafed when given a promotion that included oversight of human resources and technology: "For me, sales was everything," he recalled, while a "touch-feely" concept like leadership "was for poets."

Ouch.  With that quote in mind, I bring you perhaps the biggest leading indicator to let you know how an acquisition is going to go - the profile and history of the acquiring CEO when it comes to acquisitions.  The vast majority of CEOs are going to say the right things when it comes to the culture of the company being acquired.  After all, the integration process is a long one, you have lots to learn and things change.  No reason to shake things up early.

But occasionally, you get a profile like Brito's, who is already imposing restrictions on his own culture and feels like leadership is for "poets".  That can't be good.  It feels like Al "Chainsaw" Dunlap all over again, except maybe a more stylish version.

I'm from the show-me state, so it will be interesting to see how this one plays out for my friends at Anheuser-Busch in St. Louis.  Be sure to take a look at the article from an education standpoint; it has some great stats on how InBev is walking a tightrope to pay for the deal, and how things like the average margin on a case of beer for Anheuser-Busch distributors plays into making the deal work.

Final thought - how cool would it have been to put "This Bud's For You" on your recruiting collateral?  That had to be like shooting fish in a barrel...

The Medical Records of Paris Hilton - Would Your Team Violate HIIPPA and View Them?

New reports out of LA show that the UCLA Medical Center employees love looking at the medical records of celebrities.  Nice!

So, the employees got caught looking and now they're paying the price.  I get that.  I'm supportive. More interesting to me is that in a small, medium or large HR shop, HR people have access to a lot of PHI data, often without the login security and tracking that an EMR provides.  Also, a lot of data exists in medical files related to PHI.  Here's the $64K question.  If given the chance, would your HR people look at that data and maybe look up a code on the treatment provided?  Are you sure?

More on the UCLA Medical Center situation from the LA Times:

"Even after UCLA Medical Center warned employees that it was cracking down on unauthorized access to medical records, the privacy of a "well-known individual" was breached by two nurses and an emergency room technician who called up the patient's computerized records in mid-April, according to a critical state report released Monday.

Monday's report was the fifth by the public health agency following articles in The Times this year about UCLA employees' prying into the records of celebrities and prominent patients, including California First Lady Maria Shriver, actress Farrah Fawcett and singer Britney Spears.

State regulators continue to fault the hospital for failure to take adequate steps to maintain patient confidentiality. After the April violations, the report said, one nurse was fired and the two other employees received warnings.

The latest findings detail how one employee -- a former administrative specialist who faces federal criminal charges for violating Fawcett's privacy -- looked at the records of 939 patients "without any legitimate reason" from April 2003 to May 2007. In previous reports, the state had linked her to viewing the records of about 60 patients. She also looked at other personal information, including Social Security numbers, the state now says."

Now, that's what I call an admin gone bad... Do you even know what your employees have access to?  How do you protect access to this type of information on Joe Schmoe?  The same procedures/systems that protect Schmoe protect Paris. 

Human nature is at work here.  We're imperfect.  Name a privacy officer in your department and route all system access, dealing with Medical vendors, FMLA certifications, etc. through them unless someone has the need to know or is working the case.

I mean, can you imagine how many HR people would take a peek at David Hasselhoff's medical history?   The life-event section of the employee file alone probably requires one of those book-size rubber bands.... 

The Toughest Job In America - Army Recruiter in 2008...

You think your job is tough?  I know, there's a lot going on.  You're working multiple projects, have to maintain what you were already doing, etc.  I'm the same way.  Over the past couple of years, I've paused every week or so, prodded by a death report from Iraq, and think about how easy my life is compared to the Americans stationed overseas fighting that war.

I still feel that way.  But after watching a documentary on HBO, I now think my life is incredibly easy compared to another role in the armed forces - that of the RECRUITER.

Think about it for a second.  After 9/11, recruiting for the Armed Forces was obviously easier than it is today.  The country was unified as a result of the events of 9/11, and patriotism was high.  Consequently, staffing volunteer armed forces, while never easy, had many things going for it from a recruiting standpoint.

Flash forward to 2008.  After years of high body counts in Iraq, the patriotism has waned.  Recruiting has become difficult, in many ways the equivalent of trying to staff a manufacturing facility in a town filled with nothing but candidates with advanced degrees. 

It's a tough life, and that's the theme of a HBO Documentary called "The Recruiter". From the Washington Post: 

"For Sgt. 1st Class Clay Usie, recruiting young men and women to join the Army is the "hardest job in America today." Support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has eroded, parents and teachers and coaches are less likely to recommend the military as a career and fewer than three in 10 young Americans are qualified to join.

But Usie, who believes his job is critical to defending the nation, turns recruiting into a lifestyle, rising at 5 a.m. to lift weights with candidates and to run with teenagers who struggle to make it two miles. Usie is not only one of the nation's best recruiters -- he is also a friend, a mentor, a cheerleader, a drill sergeant and, beneath it all, a salesman.

"The Recruiter," an HBO documentary that premieres tonight, follows Usie as he works in his home town of Houma, La. It is a touching portrait of a man dedicated to serving his country but also a starkly honest view of the nation's struggle with military service in a time of war.

Although focused on a small town in Louisiana, the story could take place almost anywhere in the United States. Teenagers decide whether to pursue dead-end jobs, a college education or the military, all the while navigating the desires of their parents, some of whom desperately want them to stabilize their lives while others fear sending their children to violence halfway around the world.

"I'm sure Iraq is full of a bunch of nice people, but should my son die for them?" asks one father and military veteran, whose son Bobby could be college-bound but has dedicated himself to becoming an elite Army Ranger. "That's the conflict I have."

What was especially compelling for me in the documentary was the profiles of those Usie recruits, all of whom have dramatically different reasons for joining the Army.  Isn't that the essence of recruiting? In addition to Bobby, Lauren wants to emerge from poverty, and her mother wants her to straighten out; Chris is enticed by financial benefits; Matt idolizes Usie and his dedication to the country.

It really doesn't matter how you feel about the war, because you'll connect with the human capital portion of this story.  Go find the replay on HBO, TiVo it or have someone tape it for you.  It's the best 60 minutes you'll spend on TV this month.

Dropping Labor Day for Muslim Holiday? The Case for Floating Holidays....

A Tyson plant in Tennessee has decided to offer the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr -- which marks the end of Ramadan -- as a paid holiday instead of Labor Day.  Almost 700 of the plant's 1,200 employees are Muslim.  Somehow, I think this is going to be an emotional one...

More details from MSNBC:

"Workers at the Tyson Foods poultry processing plant in Shelbyville will no longer have a paid day off on Labor Day but will instead be granted the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr. According to a news release from the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, a new five-year contract at the plant included the change to accommodate Muslim workers at the plant.

Tyson's director of media relations Gary Mickelson said the contract includes eight paid holidays -- the same number as the old contract.

Eid al-Fitr -- which falls on Oct. 1 this year -- marks the end of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.  Union leaders said implementing the holiday was important for the nearly 700 Muslims, many of them Somalis, who work at the plant that employs a total of 1,200 people.

Nineteen-year plant veteran William Pentecost doesn't agree with the decision. "I don't think it's right. I really don't think it's right," he said.

Tyson company spokeswoman Libby Lawson said by phone that, "This isn't a religious accommodation, this is a contractual agreement. The majority asked for it."   The change didn't bother some workers.

"I think it's fine. I don't have any problem with it. There's a whole bunch of them here, so they've got to do something for them," said worker John Smith.   Nineteen-year plant veteran William Pentecost doesn't agree with the decision.  "It shouldn't happen. I mean, I think, we're in America, you're in America, I think that they should go with our holidays," Pentecost said."

Lots of stuff imbedded in this one.  America, religion, etc.  For most work locations, the standard operating procedure of Amercian and Christian holidays satisfies the majority.  When that's challenged or no longer makes sense in a mutil-cultural environment, doesn't it make sense to move a large portion of the fixed holidays into floating holidays to offer employees the flexibillity to identify the days most important to them to be away from work?

Just thinking out loud.  The other issue embedded in this one is workforce planning, in that the plant needs to know when they are going to shut down for full days to plan production. 

Is it ever easy?  The answer is most certainly no, but we'll see the standard idea of Christian holidays challenged more and more in the future, as the Amercian workforce continues to diversify. 

Employees Who Play "Grand Theft Auto" - Good or Bad Thing?

We've been watching the NBA playoffs over the past couple of days, and here's the challenge.  It's PRIME TIME, and when the games go to commercial, my 7 and 4 year-old sons get exposed to programming clips and ads the networks view as acceptable at 7pm.

Case in point - On the video game front, Grand Theft Auto 4 is set to be released, featuring all the vices you can name, set to a drug running culture where shooting cops is an afterthought.  Here's a taste of what the game entails from the London Free Press:

"Grand Theft Auto IV -- or simply GTA IV -- tells the story of Niko Bellic, a recent immigrant to the U.S. from an unrevealed Eastern European country. He's come to Liberty City, the game's through-the-looking-glass version of New York, lured by his cousin Roman's promises of wealth and opportunity.

Niko soon realizes his cousin has twisted the truth like a stoolie's arm: Roman lives in a fleabag apartment, runs a failing taxi company and is in trouble with several shady people. He's summoned Niko, an ex-soldier and all-around capable character, to help extract him from some sticky situations.

Can You Trust HR in Tough Times?

It's the age old question - can you trust HR?  With anything?

Lisa Takeuchi Cullen thinks you probably shouldn't; check out this post at Work in Progress, her blog at Time.com:

"Over the past few years, my employer has imposed a few rounds of layoffs. During the run-up, we were encouraged to visit with our human resources department if we wanted to inquire about taking a package. We were assured absolute, air-tight, witness-protection-program secrecy if we chose to do so. Who needs our bosses knowing we're entertaining an exit?

Quite a few of my colleagues did visit with HR. Then a funny thing happened. A few of them found that some management types dropped by to nonchalantly express their appreciation of the staffer's work.

Now, you have to understand my workplace culture to truly comprehend how completely weird that is. Where I work, bosses do not randomly drop in to tell you you're fab. My colleagues suspected an HR leak to management. I don't think they were being paranoid.

In these times of trouble, is HR your friend? Or can you ever trust a department that, after all, reports to the same master?"

The perception is sad but real, and at times, accurate.   After all, HR people are just that - people.  We have strong ones, weak ones, political ones, etc.   I think whether you can trust HR in any circumstance depends on the track record of the HR Pro you are dealing with.  What have you witnessed from them to that point?  As behavioral interviewers, we'll tell you straight up that past behavior is the best predictor of future performance.  It applies here...

For what it's worth, here's my approach with confidential information.  An employee comes to me and wants to have a confidential discussion about anything - a prospective job, their manager, etc., I let them know I'm happy to do it, but my ability to keep the information purely confidential is dependent on the topic.  I then give them an idea of the topics I couldn't keep confidential (harassment, etc.)

If they're still in, we have the conversation.  I try and help out any way I can.  We'll talk and I'll try to give them options, and tell them how I can help with their approval.

Then I lock the info down post-conversation.  It's what you have to do if you want to have credibility with a workforce.

Can you trust HR in tough times?  It's an individual question based on your HR Pro.  Just remember, past behavior is the best predictor of future performance...

It's the age old question - can you trust HR?  With anything?

Lisa Takeuchi Cullen thinks you probably shouldn't; check out this post at Work in Progress, her blog at Time.com:

"Over the past few years, my employer has imposed a few rounds of layoffs. During the run-up, we were encouraged to visit with our human resources department if we wanted to inquire about taking a package. We were assured absolute, air-tight, witness-protection-program secrecy if we chose to do so. Who needs our bosses knowing we're entertaining an exit?

Quite a few of my colleagues did visit with HR. Then a funny thing happened. A few of them found that some management types dropped by to nonchalantly express their appreciation of the staffer's work.

Now, you have to understand my workplace culture to truly comprehend how completely weird that is. Where I work, bosses do not randomly drop in to tell you you're fab. My colleagues suspected an HR leak to management. I don't think they were being paranoid.

In these times of trouble, is HR your friend? Or can you ever trust a department that, after all, reports to the same master?"

The perception is sad but real, and at times, accurate.   After all, HR people are just that - people.  We have strong ones, weak ones, political ones, etc.   I think whether you can trust HR in any circumstance depends on the track record of the HR Pro you are dealing with.  What have you witnessed from them to that point?  As behavioral interviewers, we'll tell you straight up that past behavior is the best predictor of future performance.  It applies here...

For what it's worth, here's my approach with confidential information.  An employee comes to me and wants to have a confidential discussion about anything - a prospective job, their manager, etc., I let them know I'm happy to do it, but my ability to keep the information purely confidential is dependent on the topic.  I then give them an idea of the topics I couldn't keep confidential (harassment, etc.)

If they're still in, we have the conversation.  I try and help out any way I can.  We'll talk and I'll try to give them options, and tell them how I can help with their approval.

Then I lock the info down post-conversation.  It's what you have to do if you want to have credibility with a workforce.

Can you trust HR in tough times?  It's an individual question based on your HR Pro.  Just remember, past behavior is the best predictor of future performance...

Managers Who Suffocate Stars...

You've seen it before - the manager who likes to keep everything under their control.  They want to check off on all decisions and have a tendency to be the one to communicate all good news upward in the organization, which makes a lot of onlookers think they love to take credit for OPW (Other People's Work).

That might be true, but I usually think something else is at play.

I think that manager is scared.  Scared about the upward mobility of those they manage.  A little insecure about their abilities.  And most of all, unsure if they can compete in the marketplace of innovation.

Direct report showing some initiative and innovating?  For most of us, we celebrate, pushing the emails detailing the results and innovation around the organization as a means of recognition - and promotion.  It's our job to tell the world we have great people working for us who are capable of great things.

The scared manager?  No such communication happens.  Maybe it's been awhile since they viewed their business or function with a fresh set of eyes.  Maybe they're capable of innovation, but have decided to mail it in.   Maybe they're just scared that they don't have "it" anymore.

So they don't celebrate the success of their employees.  They don't promote.  They don't view themselves as a talent agent.  They're a bureaucrat.

And they're dangerous to any organization that wants to grow.   

You've seen it before - the manager who likes to keep everything under their control.  They want to check off on all decisions and have a tendency to be the one to communicate all good news upward in the organization, which makes a lot of onlookers think they love to take credit for OPW (Other People's Work).

That might be true, but I usually think something else is at play.

I think that manager is scared.  Scared about the upward mobility of those they manage.  A little insecure about their abilities.  And most of all, unsure if they can compete in the marketplace of innovation.

Direct report showing some initiative and innovating?  For most of us, we celebrate, pushing the emails detailing the results and innovation around the organization as a means of recognition - and promotion.  It's our job to tell the world we have great people working for us who are capable of great things.

The scared manager?  No such communication happens.  Maybe it's been awhile since they viewed their business or function with a fresh set of eyes.  Maybe they're capable of innovation, but have decided to mail it in.   Maybe they're just scared that they don't have "it" anymore.

So they don't celebrate the success of their employees.  They don't promote.  They don't view themselves as a talent agent.  They're a bureaucrat.

And they're dangerous to any organization that wants to grow.   

Show Me the Freaking Money - Sharing Pay Ranges With Associates...

Sharing pay ranges with your employees - do you do it?

Three schools of thought here:

1.  We share nothing.  Maybe we have nothing (by way of comp ranges, etc.)

2.  We have stuff, but don't share it broadly.  We'll share it with the individual employee if they are interested, during the merit review, and certainly if pay issues come up with an employee who feels underpaid, etc.

3.  We share it all.  Our range structure is published to all employees, and employees might even have access to know the grades for all the jobs in the company.

Ann Bares got me thinking about this with her recent post on the sad state of Pay Communication. 

Markets drive pay.  Companies value jobs based on those markets, and also make determinations about how much skills in a specific profession are worth, based on the ranges that are developed.  So for me, #1 (we have nothing, we share nothing, and we value jobs on the fly) isn't a practical solution, at least for companies with any size and scale. 

I don't think #3 (we share it all) is a realistic alternative either.  The problem with sharing it all is the loss of productivity and angst regarding OPR (other people's ranges).  I've worked for big companies that took this approach, and a significant amount of time is spent with the angst of knowing someone else's range.  No matter that the person with the angst doesn't know the salary or if the comp ratio is .8 or 1.2.  Their range is higher than mine! 

So for me, we're left with #2 - Share range information with the individual employee at natural times, like the merit review.  Tell them how the company creates and updates ranges, and tell them why they are where they are within the range.  Tell them the plan and the room to grow, if they stay in the same position.

Or go with Option #4 - just post a list of all the employees' salaries on the bathroom door.  I joke, but I'm sure that's happened somewhere, sometime, with a frazzled HR Pro ready to go on stress-related FMLA leave at the center of the storm.

Go with option #2....

Sharing pay ranges with your employees - do you do it?

Three schools of thought here:

1.  We share nothing.  Maybe we have nothing (by way of comp ranges, etc.)

2.  We have stuff, but don't share it broadly.  We'll share it with the individual employee if they are interested, during the merit review, and certainly if pay issues come up with an employee who feels underpaid, etc.

3.  We share it all.  Our range structure is published to all employees, and employees might even have access to know the grades for all the jobs in the company.

Ann Bares got me thinking about this with her recent post on the sad state of Pay Communication. 

Markets drive pay.  Companies value jobs based on those markets, and also make determinations about how much skills in a specific profession are worth, based on the ranges that are developed.  So for me, #1 (we have nothing, we share nothing, and we value jobs on the fly) isn't a practical solution, at least for companies with any size and scale. 

I don't think #3 (we share it all) is a realistic alternative either.  The problem with sharing it all is the loss of productivity and angst regarding OPR (other people's ranges).  I've worked for big companies that took this approach, and a significant amount of time is spent with the angst of knowing someone else's range.  No matter that the person with the angst doesn't know the salary or if the comp ratio is .8 or 1.2.  Their range is higher than mine! 

So for me, we're left with #2 - Share range information with the individual employee at natural times, like the merit review.  Tell them how the company creates and updates ranges, and tell them why they are where they are within the range.  Tell them the plan and the room to grow, if they stay in the same position.

Or go with Option #4 - just post a list of all the employees' salaries on the bathroom door.  I joke, but I'm sure that's happened somewhere, sometime, with a frazzled HR Pro ready to go on stress-related FMLA leave at the center of the storm.

Go with option #2....

The "Love Broker" - Making Your Employees Sign A Workplace Relationship Prenup...

This topic would have gotten A LOT more attention around Valentine's Day.  Hard to believe a "news" organization like Good Morning America didn't do a better job focusing their leads with national holidays - or at least what days Hallmark says are important...

Anyway, some lawyers have come up a with a product that might have some legs - a workplace hookup prenup.  From ABC News:

"Think of it in terms of a prenup," said Good Morning America workplace contributor Tory Johnson. "In this particular case, you're saying to the employer, 'We'll prevent you from being held responsible for employment issues in the event of a failed personal relationship.' The employer should not have that burden."

""It is documenting the relationship. You need to define the relationship. Is [it] welcome? It is not sex harassment," explained Stephen Tedesco, an employment lawyer, who said that it is important to make clear that whatever personal conduct has gone on is not harassment.

"It also defines how they are going to conduct themselves in the workplace going forward," he said."

Not a bad idea, but the heavy lifting is still left to you as the HR pro - you get to figure out what relationship rumors are real, and then decide based on what you think you know whether to intervene and have both parties sign something to say they won't hold you responsible for harassment claims, etc.

Once again, the heavy lifting is still yours.  I offer two rumor-based situations where it's very difficult to see your way clear to confront:

1.  The married employee who's having an affair with a co-worker.  Or is it an affair?  See John Hollon's notes on the office spouse...

2.  The guy or gal who is rumored to be having an affair with a co-worker 10-20 years younger than they are... Have fun with that one...

So, the workplace relationship prenup has some legs, and that's cool.  Don't let anyone fool you if you are a HR pro in charge of the employee relations environment.  You're still doing ALL the heavy lifting through the actual decision on whether to confront.

That's why you get $11.64 an hour.  Now move forward and rid our workplace of some ALL liability!!

The Google Innovation Model - A Festivus For the Rest of Us...

Couple of questions today on Employee Engagement here at SHRMingham/BSHRM:

1.  Do you think you can engage employees in your company who are not currently engaged?  Or do you feel like I felt a while back, and believe that the best way to ensure employees are engaged is to hire engaged people?

2.  If you don't know who the engaged people are in your department, do you think you can figure it out by making them an offer they can't refuse? (if they are the type who are or can be engaged)

3.   Do you think the best way to engage employees is to offer creative time to all employees, whether they have shown a wisp of engagement or not?

What's got me thinking about engagement in this way? I was catching up on Jon Ingham's blog (UK), and he reminded me of a practice to stimulate innovation at Google by offering up 20% of the workweek to technical projects of the employee's own choosing.  From the Harvard Business Review via Jon Ingham:

"One clear reason for Google’s success at innovation is that the company does what many others do not: budgets for it in employee time. New ideas at Google are often generated by employees, from the bottom up, in a prescribed system of time allocation. Technical employees are required to spend 80% of their time on the core search and advertising businesses, and 20% on technical projects of their own choosing."

If you are like me, you've read about that practice before.  Pretty cool, but not exactly transferable, mainly due to one factor...

I'm not Google... Neither are you.... Our mix of jobs is different.... and so's the talent in many ways...You don't, for the most part, hire PhD's who are expected to create and innovate on a daily basis.  You'd like innovation, would settle for engagement, and want to avoid folks working against you.

Seriously - if you put this practice in place today, what percentage of your employees would come to you to inquire about what the heck they were supposed to spend the flex time on?  30%?  50%? 70%?

Fortunately, there's a festivus for the rest of us - Coffee's for closers, so if you are looking to see who's really ready to innovate, tell the individuals on your team that if they can find a way to get their current workload complete in less time, you would support the use of 4 hours per week at work to pursue any work-related, professional development project that interests them.

Then see who's proactive about pursuing it.  Those are your engaged employees.  Do whatever it takes to retain them.

The good news?  You don't have to brainstorm with Billy in records management about what he should do during innovation time...

Couple of questions today on Employee Engagement here at SHRMingham/BSHRM:

1.  Do you think you can engage employees in your company who are not currently engaged?  Or do you feel like I felt a while back, and believe that the best way to ensure employees are engaged is to hire engaged people?

2.  If you don't know who the engaged people are in your department, do you think you can figure it out by making them an offer they can't refuse? (if they are the type who are or can be engaged)

3.   Do you think the best way to engage employees is to offer creative time to all employees, whether they have shown a wisp of engagement or not?

What's got me thinking about engagement in this way? I was catching up on Jon Ingham's blog (UK), and he reminded me of a practice to stimulate innovation at Google by offering up 20% of the workweek to technical projects of the employee's own choosing.  From the Harvard Business Review via Jon Ingham:

"One clear reason for Google’s success at innovation is that the company does what many others do not: budgets for it in employee time. New ideas at Google are often generated by employees, from the bottom up, in a prescribed system of time allocation. Technical employees are required to spend 80% of their time on the core search and advertising businesses, and 20% on technical projects of their own choosing."

If you are like me, you've read about that practice before.  Pretty cool, but not exactly transferable, mainly due to one factor...

I'm not Google... Neither are you.... Our mix of jobs is different.... and so's the talent in many ways...You don't, for the most part, hire PhD's who are expected to create and innovate on a daily basis.  You'd like innovation, would settle for engagement, and want to avoid folks working against you.

Seriously - if you put this practice in place today, what percentage of your employees would come to you to inquire about what the heck they were supposed to spend the flex time on?  30%?  50%? 70%?

Fortunately, there's a festivus for the rest of us - Coffee's for closers, so if you are looking to see who's really ready to innovate, tell the individuals on your team that if they can find a way to get their current workload complete in less time, you would support the use of 4 hours per week at work to pursue any work-related, professional development project that interests them.

Then see who's proactive about pursuing it.  Those are your engaged employees.  Do whatever it takes to retain them.

The good news?  You don't have to brainstorm with Billy in records management about what he should do during innovation time...

"Reply to All" - The Nuclear Button for Employee Relations Issues...

Who hasn't been there?  You meant to reply to one person only, but instead it went to everyone.  Hasn't everyone had an experience like that?

You just hope at the end of the day, when it happens to you, that it's a small explosion, not a nuclear one.

Of course, the size of the explosion is out of your control.  Most of the time, it's determined by who the original recipients of the email were before you got cute with the response.

Small group = manageable.   Medium-sized group = bad.  Distribution List for the entire company = Nuclear Winter....

Everyone's got a story on this.  Here's a great one from the January issue of GQ:

"One summer, we had an attractive intern, to put it mildly.  When her internship ended, she emailed everyone saying how great it was to work with us.  The right thing to do would have been to respond, "It was great working with you too."  But because I was on such familiar terms with her, I wrote back, "I'm going to miss you, baby.  We had great times together.  Your Latin lover." 

Without thinking, I hit "reply all", and it went to the entire company.  And when I say the entire company, I'm not talking about 15 or 20 people.  I (sic) talking about hundreds of people.  Even the employees at various subcompanies got it.  I felt like a total #$*.  My bosses immediately emailed me, telling me to try and recall the message, but it was too late; people were already opening it.  I got responses within seconds: "Who is this?"

Some people where annoyed.  Some were baffled.  Many knew who I was and couldn't believe I'd made such a stupid mistake.  Responses to my email poured in for two or three days.  I took the next day off out of total embarrassment but learned a valuable lesson:  The "reply all" button and the "reply" button are really close to each other.  Luckily, there wasn't any major fallout with the company, but I still hear about it to this day".

My favorite part of the story is the group that is confused and not even focused on the content and the obvious career-limiting blunder you've made.  They want to know what you need from them and why you are emailing them since they've never heard of you...

"Why are you sending me this?", they reply.   As you read their innocent response, you think, "Please move along.  Don't look at me - I'm hideous"....

Then, my second favorite part of this morality tale of public humiliation happens.  That's when people start using the "reply to all" button to encourage everyone to stop using the "reply to all" button.

That's ironic.  Too bad it's lost on you, because you'll twist in the wind for another week at the minimum.

On the positive side, you become much more alert at your desk for at least a couple of months... 

Who hasn't been there?  You meant to reply to one person only, but instead it went to everyone.  Hasn't everyone had an experience like that?

You just hope at the end of the day, when it happens to you, that it's a small explosion, not a nuclear one.

Of course, the size of the explosion is out of your control.  Most of the time, it's determined by who the original recipients of the email were before you got cute with the response.

Small group = manageable.   Medium-sized group = bad.  Distribution List for the entire company = Nuclear Winter....

Everyone's got a story on this.  Here's a great one from the January issue of GQ:

"One summer, we had an attractive intern, to put it mildly.  When her internship ended, she emailed everyone saying how great it was to work with us.  The right thing to do would have been to respond, "It was great working with you too."  But because I was on such familiar terms with her, I wrote back, "I'm going to miss you, baby.  We had great times together.  Your Latin lover." 

Without thinking, I hit "reply all", and it went to the entire company.  And when I say the entire company, I'm not talking about 15 or 20 people.  I (sic) talking about hundreds of people.  Even the employees at various subcompanies got it.  I felt like a total #$*.  My bosses immediately emailed me, telling me to try and recall the message, but it was too late; people were already opening it.  I got responses within seconds: "Who is this?"

Some people where annoyed.  Some were baffled.  Many knew who I was and couldn't believe I'd made such a stupid mistake.  Responses to my email poured in for two or three days.  I took the next day off out of total embarrassment but learned a valuable lesson:  The "reply all" button and the "reply" button are really close to each other.  Luckily, there wasn't any major fallout with the company, but I still hear about it to this day".

My favorite part of the story is the group that is confused and not even focused on the content and the obvious career-limiting blunder you've made.  They want to know what you need from them and why you are emailing them since they've never heard of you...

"Why are you sending me this?", they reply.   As you read their innocent response, you think, "Please move along.  Don't look at me - I'm hideous"....

Then, my second favorite part of this morality tale of public humiliation happens.  That's when people start using the "reply to all" button to encourage everyone to stop using the "reply to all" button.

That's ironic.  Too bad it's lost on you, because you'll twist in the wind for another week at the minimum.

On the positive side, you become much more alert at your desk for at least a couple of months... 

Title Inflation in Organizations - When the Mailroom Guy Has a VP Title...

Ever see the scene in Office Space where the two Bobs (OD consultants) are trying to figure out what people do at Innotech?  They would have loved to tackle the topic of Title Inflation (Bob #1 - "What would you say your title means here?").

There's a solid article from 2007 at Knowledge at Wharton focusing on the topic of title inflation in the C-suite, noting that companies have expanded C-Level titles from CEO, COO and CFO to include the less standard CMO (Chief Marketing Officer), CPO (Chief Privacy Officer) and CTO (Chief Talent Officer).  The article correctly points out that a primary reason for the inclusion of more C-level titles is the desire on the part of the organizations in question to show a functional area's importance and clout in an organization.

Of course, HR Pros know that title inflation has long been an issue underneath the C-suite in companies big and small.  Over the years, it seems like the most pressure in an organization (big and small) from a title perspective revolves around the designations of manager, director and vice-president.  With these titles in mind, here are my top reasons why your managers occasionally want to "beef up" the title of an associate:

1.  Limited funds exist for an aggressive Merit Increase - If the funds aren't there to be super aggressive on the merit side for a high performer, throwing in a beefier title seems like a good way to reward an employee.

2.  Retention Concerns - A manager may believe that a high performer values title and prestige over money, and thus feels pressured to deliver a paper title to a high performer - although their role won't change via the promotion.

3.  Customer Clout - A title occasionally is bestowed on a high performer based on the rationalization that the employee holds a position that is key in dealing with (often negotiating) customers.  In this space, the title is rationalized as being helpful in giving the employee the authority he/she needs with customers. 

4.  Internal Equity - Managers may feel pressure from certain high performers to promote them aggressively in title, due to the titles that others in the organization have for their respective roles.  This factor is intensified when the employee feels like they are on uneven ground with the other direct reports of the manager in question.

Left to the chaos of a non-standardized organization (especially with a decentralized HR function), everyone does their own thing (which is to give out titles without much structure or consistency).   Then someone in the org runs a report, and discovers the mailroom services guy is an AVP (Associate Vice President for all you non-title inflators out there).

You know the drill, especially if you have spent time in a larger company.  What follows the AVP of Mailroom Services discovery is a title standardization campaign leaving many (and I mean many) employee relations issues (hard feelings) as titles are stripped away and replaced by more realistic tags describing what the employees actually do (or as close as they can get).

Been through some of that - it's always much better to provide a little resistance up front and make sure all in the org are on board before handing out inflated titles.  Best place to start?  No manager titles if the person doesn't manage direct reports, and no Director or VP titles if the person doesn't manage managers who have direct reports (multiple layers in their organization). 

After all, you don't want the two Bobs asking YOU about the titles...   

Ever see the scene in Office Space where the two Bobs (OD consultants) are trying to figure out what people do at Innotech?  They would have loved to tackle the topic of Title Inflation (Bob #1 - "What would you say your title means here?").

There's a solid article from 2007 at Knowledge at Wharton focusing on the topic of title inflation in the C-suite, noting that companies have expanded C-Level titles from CEO, COO and CFO to include the less standard CMO (Chief Marketing Officer), CPO (Chief Privacy Officer) and CTO (Chief Talent Officer).  The article correctly points out that a primary reason for the inclusion of more C-level titles is the desire on the part of the organizations in question to show a functional area's importance and clout in an organization.

Of course, HR Pros know that title inflation has long been an issue underneath the C-suite in companies big and small.  Over the years, it seems like the most pressure in an organization (big and small) from a title perspective revolves around the designations of manager, director and vice-president.  With these titles in mind, here are my top reasons why your managers occasionally want to "beef up" the title of an associate:

1.  Limited funds exist for an aggressive Merit Increase - If the funds aren't there to be super aggressive on the merit side for a high performer, throwing in a beefier title seems like a good way to reward an employee.

2.  Retention Concerns - A manager may believe that a high performer values title and prestige over money, and thus feels pressured to deliver a paper title to a high performer - although their role won't change via the promotion.

3.  Customer Clout - A title occasionally is bestowed on a high performer based on the rationalization that the employee holds a position that is key in dealing with (often negotiating) customers.  In this space, the title is rationalized as being helpful in giving the employee the authority he/she needs with customers. 

4.  Internal Equity - Managers may feel pressure from certain high performers to promote them aggressively in title, due to the titles that others in the organization have for their respective roles.  This factor is intensified when the employee feels like they are on uneven ground with the other direct reports of the manager in question.

Left to the chaos of a non-standardized organization (especially with a decentralized HR function), everyone does their own thing (which is to give out titles without much structure or consistency).   Then someone in the org runs a report, and discovers the mailroom services guy is an AVP (Associate Vice President for all you non-title inflators out there).

You know the drill, especially if you have spent time in a larger company.  What follows the AVP of Mailroom Services discovery is a title standardization campaign leaving many (and I mean many) employee relations issues (hard feelings) as titles are stripped away and replaced by more realistic tags describing what the employees actually do (or as close as they can get).

Been through some of that - it's always much better to provide a little resistance up front and make sure all in the org are on board before handing out inflated titles.  Best place to start?  No manager titles if the person doesn't manage direct reports, and no Director or VP titles if the person doesn't manage managers who have direct reports (multiple layers in their organization). 

After all, you don't want the two Bobs asking YOU about the titles...   

42% of Tampa Bus Drivers Have Signed Up for Intermittent Leave..(!)

WOW.  It's been a few years since I supported a big consumer call center as part of my practice, so I had really forgotten about the pain that Intermittent Leave under FMLA can cause employers. 

The desire for maximum flexibility and at times, the avoidance of accountability, can cause Intermittent Leave to spread like a virus through an operating unit of a company.

For me, I thought bad news in this area would be about 3-4% of all employees in a division or company being approved for Intermittent Leave (10-12 employees in a call center of 300 would cause a big impact to scheduling, etc.).

But 42% of all employees?  You're kidding me, right?  Apparently not - from the Tampa Tribune:

"...Case in point is HARTline, the county's(Tampa metro) public transit service. Forty-two percent of the bus drivers have signed up for a benefit the federal law calls "unscheduled intermittent leave." Many of them are using the law to extend weekends and go home "sick" to avoid unwanted assignments.

The law designed to cost nothing is costing HARTline and other employers many millions of dollars. The family leave act was intended to cost little or nothing while providing 12 weeks of job security to help workers through challenges (sic) times - such as bringing home a new baby, recovering from illness, or helping an incapacitated relative.

Some workers, including many HARTline drivers, have discovered that minor ailments also qualify, such as back pain and headaches. A one-time doctor's certification can give a worker a perpetual excuse for going home early, sleeping late, or not showing up at all.

Lawmakers were wrong in thinking that two features would minimize employee abuse and employer expense: One, the worker on leave under the act gets no pay and thus has no incentive to malinger, and two, the law applies only to organizations with 50 or more workers, which seems to be ample manpower to make up lost productivity."

But employers like the bus agency can't make up in the afternoon for a bus that doesn't run in the morning. In many businesses, schedules must be kept.

To keep its buses on time, HARTline is spending $2 million a year on overtime, an agency spokesman says, and 39 percent of that cost is attributed to FMLA absences."

42% of all employees.  Maybe it would be easier for that HR Team to certify the people who don't need intermittent leave....

Ralph Kramden would never approve...

WOW.  It's been a few years since I supported a big consumer call center as part of my practice, so I had really forgotten about the pain that Intermittent Leave under FMLA can cause employers. 

The desire for maximum flexibility and at times, the avoidance of accountability, can cause Intermittent Leave to spread like a virus through an operating unit of a company.

For me, I thought bad news in this area would be about 3-4% of all employees in a division or company being approved for Intermittent Leave (10-12 employees in a call center of 300 would cause a big impact to scheduling, etc.).

But 42% of all employees?  You're kidding me, right?  Apparently not - from the Tampa Tribune:

"...Case in point is HARTline, the county's(Tampa metro) public transit service. Forty-two percent of the bus drivers have signed up for a benefit the federal law calls "unscheduled intermittent leave." Many of them are using the law to extend weekends and go home "sick" to avoid unwanted assignments.

The law designed to cost nothing is costing HARTline and other employers many millions of dollars. The family leave act was intended to cost little or nothing while providing 12 weeks of job security to help workers through challenges (sic) times - such as bringing home a new baby, recovering from illness, or helping an incapacitated relative.

Some workers, including many HARTline drivers, have discovered that minor ailments also qualify, such as back pain and headaches. A one-time doctor's certification can give a worker a perpetual excuse for going home early, sleeping late, or not showing up at all.

Lawmakers were wrong in thinking that two features would minimize employee abuse and employer expense: One, the worker on leave under the act gets no pay and thus has no incentive to malinger, and two, the law applies only to organizations with 50 or more workers, which seems to be ample manpower to make up lost productivity."

But employers like the bus agency can't make up in the afternoon for a bus that doesn't run in the morning. In many businesses, schedules must be kept.

To keep its buses on time, HARTline is spending $2 million a year on overtime, an agency spokesman says, and 39 percent of that cost is attributed to FMLA absences."

42% of all employees.  Maybe it would be easier for that HR Team to certify the people who don't need intermittent leave....

Ralph Kramden would never approve...

Does Your Company Sponsor Employee Clubs? Not Even a Wine Club?

Kristina Shevory has a cool article up at the New York Times about employee clubs.  From her article at the NYT:

"Fat paychecks, pensions and health insurance are not enough to recruit and keep employees these days. Companies are again finding that adding a bit of social context to work is crucial to keeping employees happy and productive. That is where employee clubs come in. Workplace specialists say clubs are a way to build camaraderie and help people get to know fellow employees away from work. Companies benefit, too. Clubs help create loyal employees, reduce turnover and improve morale while costing very little."

Interesting stuff.  I should know because she called me last year (found me from the HR Capitalist) and we talked about the challenges for employers who aren't Boeing or Google.  It was good conversation, and we talked about things that cash-challenged companies can do.

We talked for about 30 minutes.  What she quoted me on serves as a cautionary tale.  Here's my quote from the story.  Get ready to channel the Grinch:

"Still, perks can be impermanent. During the technology boom in the 1990s, companies piled on the benefits to attract talent and then promptly got rid of them when the economy soured. Many companies, whether they are battling bankruptcy or are flush with cash, have rolled back benefits, eliminated pensions and increased health care premiums to reduce expenses. Any nonessential perk, like an employee club, is also fair game.

“If they ever existed, the first thing that goes is the frilly, frilly stuff,” said Kris Dunn, vice president for human resources at SourceMedical, a Birmingham, Ala., software company, and author of the blog The HR Capitalist."

Bah Humbug... So my quote is true, but Mercer and the consultants get the fun quotes.  I get the fiscal hawk quote.... The HR person's trying to take all the fun out of the workplace...

Check out the article, it's a good read.  Finding out that Boeing funds over 100 employee clubs at seven locations nationwide is kind of like finding out that a Massage Therapist from Google is now a millionaire from her stock options.

It's hard to relate to from the trenches.... Boeing has a VP of Wine....

Kristina Shevory has a cool article up at the New York Times about employee clubs.  From her article at the NYT:

"Fat paychecks, pensions and health insurance are not enough to recruit and keep employees these days. Companies are again finding that adding a bit of social context to work is crucial to keeping employees happy and productive. That is where employee clubs come in. Workplace specialists say clubs are a way to build camaraderie and help people get to know fellow employees away from work. Companies benefit, too. Clubs help create loyal employees, reduce turnover and improve morale while costing very little."

Interesting stuff.  I should know because she called me last year (found me from the HR Capitalist) and we talked about the challenges for employers who aren't Boeing or Google.  It was good conversation, and we talked about things that cash-challenged companies can do.

We talked for about 30 minutes.  What she quoted me on serves as a cautionary tale.  Here's my quote from the story.  Get ready to channel the Grinch:

"Still, perks can be impermanent. During the technology boom in the 1990s, companies piled on the benefits to attract talent and then promptly got rid of them when the economy soured. Many companies, whether they are battling bankruptcy or are flush with cash, have rolled back benefits, eliminated pensions and increased health care premiums to reduce expenses. Any nonessential perk, like an employee club, is also fair game.

“If they ever existed, the first thing that goes is the frilly, frilly stuff,” said Kris Dunn, vice president for human resources at SourceMedical, a Birmingham, Ala., software company, and author of the blog The HR Capitalist."

Bah Humbug... So my quote is true, but Mercer and the consultants get the fun quotes.  I get the fiscal hawk quote.... The HR person's trying to take all the fun out of the workplace...

Check out the article, it's a good read.  Finding out that Boeing funds over 100 employee clubs at seven locations nationwide is kind of like finding out that a Massage Therapist from Google is now a millionaire from her stock options.

It's hard to relate to from the trenches.... Boeing has a VP of Wine....

HR Nightmare - Web 2.0 Meets Layoffs...

There's nothing cool about layoffs.  Whether you are an impacted employee or an HR person charged with holding meetings, there's not much positive to be found.

Leave it to Web 2.0 to liven up layoffs.  Or to take it to the next level of desperation.  All depends on your perspective.

Ryan Kuder lost his job at Yahoo on Tuesday. He was senior manager of integrated campaign strategy at Yahoo.   The Web 2.0 twist?   He Twittered how he was feeling throughout his last day.

For my 1.0 friends, Twitter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service that allows users to send "updates" (or "tweets"; text-based posts, up to 140 characters long) to the Twitter website, via short message service, instant messaging, or a third-party application such as Twitterrific.

Updates are displayed on the user's profile page and instantly delivered to other users who have signed up to receive them.

Ryan apparently loves Twitter, because he Twittered throughout the day he was laid-off.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but I'm erring with the mantra "transparency is good".  From the rundown at Valleywag:

"Lots of whispered conversations. Like people are afraid to ask who's gone. about 4 hours ago

Dear Blackberry, What great times we had. I'll miss you. At least until tonight when I stop on my way home and buy an iPhone. Love, Me about 4 hours ago

Oh...and my badge. He's going to take that too. Will I be able to get a latte for the road still? about 4 hours ago

I'm going dark in a few minutes. The HR guy is on his way over to confiscate my laptop. about 4 hours ago

Last free triple non-fat latte from Beantrees. Sniff. about 3 hours ago

Signing off from Yahoo!. Fade to black... about 3 hours ago

Celebrating unemployment with a giant margarita at Chevy's. 5 minutes ago"

There's nothing cool about layoffs.  Whether you are an impacted employee or an HR person charged with holding meetings, there's not much positive to be found.

Leave it to Web 2.0 to liven up layoffs.  Or to take it to the next level of desperation.  All depends on your perspective.

Ryan Kuder lost his job at Yahoo on Tuesday. He was senior manager of integrated campaign strategy at Yahoo.   The Web 2.0 twist?   He Twittered how he was feeling throughout his last day.

For my 1.0 friends, Twitter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service that allows users to send "updates" (or "tweets"; text-based posts, up to 140 characters long) to the Twitter website, via short message service, instant messaging, or a third-party application such as Twitterrific.

Updates are displayed on the user's profile page and instantly delivered to other users who have signed up to receive them.

Ryan apparently loves Twitter, because he Twittered throughout the day he was laid-off.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but I'm erring with the mantra "transparency is good".  From the rundown at Valleywag:

"Lots of whispered conversations. Like people are afraid to ask who's gone. about 4 hours ago

Dear Blackberry, What great times we had. I'll miss you. At least until tonight when I stop on my way home and buy an iPhone. Love, Me about 4 hours ago

Oh...and my badge. He's going to take that too. Will I be able to get a latte for the road still? about 4 hours ago

I'm going dark in a few minutes. The HR guy is on his way over to confiscate my laptop. about 4 hours ago

Last free triple non-fat latte from Beantrees. Sniff. about 3 hours ago

Signing off from Yahoo!. Fade to black... about 3 hours ago

Celebrating unemployment with a giant margarita at Chevy's. 5 minutes ago"

Best Superbowl Ad - The NFL Network's "Employee Referral Program" Ad....

Anyone beside me think it was a weak Super Bowl, in terms of the commercials?  It just seemed that the laughs were few, and the quality was poor, with a few exceptions...

My vote for best ad was an easy one.  During the playoffs, the NFL ran a contest where they allowed every player in the league to step in front of the camera and tell a unique story about their life in the league.  The reward for the winner?  To be featured in the NFL Network's 30-second spot during Super Bowl XLII.

The winner was Ephriam Salaam of the Houston Texans, who tells the story of his personal experience, in the form of an "employee referral program."  Here's a rundown of the story from www.houstontexans.com:

"The commercial tells how Salaam, while at San Diego State University, convinced Pitts to try out for the Aztecs football team. Pitts was a student working as a grocery bagger at a local supermarket. He had attended a math and science academy in high school, which had no football team.

But he heeded Salaam’s advice, walked on to the team and, a few years later, had developed so rapidly that he was selected by the Texans in the second round of the 2002 NFL Draft.

Salaam, a seventh-round draft choice by the Atlanta Falcons in 1998, reunited with Pitts in Houston as a free agent signee in 2006. He since has started 30 consecutive games next to his former college teammate on the left side of the offensive line.

“It is a phenomenal story that is true,” Salaam said. “Hollywood couldn’t write a script like this. We’re playing next to each other. How about that? I’m having fun playing next to one of my close friends that I knew before football and that doesn’t happen, ever.”

When I saw the commercial, I immediately thought of how all of us have tried at times to have managers and employees carry referral cards, usually with weak results, because most of the folks we were arming with the cards aren't salespeople.  The last thing they want to do is pitch someone on a job.

Then you see a story like this and remember that the best hires are equal parts chance, fate and awareness.  Makes me want to run out and create this type of commercial in an employment branding campaign.

Enjoy the spot if you didn't see it.  Make sure you think twice about the checkout clerk that gives you great service.  You might be missing an obvious hire...

You Should Play Football - NFL

Anyone beside me think it was a weak Super Bowl, in terms of the commercials?  It just seemed that the laughs were few, and the quality was poor, with a few exceptions...

My vote for best ad was an easy one.  During the playoffs, the NFL ran a contest where they allowed every player in the league to step in front of the camera and tell a unique story about their life in the league.  The reward for the winner?  To be featured in the NFL Network's 30-second spot during Super Bowl XLII.

The winner was Ephriam Salaam of the Houston Texans, who tells the story of his personal experience, in the form of an "employee referral program."  Here's a rundown of the story from www.houstontexans.com:

"The commercial tells how Salaam, while at San Diego State University, convinced Pitts to try out for the Aztecs football team. Pitts was a student working as a grocery bagger at a local supermarket. He had attended a math and science academy in high school, which had no football team.

But he heeded Salaam’s advice, walked on to the team and, a few years later, had developed so rapidly that he was selected by the Texans in the second round of the 2002 NFL Draft.

Salaam, a seventh-round draft choice by the Atlanta Falcons in 1998, reunited with Pitts in Houston as a free agent signee in 2006. He since has started 30 consecutive games next to his former college teammate on the left side of the offensive line.

“It is a phenomenal story that is true,” Salaam said. “Hollywood couldn’t write a script like this. We’re playing next to each other. How about that? I’m having fun playing next to one of my close friends that I knew before football and that doesn’t happen, ever.”

When I saw the commercial, I immediately thought of how all of us have tried at times to have managers and employees carry referral cards, usually with weak results, because most of the folks we were arming with the cards aren't salespeople.  The last thing they want to do is pitch someone on a job.

Then you see a story like this and remember that the best hires are equal parts chance, fate and awareness.  Makes me want to run out and create this type of commercial in an employment branding campaign.

Enjoy the spot if you didn't see it.  Make sure you think twice about the checkout clerk that gives you great service.  You might be missing an obvious hire...

You Should Play Football - NFL

Confused About Who's Engaged? Try This Handy Engagement Test to Sort It All Out...

My posts last week regarding the concept of engagement and subsequent research on the topic clarified a couple of things to me. 

-First, trying to get everyone to agree on a definition of engagment is harder than trying to get Britney Spears to settle down and work it all out with K-Fed.   

-Second, my take on the best way to have an engaged workforce is to a) ensure you hire talent that is already predisposed to be engaged, and b) figure out the best way to create an environment where "engagement fence straddlers" (those who might be engaged if placed in the right type of environment) elect to become engaged...

Of course, being the scientific, progressive manager you are, you want a way to baseline the current engagement level of your team before you start tinkering with the environment.   WOW - you are an achiever, and if I might add, an engaged one at that...

At the risk of being savagely attacked by the engagement community, here's my back of the napkin, "let's wing it" test to determine the engagment level of your current team:

1.  Tell your team that if they can find a way to get their current workload complete in less time, you would like to support the use of 4 hours per week at work to pursue any work-related, professional development project that interests them.  The only rules are that the project has to be work-related and potentially have a payoff to the business - but if the process leads to them developing new skills that adds value to them as professionals, so be it.

2.  Answer your team's questions about what is appropriate related to the project.  You might also get questions about how you will measure whether their current workload is being maintained.  Answer all questions to the best of your ability, without telling them how to do it.

3.  Once you've answered all the questions, don't do anything for 3 weeks.

4.  At the 3 week mark, check back in with everyone on your team in brief 1-on-1 sessions.  Have they started the project time?  What are they working on?

Here's how to score your findings:

-Associates who have taken advantage of your offer and are aggresively moving forward with a project - ENGAGED

-Associates who have developed some thoughts about what they might do, but have not taken action yet - NOT ENGAGED, BUT POSSIBLY COULD BECOME ENGAGED WITH THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL TWEAKS FROM YOU

-Associates who have done nothing, or have excuses for why they didn't take advantage of the offer - NOT ENGAGED AND NOT PROBABLE TO BECOME ENGAGED, regardless of your efforts.

Remember, this is only a test, and an informal one at that.  You might actually have to start being engaged yourself to create the environment where your direct reports are engaged.  One of the things I learned from the engagement community is that according to Gallup, on average, 29% of employees are engaged and 71% are either unengaged (neutral) or disengaged (opposed).

PS - my take on this as a nice informal test of engagement is based on the engagement traits listed in this post...

How many members of your team would you expect to take the offer and run with it? 

Just as important - Would you? 

My posts last week regarding the concept of engagement and subsequent research on the topic clarified a couple of things to me. 

-First, trying to get everyone to agree on a definition of engagment is harder than trying to get Britney Spears to settle down and work it all out with K-Fed.   

-Second, my take on the best way to have an engaged workforce is to a) ensure you hire talent that is already predisposed to be engaged, and b) figure out the best way to create an environment where "engagement fence straddlers" (those who might be engaged if placed in the right type of environment) elect to become engaged...

Of course, being the scientific, progressive manager you are, you want a way to baseline the current engagement level of your team before you start tinkering with the environment.   WOW - you are an achiever, and if I might add, an engaged one at that...

At the risk of being savagely attacked by the engagement community, here's my back of the napkin, "let's wing it" test to determine the engagment level of your current team:

1.  Tell your team that if they can find a way to get their current workload complete in less time, you would like to support the use of 4 hours per week at work to pursue any work-related, professional development project that interests them.  The only rules are that the project has to be work-related and potentially have a payoff to the business - but if the process leads to them developing new skills that adds value to them as professionals, so be it.

2.  Answer your team's questions about what is appropriate related to the project.  You might also get questions about how you will measure whether their current workload is being maintained.  Answer all questions to the best of your ability, without telling them how to do it.

3.  Once you've answered all the questions, don't do anything for 3 weeks.

4.  At the 3 week mark, check back in with everyone on your team in brief 1-on-1 sessions.  Have they started the project time?  What are they working on?

Here's how to score your findings:

-Associates who have taken advantage of your offer and are aggresively moving forward with a project - ENGAGED

-Associates who have developed some thoughts about what they might do, but have not taken action yet - NOT ENGAGED, BUT POSSIBLY COULD BECOME ENGAGED WITH THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL TWEAKS FROM YOU

-Associates who have done nothing, or have excuses for why they didn't take advantage of the offer - NOT ENGAGED AND NOT PROBABLE TO BECOME ENGAGED, regardless of your efforts.

Remember, this is only a test, and an informal one at that.  You might actually have to start being engaged yourself to create the environment where your direct reports are engaged.  One of the things I learned from the engagement community is that according to Gallup, on average, 29% of employees are engaged and 71% are either unengaged (neutral) or disengaged (opposed).

PS - my take on this as a nice informal test of engagement is based on the engagement traits listed in this post...

How many members of your team would you expect to take the offer and run with it? 

Just as important - Would you? 

IBM Responds to FLSA Suit by Cutting Base Pay for 6% of Workforce....

Here's an ugly one for you....

In 2006, IBM got hammered in a FLSA suit, and was ordered to pay 65 million in unpaid, overtime, back pay to workers included in the suit, who were deemed to be incorrectly classified as "exempt".

With that in mind, you expect a company like IBM to reclassify those employees as non-exempt and start making them OT eligible, right?   

As expected, the good news for those workers is that IBM now plans to grant them non-exempt status so they can collect overtime pay.

The bad news: IBM will cut their base salaries by 15% to make up the difference.

IBM's taking this path with 6% of its total workforce...

In a move that is legal but full of employee relations potholes, IBM apparently looked at the entire situation, and decided to remain cost neutral by cutting base pay of the workers upon the transition.  That way, if the expected amount of OT comes in, the workers will be earning the same total compensation.

That's hardball from a compensation perspective.  Glad I'm not the HR Manager handling those conversations - "Ricky, we're moving you to hourly/non-exempt status.  As a part of that, we've taken your salary and converted it to an hourly rate, then reduced it by 15%, since that's the average amount of compensation we project you'll earn through overtime this year".

Ugh.   

Here's an ugly one for you....

In 2006, IBM got hammered in a FLSA suit, and was ordered to pay 65 million in unpaid, overtime, back pay to workers included in the suit, who were deemed to be incorrectly classified as "exempt".

With that in mind, you expect a company like IBM to reclassify those employees as non-exempt and start making them OT eligible, right?   

As expected, the good news for those workers is that IBM now plans to grant them non-exempt status so they can collect overtime pay.

The bad news: IBM will cut their base salaries by 15% to make up the difference.

IBM's taking this path with 6% of its total workforce...

In a move that is legal but full of employee relations potholes, IBM apparently looked at the entire situation, and decided to remain cost neutral by cutting base pay of the workers upon the transition.  That way, if the expected amount of OT comes in, the workers will be earning the same total compensation.

That's hardball from a compensation perspective.  Glad I'm not the HR Manager handling those conversations - "Ricky, we're moving you to hourly/non-exempt status.  As a part of that, we've taken your salary and converted it to an hourly rate, then reduced it by 15%, since that's the average amount of compensation we project you'll earn through overtime this year".

Ugh.   

I Just Tried to Define Employee Engagement - Now I Need a Nap...

I thought a follow-up post was needed regarding "The Key to Employee Engagement - Don't Hire Clock Watchers". 

Point #1 - I obviously stirred up a hornet's nest by talking about engagement without trying to define it for the syndicated audience (note - you can have one reader on feedburner and call it syndicated - cool!); 

Point #2 - I browsed around looking to define employee engagement, and as a result;

Point #3 - I now need a nap. 

WOW!  Was that some painful reading.  Not since a Fortune 500 corporate team I was on in the 90's came together to deal with the OFCCP required, "Definition of an Applicant", have so many said so much, yet so little.

zzzzzzz....zzzzzzzz.....zzzzzzz

OK, I'm back.   Lucky for me, one of the emails I received was from a guy who actually understands the different definitions.  His name is Tim Wright, of Wright Results (aptly named).  Tim's spent enough time thinking about engagement that he can actually compare and contrast engagement theories.   Spend 10 minutes googling "employee engagement" and you'll understand why that's significant.

For a great rundown of employee engagement theories, hit Tim's blog here.

I had two favorite definitions from Tim's post.  The Gallup G12, and Tim's own definition of engagement. 

Here's the Gallup G12, which lists traits of engaged employees:

• Consistent levels of high performance.
• Natural innovation and drive for efficiency.
• Intentional building of supportive relationships.
• Clear about the desired outcomes of their role.
• Emotionally committed to what they do.
• Challenge purpose to achieve goals.
• High energy and enthusiasm.
• Never run out of things to do, create positive things to act on.
• Broaden what they do and build on it.
• Commitment to company, work group, and role.

Here's Tim Wright's definition:

The individual’s investment of energy, skill, ability, and eagerness in the work performed. Engagement includes “involvement” and “commitment” yet goes beyond to include observable behaviors such as:

• Attention to task detail
• Commitment to assignment completion
• Involvement in special projects
• Communication willingly, effectively with others
• Demonstration of personal/professional improvement
• Initiation of problem-solving and/or conflict resolution
• Innovation regarding processes and procedures

I bolded the characteristics that closely matched my (cough) unscientific definition.  In any event, these two trait-based definitions were, by far, better than anything else I found.

Hit Tim's web site to learn more.  He's apparently pursuing a practice revolving around employee engagement, which makes him a) brilliant, b) a masochist, or c) both.

Check it out and answer that question for yourself....

I thought a follow-up post was needed regarding "The Key to Employee Engagement - Don't Hire Clock Watchers". 

Point #1 - I obviously stirred up a hornet's nest by talking about engagement without trying to define it for the syndicated audience (note - you can have one reader on feedburner and call it syndicated - cool!); 

Point #2 - I browsed around looking to define employee engagement, and as a result;

Point #3 - I now need a nap. 

WOW!  Was that some painful reading.  Not since a Fortune 500 corporate team I was on in the 90's came together to deal with the OFCCP required, "Definition of an Applicant", have so many said so much, yet so little.

zzzzzzz....zzzzzzzz.....zzzzzzz

OK, I'm back.   Lucky for me, one of the emails I received was from a guy who actually understands the different definitions.  His name is Tim Wright, of Wright Results (aptly named).  Tim's spent enough time thinking about engagement that he can actually compare and contrast engagement theories.   Spend 10 minutes googling "employee engagement" and you'll understand why that's significant.

For a great rundown of employee engagement theories, hit Tim's blog here.

I had two favorite definitions from Tim's post.  The Gallup G12, and Tim's own definition of engagement. 

Here's the Gallup G12, which lists traits of engaged employees:

• Consistent levels of high performance.
• Natural innovation and drive for efficiency.
• Intentional building of supportive relationships.
• Clear about the desired outcomes of their role.
• Emotionally committed to what they do.
• Challenge purpose to achieve goals.
• High energy and enthusiasm.
• Never run out of things to do, create positive things to act on.
• Broaden what they do and build on it.
• Commitment to company, work group, and role.

Here's Tim Wright's definition:

The individual’s investment of energy, skill, ability, and eagerness in the work performed. Engagement includes “involvement” and “commitment” yet goes beyond to include observable behaviors such as:

• Attention to task detail
• Commitment to assignment completion
• Involvement in special projects
• Communication willingly, effectively with others
• Demonstration of personal/professional improvement
• Initiation of problem-solving and/or conflict resolution
• Innovation regarding processes and procedures

I bolded the characteristics that closely matched my (cough) unscientific definition.  In any event, these two trait-based definitions were, by far, better than anything else I found.

Hit Tim's web site to learn more.  He's apparently pursuing a practice revolving around employee engagement, which makes him a) brilliant, b) a masochist, or c) both.

Check it out and answer that question for yourself....

The Key to Employee Engagement - Don't Hire Clock Watchers

I've been accused by others of being a workaholic.  Need proof?  Check out the comments to my past post on the wisdom of using an Out-Of-Office reply, where I was taken to task by those appalled that I dared to work on my blackberry while standing in a 60-minute line at Disney.   Trust me, peeps, standing in line at Disney isn't quality time with the nuclear family.  It's a taxing whinefest we would all be well advised to ignore through advanced technology.

More important to the question of my work habits, and yours, is the question of engagment.  Seth Godin penned a piece a few days ago that I thought was brilliant.   The thesis is that being a workaholic isn't defined by hours, but rather by attitude:

"A workaholic lives on fear. It's fear that drives him to show up all the time. The best defense, apparently, is a good attendance record.

A new class of jobs (and workers) is creating a different sort of worker, though. This is the person who works out of passion and curiosity, not fear.

The passionate worker doesn't show up because she's afraid of getting in trouble, she shows up because it's a hobby that pays. The passionate worker is busy blogging on vacation... because posting that thought and seeing the feedback it generates is actually more fun than sitting on the beach for another hour. The passionate worker tweaks a site design after dinner because, hey, it's a lot more fun than watching TV.

It was hard to imagine someone being passionate about mining coal or scrubbing dishes. But the new face of work, at least for some people, opens up the possibility that work is the thing (much of the time) that you'd most like to do. Designing jobs like that is obviously smart. Finding one is brilliant."

We should all be fortunate enough to be so engaged in our jobs/careers that we actively seek opportunties to learn, regardless of time/location. 

This blog is a good example of working with curiosity.  Do I have to do it?  Nope.  Do I want to do it?  Absolutely, especially when I get reactions and thoughts from others I can learn from as a result.  That's where the power of engagement really comes into play.  It makes you want to work on the craft, and go back for more.

I know people who naturally bring that passion to their work.  I know another group of people who are rigid about the hours they work.  The interesting thing is that few of the individuals who are rigid about their hours are passionate about their work. 

Can people who watch the clock be engaged employees?  Or is engagement an intrinsic quality that some people have and others don't?

My take?  The naturally curious are always more apt to dream and be engaged, regardless of the job.  The rest of the crowd better work OT to find a job that matches their strengths, because if not placed in a perfect situation, they'll become clock watchers.

And once that happens, there's little that the employer can do to change engagement levels.

Look inward, clock watchers of America. 

I've been accused by others of being a workaholic.  Need proof?  Check out the comments to my past post on the wisdom of using an Out-Of-Office reply, where I was taken to task by those appalled that I dared to work on my blackberry while standing in a 60-minute line at Disney.   Trust me, peeps, standing in line at Disney isn't quality time with the nuclear family.  It's a taxing whinefest we would all be well advised to ignore through advanced technology.

More important to the question of my work habits, and yours, is the question of engagment.  Seth Godin penned a piece a few days ago that I thought was brilliant.   The thesis is that being a workaholic isn't defined by hours, but rather by attitude:

"A workaholic lives on fear. It's fear that drives him to show up all the time. The best defense, apparently, is a good attendance record.

A new class of jobs (and workers) is creating a different sort of worker, though. This is the person who works out of passion and curiosity, not fear.

The passionate worker doesn't show up because she's afraid of getting in trouble, she shows up because it's a hobby that pays. The passionate worker is busy blogging on vacation... because posting that thought and seeing the feedback it generates is actually more fun than sitting on the beach for another hour. The passionate worker tweaks a site design after dinner because, hey, it's a lot more fun than watching TV.

It was hard to imagine someone being passionate about mining coal or scrubbing dishes. But the new face of work, at least for some people, opens up the possibility that work is the thing (much of the time) that you'd most like to do. Designing jobs like that is obviously smart. Finding one is brilliant."

We should all be fortunate enough to be so engaged in our jobs/careers that we actively seek opportunties to learn, regardless of time/location. 

This blog is a good example of working with curiosity.  Do I have to do it?  Nope.  Do I want to do it?  Absolutely, especially when I get reactions and thoughts from others I can learn from as a result.  That's where the power of engagement really comes into play.  It makes you want to work on the craft, and go back for more.

I know people who naturally bring that passion to their work.  I know another group of people who are rigid about the hours they work.  The interesting thing is that few of the individuals who are rigid about their hours are passionate about their work. 

Can people who watch the clock be engaged employees?  Or is engagement an intrinsic quality that some people have and others don't?

My take?  The naturally curious are always more apt to dream and be engaged, regardless of the job.  The rest of the crowd better work OT to find a job that matches their strengths, because if not placed in a perfect situation, they'll become clock watchers.

And once that happens, there's little that the employer can do to change engagement levels.

Look inward, clock watchers of America. 

"A workaholic lives on fear. It's fear that drives him to show up all the time. The best defense, apparently, is a good attendance record.

A new class of jobs (and workers) is creating a different sort of worker, though. This is the person who works out of passion and curiosity, not fear.

The passionate worker doesn't show up because she's afraid of getting in trouble, she shows up because it's a hobby that pays. The passionate worker is busy blogging on vacation... because posting that thought and seeing the feedback it generates is actually more fun than sitting on the beach for another hour. The passionate worker tweaks a site design after dinner because, hey, it's a lot more fun than watching TV.

It was hard to imagine someone being passionate about mining coal or scrubbing dishes. But the new face of work, at least for some people, opens up the possibility that work is the thing (much of the time) that you'd most like to do. Designing jobs like that is obviously smart. Finding one is brilliant."

Ugly Stats on the Impact of Bad Diversity Training...

Want to hear some ugly stats?

A recent study found the impact of most diversity training efforts to be counter-productive, according to a comprehensive analysis of 31 years of data from over 800 medium and large US workplaces.

See a review of the full study results at the Washington Post.

Here are numbers - The kind of diversity training offered by most companies was followed by a 7.5% drop in the number of women in management, a 10% drop in the number of black women in management, and a 12% drop in the number of black men in management.   The study cites Asians and Latinos as suffering similar fates, even while pointing to the good intentions of companies embracing diversity training as a way to make their workplaces more inclusive and to cater to a more diverse workforce and customer base.

The analysis did not find that all diversity training is useless. Rather, it showed that mandatory programs -- often undertaken mainly with an eye to avoiding liability in discrimination lawsuits -- were the problem. When diversity training is voluntary and undertaken to advance a company's business goals, it was associated with increased diversity in management.   That's good to know, but hard to explain to the OFCCP when they want a list of your good faith efforts in conjunction with your Affirmative Action Plan...

So the next time you're doing Diversity training, you might want to roll out the demographics of your customer base as a part of the package...and <gasp> make it voluntary?

Want to hear some ugly stats?

A recent study found the impact of most diversity training efforts to be counter-productive, according to a comprehensive analysis of 31 years of data from over 800 medium and large US workplaces.

See a review of the full study results at the Washington Post.

Here are numbers - The kind of diversity training offered by most companies was followed by a 7.5% drop in the number of women in management, a 10% drop in the number of black women in management, and a 12% drop in the number of black men in management.   The study cites Asians and Latinos as suffering similar fates, even while pointing to the good intentions of companies embracing diversity training as a way to make their workplaces more inclusive and to cater to a more diverse workforce and customer base.

The analysis did not find that all diversity training is useless. Rather, it showed that mandatory programs -- often undertaken mainly with an eye to avoiding liability in discrimination lawsuits -- were the problem. When diversity training is voluntary and undertaken to advance a company's business goals, it was associated with increased diversity in management.   That's good to know, but hard to explain to the OFCCP when they want a list of your good faith efforts in conjunction with your Affirmative Action Plan...

So the next time you're doing Diversity training, you might want to roll out the demographics of your customer base as a part of the package...and <gasp> make it voluntary?

What Pecentage Increase Does It Take to Steal a Sales Rep From Your Competition?

Every time I think of sales reps, I think of Glengarry Glen Ross.  Always... Be... Closing.  Get them to sign on the line which is dotted.  Could it be that there is more to motivating sales reps than cash?

Ann Bares at Compensation Force has an interesting post up regarding the motivation of sales representatives.  Ann cites a recent Rewards of WorkSM (ROW) Study that points to the fact that sales reps may be motivated by more than just money.  Here are the details from the study:

The ROW Study found that sales employees, compared to non-sales employees, are:

• More engaged (57% versus 51%)
• More committed to their company (68% versus 62%)

And, of course,

• More motivated by compensation (82% versus 62%)

Moreover, they have:

• A greater sense of affiliation with their organization (67% versus 60%)
• Higher career satisfaction (57% versus 52%), and
• More trust in management (59% vs. 55%)

Interesting numbers, and Ann correctly points out that the data is worth pondering.  First up, Sales people ARE more motivated by money than your normal employee.   That's good to know.  I might have lost faith in the basic instincts of humanity if that were not the case...

More importantly, since sales reps put it on the line to sell your product/service everyday, they're more engaged, satisfied and committed to your company than other types of employees.   They also have a higher degree of affiliation with the company (and whatever brand you are selling as an employer) than other types of employees.

It's interesting data, and certainly contrary to the stereotype of the mercenary sales rep.  It's good to know that sales reps have all these positive attributes when it comes to engagement and affiliation. 

Here's the 64K question.  Look at the spreads noted above when comparing sales reps to all other types of employees.   The motivation of compensation still dominates the landscape, so what type of percentage increase will it take for the normal sales rep to give up the warm nest of affiliation and satisfaction for more money?

I'm guessing that number is 20+% if all other items (benefits, product, perks, etc.) are equal.

What's your number? 

Every time I think of sales reps, I think of Glengarry Glen Ross.  Always... Be... Closing.  Get them to sign on the line which is dotted.  Could it be that there is more to motivating sales reps than cash?

Ann Bares at Compensation Force has an interesting post up regarding the motivation of sales representatives.  Ann cites a recent Rewards of WorkSM (ROW) Study that points to the fact that sales reps may be motivated by more than just money.  Here are the details from the study:

The ROW Study found that sales employees, compared to non-sales employees, are:

• More engaged (57% versus 51%)
• More committed to their company (68% versus 62%)

And, of course,

• More motivated by compensation (82% versus 62%)

Moreover, they have:

• A greater sense of affiliation with their organization (67% versus 60%)
• Higher career satisfaction (57% versus 52%), and
• More trust in management (59% vs. 55%)

Interesting numbers, and Ann correctly points out that the data is worth pondering.  First up, Sales people ARE more motivated by money than your normal employee.   That's good to know.  I might have lost faith in the basic instincts of humanity if that were not the case...

More importantly, since sales reps put it on the line to sell your product/service everyday, they're more engaged, satisfied and committed to your company than other types of employees.   They also have a higher degree of affiliation with the company (and whatever brand you are selling as an employer) than other types of employees.

It's interesting data, and certainly contrary to the stereotype of the mercenary sales rep.  It's good to know that sales reps have all these positive attributes when it comes to engagement and affiliation. 

Here's the 64K question.  Look at the spreads noted above when comparing sales reps to all other types of employees.   The motivation of compensation still dominates the landscape, so what type of percentage increase will it take for the normal sales rep to give up the warm nest of affiliation and satisfaction for more money?

I'm guessing that number is 20+% if all other items (benefits, product, perks, etc.) are equal.

What's your number? 

Comparison of 100K Jobs in Organizations.....

Budget season is pretty much past us at this point, which means headcount budgets are set for 2008.  Of course, that doesn't mean the need for staffing justification is final.  Some organizations cut new headcount to zero as part of the budget process, and some organizations allow business units to layer in additional headcount, then vigorously track revenue to determine if the new headcount will be hired in the upcoming year.

Make your revenue early in the year, and maybe you'll get to hire the additional headcount.  Struggle and chances are the new talent isn't going to be joining the organization.

One additional exercise used, when needed in headcount discussions, is the creation of staffing metrics.  Customers per Customer Service Rep, Revenue per FTE - you name it, there's a staffing metric that can be created.  Some are useful, some aren't - it's all in the context.

Here one you may or may have not seen - comparison of the raw number of 100K jobs in your organization compared to similar organizations.  Organizations routinely take a look at this simple metric to determine if they're top heavy or not.   Of course, the number itself really doesn't tell you a lot - you've got to have some type of comparison with other organizations (or divisions in the same company) to make it mean anything.

Here's an example.  In my hometown, a new mayor is comparing the Birmingham School Systems to other school systems regarding this metric.  From a Birmingham news editorial on the results of the analysis:

"Look around the area, and it's plain to see that Birmingham taxpayers pay a premium for the top administrators in their school system.

That's especially true when you have an assistant principal making more than the principal at the same school. Also, when the school system has 22 employees, most of those in the central office, making more than $100,000 a year while at Jefferson County, which has 8,000 more students, only half that many administrators make $100,000-plus. Mobile County, the state's largest school system with 65,000 students (almost 2X as many as the Birmingham City District), has just 12 administrators making more than $100,000 a year."

When you see this type of analysis, it's clear which side you want to be on - the lean side. 

Just like analysis of CEO pay, the raw number of highly compensated individuals in an organization is an emotional topic.  More importantly, since it deals with multiple positions, it's a barometer of how efficient an organization is compared to its peers.

Of course, the time to control what the Birmingham school system is experiencing is before the additonal group of highly compensated indviduals is hired.  At that point, it's voluntary.   Later, it usually becomes involuntary.

Budget season is pretty much past us at this point, which means headcount budgets are set for 2008.  Of course, that doesn't mean the need for staffing justification is final.  Some organizations cut new headcount to zero as part of the budget process, and some organizations allow business units to layer in additional headcount, then vigorously track revenue to determine if the new headcount will be hired in the upcoming year.

Make your revenue early in the year, and maybe you'll get to hire the additional headcount.  Struggle and chances are the new talent isn't going to be joining the organization.

One additional exercise used, when needed in headcount discussions, is the creation of staffing metrics.  Customers per Customer Service Rep, Revenue per FTE - you name it, there's a staffing metric that can be created.  Some are useful, some aren't - it's all in the context.

Here one you may or may have not seen - comparison of the raw number of 100K jobs in your organization compared to similar organizations.  Organizations routinely take a look at this simple metric to determine if they're top heavy or not.   Of course, the number itself really doesn't tell you a lot - you've got to have some type of comparison with other organizations (or divisions in the same company) to make it mean anything.

Here's an example.  In my hometown, a new mayor is comparing the Birmingham School Systems to other school systems regarding this metric.  From a Birmingham news editorial on the results of the analysis:

"Look around the area, and it's plain to see that Birmingham taxpayers pay a premium for the top administrators in their school system.

That's especially true when you have an assistant principal making more than the principal at the same school. Also, when the school system has 22 employees, most of those in the central office, making more than $100,000 a year while at Jefferson County, which has 8,000 more students, only half that many administrators make $100,000-plus. Mobile County, the state's largest school system with 65,000 students (almost 2X as many as the Birmingham City District), has just 12 administrators making more than $100,000 a year."

When you see this type of analysis, it's clear which side you want to be on - the lean side. 

Just like analysis of CEO pay, the raw number of highly compensated individuals in an organization is an emotional topic.  More importantly, since it deals with multiple positions, it's a barometer of how efficient an organization is compared to its peers.

Of course, the time to control what the Birmingham school system is experiencing is before the additonal group of highly compensated indviduals is hired.  At that point, it's voluntary.   Later, it usually becomes involuntary.

Lie on the Job Like Ferris - Is It OK to Use Sick Days for Job Interviews?

Everyone loved Ferris except for Ed Rooney.  How about you?   Do you look the other way when people use sick days to kick back?  Do your feelings depend on what the person is using the sick days for?

A BusinessWeek Interactive Case Study recently asked the following question - Is it OK for a solid, high-performing employee to use sick time, for non-illness related events, in order to save their vacation and personal days, for other uses?

Here's the crux of the case from BusinessWeek:

"In this case scenario, we visit a senior IT director at an insurance corporation. Although he has a  great relationship with superiors and subordinates alike, he wants a new job (BusinessWeek.com, 10/16/07). The top brass consistently skimps on the funds needed to upgrade the company's technology to the state of the art, and he fears he will get stale in his present position. Plus, he's moving out of the city and buying a house in the suburbs. The commute would be an hour-and-a-half each way. He owes it to himself to move on.

When his first interview comes up—with the human resources department, at a corporation 50 miles from his office—our executive can't stomach the thought of using his little remaining vacation or personal time. The morning of the interview, he calls his supervisor and says he's not feeling well, that he suspects it's bronchitis, and he'll need to use a sick day to see a doctor.

His boss is understanding, of course. The man rarely calls in sick, so there must be a good reason for it now. But did our executive do the right thing?"

This case hits you with an extreme from the start- not only is the guy telling a lie, but he's doing it to take time off from work to get another job.  That's an emotional powder-keg for the people charged with enforcing policies.  Bad style point #1 on his part.

Here's my take on bad style point #2.  He's a mid-to-upper level manager.  Since he's answering his blackberry in the shower (details from the case study when you click through), I'm assuming he's not a 9 to 5 guy, nor is he viewed as that.  With that, and the fact that he's a technology professional, I'd hope that he could wrangle the ability to work remotely for the half-day he needs for the interview (hour to and from, 2 hours for the initial process at the company).  I'd also hope that he could remain productive and do this occasionally without anyone getting anxious. 

If he can't figure that out, I probably don't want him as my Director of IT - with new technologies leading the charge for IT professionals and all...  As a HR person, I want to manage performance - not office hours here and there for a solid, well-regarded professional.

Of course, if he can't work remotely when he has to in his current culture, maybe that type of inflexibility is the real reason he's looking.

PS- From the HR perspective, I like to be liberal with the use of sick time.  Use it for anything related to illness - including the care of others.  Just do me the solid of not showing up at Outback that night.  Or me seeing you walk in a corporate office park across town where I have a meeting.   Also, to my PTO friends out there who never have to deal with this scenario, track the Healthy Families Act closely, because you may be tearing down your PTO policy if the HFA becomes law...

And you're correct - it's never OK to lie about that type of thing.  Unless you have the max cool factor like Ferris.  Then you'd make the HR people chasing you look like Ed Rooney...

Everyone loved Ferris except for Ed Rooney.  How about you?   Do you look the other way when people use sick days to kick back?  Do your feelings depend on what the person is using the sick days for?

A BusinessWeek Interactive Case Study recently asked the following question - Is it OK for a solid, high-performing employee to use sick time, for non-illness related events, in order to save their vacation and personal days, for other uses?

Here's the crux of the case from BusinessWeek:

"In this case scenario, we visit a senior IT director at an insurance corporation. Although he has a  great relationship with superiors and subordinates alike, he wants a new job (BusinessWeek.com, 10/16/07). The top brass consistently skimps on the funds needed to upgrade the company's technology to the state of the art, and he fears he will get stale in his present position. Plus, he's moving out of the city and buying a house in the suburbs. The commute would be an hour-and-a-half each way. He owes it to himself to move on.

When his first interview comes up—with the human resources department, at a corporation 50 miles from his office—our executive can't stomach the thought of using his little remaining vacation or personal time. The morning of the interview, he calls his supervisor and says he's not feeling well, that he suspects it's bronchitis, and he'll need to use a sick day to see a doctor.

His boss is understanding, of course. The man rarely calls in sick, so there must be a good reason for it now. But did our executive do the right thing?"

This case hits you with an extreme from the start- not only is the guy telling a lie, but he's doing it to take time off from work to get another job.  That's an emotional powder-keg for the people charged with enforcing policies.  Bad style point #1 on his part.

Here's my take on bad style point #2.  He's a mid-to-upper level manager.  Since he's answering his blackberry in the shower (details from the case study when you click through), I'm assuming he's not a 9 to 5 guy, nor is he viewed as that.  With that, and the fact that he's a technology professional, I'd hope that he could wrangle the ability to work remotely for the half-day he needs for the interview (hour to and from, 2 hours for the initial process at the company).  I'd also hope that he could remain productive and do this occasionally without anyone getting anxious. 

If he can't figure that out, I probably don't want him as my Director of IT - with new technologies leading the charge for IT professionals and all...  As a HR person, I want to manage performance - not office hours here and there for a solid, well-regarded professional.

Of course, if he can't work remotely when he has to in his current culture, maybe that type of inflexibility is the real reason he's looking.

PS- From the HR perspective, I like to be liberal with the use of sick time.  Use it for anything related to illness - including the care of others.  Just do me the solid of not showing up at Outback that night.  Or me seeing you walk in a corporate office park across town where I have a meeting.   Also, to my PTO friends out there who never have to deal with this scenario, track the Healthy Families Act closely, because you may be tearing down your PTO policy if the HFA becomes law...

And you're correct - it's never OK to lie about that type of thing.  Unless you have the max cool factor like Ferris.  Then you'd make the HR people chasing you look like Ed Rooney...

San Francisco Universal Healthcare - They're Going To Need More Ca$H....

There's been a lot of coverage lately about San Francisco and Universal Heathcare, namely the city's Health Benefits Ordinance, which would provide coverage for 73,000 uninsured adults in the city.    Lately, there's been some volleys back and forth whether the plan is legal.

Not sure if the plan is going to make it or not, but I am assuming it eventually will.   If it does make it and the city implements the plan, my layperson math indicates their best case assumptions will result in a plan that is dramatically underfunded. 

Check out these notes From SF Gate:

"As written, San Francisco’s ordinance would require private employers with at least 20 employees, and nonprofits with at least 50 employees, to provide health coverage at certain minimum levels or to pay a fee to the city. The fee would pay part of the cost of a $200 million-a-year program of care for the 73,000 uninsured adult city residents.

Without the employer fee, city officials say they will limit enrollment to those making no more than three times the federal poverty level, or about $32,000 a year for an individual."

Here's what I don't get.  By math, the city is planning on spending about $2,800 per covered individual annually.  That's great, but there's no way that's going to cut it, right?

Why won't it cover it?  By the very nature of the risk pool, the cost per covered individual is going to skew higher than average.  The uninsured includes people who can't work or are otherwise deemed uninsurable due to heath concerns.

A similar program for universal coverage in Connecticut failed, in part because the legislators were shocked about what the cost was (from Managed Care Matters):

"An effort in Connecticut to implement a single payer, universal coverage program is just about dead, after the state's Office of Fiscal Analysis determined it would cost as much as the entire state budget.

Politicians were shocked by the estimated total cost, which ranged from $12 billion to $18 billion (cost range per covered individual - $4,000 to $6,000).

I'm shocked that they were shocked."

That's why I don't get the plan in San Francisco.  The State of Connecticut runs the entire risk pool for the state and comes up with 4k to 6k per covered individual, and SF handles a risk pool that skews more severe and they're only going to pay $2,800?

When people underestimate things, I also think of that great line in the original "Jaws" - "We're going to need a bigger boat..."  That seems to fit here.... 

There's been a lot of coverage lately about San Francisco and Universal Heathcare, namely the city's Health Benefits Ordinance, which would provide coverage for 73,000 uninsured adults in the city.    Lately, there's been some volleys back and forth whether the plan is legal.

Not sure if the plan is going to make it or not, but I am assuming it eventually will.   If it does make it and the city implements the plan, my layperson math indicates their best case assumptions will result in a plan that is dramatically underfunded. 

Check out these notes From SF Gate:

"As written, San Francisco’s ordinance would require private employers with at least 20 employees, and nonprofits with at least 50 employees, to provide health coverage at certain minimum levels or to pay a fee to the city. The fee would pay part of the cost of a $200 million-a-year program of care for the 73,000 uninsured adult city residents.

Without the employer fee, city officials say they will limit enrollment to those making no more than three times the federal poverty level, or about $32,000 a year for an individual."

Here's what I don't get.  By math, the city is planning on spending about $2,800 per covered individual annually.  That's great, but there's no way that's going to cut it, right?

Why won't it cover it?  By the very nature of the risk pool, the cost per covered individual is going to skew higher than average.  The uninsured includes people who can't work or are otherwise deemed uninsurable due to heath concerns.

A similar program for universal coverage in Connecticut failed, in part because the legislators were shocked about what the cost was (from Managed Care Matters):

"An effort in Connecticut to implement a single payer, universal coverage program is just about dead, after the state's Office of Fiscal Analysis determined it would cost as much as the entire state budget.

Politicians were shocked by the estimated total cost, which ranged from $12 billion to $18 billion (cost range per covered individual - $4,000 to $6,000).

I'm shocked that they were shocked."

That's why I don't get the plan in San Francisco.  The State of Connecticut runs the entire risk pool for the state and comes up with 4k to 6k per covered individual, and SF handles a risk pool that skews more severe and they're only going to pay $2,800?

When people underestimate things, I also think of that great line in the original "Jaws" - "We're going to need a bigger boat..."  That seems to fit here.... 

"An effort in Connecticut to implement a single payer, universal coverage program is just about dead, after the state's Office of Fiscal Analysis determined it would cost as much as the entire state budget.

Politicians were shocked by the estimated total cost, which ranged from $12 billion to $18 billion (cost range per covered individual - $4,000 to $6,000).

I'm shocked that they were shocked."

Why the Girl Scouts Think HR People Hate Them...

Stop me when you've heard one of these scenarios before:

-HR Team huddles to determine what to do about Mary, who has posted a flyer in the break room touting the fact she's now selling Amway on the side, and her prices are great...

-HR Managers debates how to handle the request by a local credit union to come in and do a workshop on the benefits of Credit Unions....

-HR Team gets a complaint from the floor about Fred, who is selling Girl Scout Cookies out of a suitcase located in his cube and actively approaching employees and asking for their patronage.

Why are we forced to think long and hard about these situations?  Everyone say it with me - NON-SOLICITATION POLICY!!  Everyone has one in their handbooks, and I'm always surprised that a lot of HR people don't fully comprehend why those policies are there.

Still, the execution of the non-solicitation policy is more art than science.

First up, of course we don't want employees to face a daily barrage of closet entrepreneurs selling stuff in the workplace.  More importantly, the non-solicitation policy is grounded in a desire to remain union-free.  If you have a non-solicitation policy in place and enforce it, the NLRB will generally uphold your ability to prevent unions from being on your property to solicit support from employees.

If you don't have that policy, or more common, don't enforce it, the NLRB will likely allow unions to come on your property to solicit employees, since you are allowing others to solicit your employees on site as well.

The scope of the non-solicitation policy has been expanded to include email based on a recent court decision. From CBS4.com in Miami:

"Employers can prohibit workers from using the office e-mail system for union activities, so long as they prohibit solicitations from any outside organization, the National Labor Relations Board has ruled.

The board said its 3-2 decision sets a new labor relations standard that allows employers to prohibit union activity through the company's e-mail system while at the same time permitting office chitchat and personal messages.

The decision, released Friday, upheld the management of the Eugene Register-Guard newspaper in a case involving e-mail messages sent by Suzi Prozanski, a copy editor and Newspaper Guild leader, during contract negotiations in 2000 and the warnings the company gave her.

The board said two of the messages were "solicitations to support the union," and the company was justified in enforcing a policy that forbade the use of e-mail for "non-job-related solicitations." It ruled against the paper on a third message, saying it was "simply a clarification of facts surrounding a recent union event."

I hate saying no to the sale of girl scout cookies, school sales, etc.  I'm usually a "no-harm, no-foul" type of person, but every time I see one of these cases it always perks up my sensitivity to solicitation in the workplace.

I won't come out against girl scout cookies, lest I get blown out in the workplace version of the Iowa caucus.  I prefer to say yes to informal bumps in the parking lot between employees with business that gets done verbally, and no to posted flyers, the use of email to solicit, etc.      

You have to say no to some organizations you like (credit union, formal girl scout cookie marketing?) to keep the ones you don't want around your organization at bay.  That kind of stinks.... 

Stop me when you've heard one of these scenarios before:

-HR Team huddles to determine what to do about Mary, who has posted a flyer in the break room touting the fact she's now selling Amway on the side, and her prices are great...

-HR Managers debates how to handle the request by a local credit union to come in and do a workshop on the benefits of Credit Unions....

-HR Team gets a complaint from the floor about Fred, who is selling Girl Scout Cookies out of a suitcase located in his cube and actively approaching employees and asking for their patronage.

Why are we forced to think long and hard about these situations?  Everyone say it with me - NON-SOLICITATION POLICY!!  Everyone has one in their handbooks, and I'm always surprised that a lot of HR people don't fully comprehend why those policies are there.

Still, the execution of the non-solicitation policy is more art than science.

First up, of course we don't want employees to face a daily barrage of closet entrepreneurs selling stuff in the workplace.  More importantly, the non-solicitation policy is grounded in a desire to remain union-free.  If you have a non-solicitation policy in place and enforce it, the NLRB will generally uphold your ability to prevent unions from being on your property to solicit support from employees.

If you don't have that policy, or more common, don't enforce it, the NLRB will likely allow unions to come on your property to solicit employees, since you are allowing others to solicit your employees on site as well.

The scope of the non-solicitation policy has been expanded to include email based on a recent court decision. From CBS4.com in Miami:

"Employers can prohibit workers from using the office e-mail system for union activities, so long as they prohibit solicitations from any outside organization, the National Labor Relations Board has ruled.

The board said its 3-2 decision sets a new labor relations standard that allows employers to prohibit union activity through the company's e-mail system while at the same time permitting office chitchat and personal messages.

The decision, released Friday, upheld the management of the Eugene Register-Guard newspaper in a case involving e-mail messages sent by Suzi Prozanski, a copy editor and Newspaper Guild leader, during contract negotiations in 2000 and the warnings the company gave her.

The board said two of the messages were "solicitations to support the union," and the company was justified in enforcing a policy that forbade the use of e-mail for "non-job-related solicitations." It ruled against the paper on a third message, saying it was "simply a clarification of facts surrounding a recent union event."

I hate saying no to the sale of girl scout cookies, school sales, etc.  I'm usually a "no-harm, no-foul" type of person, but every time I see one of these cases it always perks up my sensitivity to solicitation in the workplace.

I won't come out against girl scout cookies, lest I get blown out in the workplace version of the Iowa caucus.  I prefer to say yes to informal bumps in the parking lot between employees with business that gets done verbally, and no to posted flyers, the use of email to solicit, etc.      

You have to say no to some organizations you like (credit union, formal girl scout cookie marketing?) to keep the ones you don't want around your organization at bay.  That kind of stinks.... 

George Bush is no Scrooge - Federal Employees off on Christmas Eve...

George Bush can't be called Scrooge this year.  He just gave all non-essential Federal employees Christmas Eve off...

From the Washington Post coverage:

"President Bush Thursday issued an executive order closing the federal government on 2007 Christmas Eve, a Monday.

Federal employees are "excused from duty" that day, except for those employees who agencies determine should be at work "for reasons of national security or defense or other public need," the order says.

E-mails have whizzed across the government in recent days as employees tried to figure out whether Bush would grant them a day off on Christmas Eve, as he did in 2001, when Dec. 24 also fell on a Monday. The topic even popped up Wednesday on Federal Diary Live, a discussion session on http://washingtonpost.com.

Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Carter also gave employees the entire day off when Christmas Eve landed on a Monday. Ronald Reagan approved three hours of excused absence, and George Bush the Elder gave employees a half-day holiday in 1990."

Good for Bush and the Federal employees.  Is there a day on the calendar where less gets done in the workplace than Christmas Eve?

I wonder how they handle this at CTU?  Is Jack Bauer off or does he have to work?  If he has to work, does he get a comp day off when his workload slows down a bit?

George Bush can't be called Scrooge this year.  He just gave all non-essential Federal employees Christmas Eve off...

From the Washington Post coverage:

"President Bush Thursday issued an executive order closing the federal government on 2007 Christmas Eve, a Monday.

Federal employees are "excused from duty" that day, except for those employees who agencies determine should be at work "for reasons of national security or defense or other public need," the order says.

E-mails have whizzed across the government in recent days as employees tried to figure out whether Bush would grant them a day off on Christmas Eve, as he did in 2001, when Dec. 24 also fell on a Monday. The topic even popped up Wednesday on Federal Diary Live, a discussion session on http://washingtonpost.com.

Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Carter also gave employees the entire day off when Christmas Eve landed on a Monday. Ronald Reagan approved three hours of excused absence, and George Bush the Elder gave employees a half-day holiday in 1990."

Good for Bush and the Federal employees.  Is there a day on the calendar where less gets done in the workplace than Christmas Eve?

I wonder how they handle this at CTU?  Is Jack Bauer off or does he have to work?  If he has to work, does he get a comp day off when his workload slows down a bit?

Circuit City - We Fired You, Please Present This Coupon to Get Your Old Job Back for Less Pay...

OK, I realize I have beat this Circuit City thing to death, but the hits just keep on coming... To recap for you newbies, here's the HR/Talent related news of note on Circuit City, reported by this site and others in the last 10 months:

-March 2007 - Circuit City announces layoffs of thousands of employees along with plans to backfill the positions with lower-paid talent. 

-November 2007 - Circuit City reported by the Wall Street Journal to have mailed letters to the ex-employees inviting them back to their old redesigned jobs, at a lower rate of pay.

Most of the commentary I have seen (as well as what I have written) has focused on all the drawbacks of  this plan.  They're pretty obvious, since it's a bad idea for ex-employees and Circuit City alike.  Returning employees would be going back into an environment that seemingly didn't value them, and Circuit City would be putting employees, who are likely disgruntled with the company, back on the floor.  How does that work for the employees or customers, and subsequently, Circuit City?

Over the last week, I started getting notes from ex-Circuit City employees, many of whom have received the letter from Circuit City.  Read the comments to the last post here, which include the feelings of a couple of the ex-employees impacted by the layoff and who are now in receipt of said letter. 

A couple of the ex-employees were nice enough to share the letter with me.  The letters matched, so I am sharing the text of the letter below with the names changed to protect the innocent.  Here's what it looks like the letter to all laid-off employees said:

Dear [redacted],

This letter is a special invitation to rejoin the Circuit City team. We're a new Circuit City with a lot to offer our customers...and you. If you're interested - and I hope you are - we have a position waiting for you at any Circuit City superstore.

Over the past eight months, we have improved our customer service model, created new positions, and defined career paths for every store role. This means that at each stage of your career, you'll know the steps that can get you to the next level. The new Circuit City delivers a superior experience for customers and associates, and that's why we're reaching out to former associates like you. You have the skills, talent, and experience required for this level of service, and we want you back.

Be a part of the new Circuit City, and join us just in time for the holidays - the most exciting time of the year. Because of your skills and experience, we're excited to offer you a position comparable to your previous role at the most competitive rate possible. Simply present this letter to any manager at any Circuit City superstore. We will quickly complete the process and establish you as a regular - that is, not seasonal - associate.

Thank you and we hope to see you soon.

Sincerely, [signature] [redacted]- RVP

Is this the letter that went out to all employees?  While I can't be sure, the two letters matched and also matched another report on the Consumerist, so it looks probable that this is the letter.

Now for the analysis.  I think the whole idea of bringing employees back, at a lower rate of pay is a bad idea, so I'm not sure there is a good way to do this.  With that said, I would have included some type of acknowledgment about the economic/business conditions that lead them to make the decision they did.  After all, if things are so great, why was I gone in early 2007?  Did you improve your customer service model by walking me out the door?

Above and beyond all else, I'm blown away by the text that I bolded in the letter above.  "Simply present this letter to any manager at any Circuit City superstore..."?   That sounds like a coupon I can present for 10% off any iPod Zune (Apple doesn't discount their stuff), not the concierge treatment I would expect as a candidate from a company that really wanted me to be an associate in one of their stores...

What can I say besides....wow...

OK, I realize I have beat this Circuit City thing to death, but the hits just keep on coming... To recap for you newbies, here's the HR/Talent related news of note on Circuit City, reported by this site and others in the last 10 months:

-March 2007 - Circuit City announces layoffs of thousands of employees along with plans to backfill the positions with lower-paid talent. 

-November 2007 - Circuit City reported by the Wall Street Journal to have mailed letters to the ex-employees inviting them back to their old redesigned jobs, at a lower rate of pay.

Most of the commentary I have seen (as well as what I have written) has focused on all the drawbacks of  this plan.  They're pretty obvious, since it's a bad idea for ex-employees and Circuit City alike.  Returning employees would be going back into an environment that seemingly didn't value them, and Circuit City would be putting employees, who are likely disgruntled with the company, back on the floor.  How does that work for the employees or customers, and subsequently, Circuit City?

Over the last week, I started getting notes from ex-Circuit City employees, many of whom have received the letter from Circuit City.  Read the comments to the last post here, which include the feelings of a couple of the ex-employees impacted by the layoff and who are now in receipt of said letter. 

A couple of the ex-employees were nice enough to share the letter with me.  The letters matched, so I am sharing the text of the letter below with the names changed to protect the innocent.  Here's what it looks like the letter to all laid-off employees said:

Dear [redacted],

This letter is a special invitation to rejoin the Circuit City team. We're a new Circuit City with a lot to offer our customers...and you. If you're interested - and I hope you are - we have a position waiting for you at any Circuit City superstore.

Over the past eight months, we have improved our customer service model, created new positions, and defined career paths for every store role. This means that at each stage of your career, you'll know the steps that can get you to the next level. The new Circuit City delivers a superior experience for customers and associates, and that's why we're reaching out to former associates like you. You have the skills, talent, and experience required for this level of service, and we want you back.

Be a part of the new Circuit City, and join us just in time for the holidays - the most exciting time of the year. Because of your skills and experience, we're excited to offer you a position comparable to your previous role at the most competitive rate possible. Simply present this letter to any manager at any Circuit City superstore. We will quickly complete the process and establish you as a regular - that is, not seasonal - associate.

Thank you and we hope to see you soon.

Sincerely, [signature] [redacted]- RVP

Is this the letter that went out to all employees?  While I can't be sure, the two letters matched and also matched another report on the Consumerist, so it looks probable that this is the letter.

Now for the analysis.  I think the whole idea of bringing employees back, at a lower rate of pay is a bad idea, so I'm not sure there is a good way to do this.  With that said, I would have included some type of acknowledgment about the economic/business conditions that lead them to make the decision they did.  After all, if things are so great, why was I gone in early 2007?  Did you improve your customer service model by walking me out the door?

Above and beyond all else, I'm blown away by the text that I bolded in the letter above.  "Simply present this letter to any manager at any Circuit City superstore..."?   That sounds like a coupon I can present for 10% off any iPod Zune (Apple doesn't discount their stuff), not the concierge treatment I would expect as a candidate from a company that really wanted me to be an associate in one of their stores...

What can I say besides....wow...

Why You May Add 7 Sick Days to Your PTO Policy in 2009...

Went to last week's SHRM-Birmingham chapter meeting this week and heard Mike Aiken, a Governmental Affairs expert from the National Office of SHRM, talk about what was going on in Washington.  Great talk, very knowledgeable guy...

One of the things that caught my attention was the proposed Healthy Families Act (HFA), which would require employers with more than 15 employees to offer full-time employees seven days of paid sick leave.  The HFA would also mandate the sick time could be used for the employee's illness or to care for a child/parent/spouse/individual related by blood/domestic partner.   Here's some commentary on the merits of the bill....

It's a broad bill that is likely to get a lot of traction in 2008/2009, if Congress continues to be controlled by the Democrats and the White House goes "blue state" as well. 

My take?  Who can be against providing paid sick time for employees?  Most employers already do this.  My company offers 10 sick days a year that can be rolled over year after year, providing a nice cushion for those that have to go out on FMLA leave related to a health condition for them or their families.  Package the sick days with a benefit like Short-Term Disability, and you've got a great safety net for employees, in addition to what's required by law.   

Employers of choice already do this since they have to compete for talent.  Organizations with mostly entry level jobs - food service, poultry processing plants, etc., probably don't offer that type of leave.  You show, you get paid, you don't - tough - regardless of the circumstances.  That's harsh and worthy of trying to come up with a better way.

Here's the catch and why more government isn't always the best solution - the bill as currently written would also prohibit employers from eliminating existing leave coverage in order to comply with the Act.  That can get complicated.  Early readings suggest that if you are an employer trying to do the right thing by offering a Paid Time Off (PTO) plan, you couldn't adjust the total number of PTO days to reflect the legal requirement for a stand-alone sick-time policy.   You would have to simply add the seven to what you currently offer to be in compliance.  For those of us offering a great benefit, that's crazy talk...

Here's hoping someone gets to the bill's sponsors and explains that if an employer is already offering 3 weeks of PTO to new employees, they're taking care of people.   Otherwise, expect companies to start breaking out their PTO policies into vacation/sick designations, if it looks like the bill will pass. 

Went to last week's SHRM-Birmingham chapter meeting this week and heard Mike Aiken, a Governmental Affairs expert from the National Office of SHRM, talk about what was going on in Washington.  Great talk, very knowledgeable guy...

One of the things that caught my attention was the proposed Healthy Families Act (HFA), which would require employers with more than 15 employees to offer full-time employees seven days of paid sick leave.  The HFA would also mandate the sick time could be used for the employee's illness or to care for a child/parent/spouse/individual related by blood/domestic partner.   Here's some commentary on the merits of the bill....

It's a broad bill that is likely to get a lot of traction in 2008/2009, if Congress continues to be controlled by the Democrats and the White House goes "blue state" as well. 

My take?  Who can be against providing paid sick time for employees?  Most employers already do this.  My company offers 10 sick days a year that can be rolled over year after year, providing a nice cushion for those that have to go out on FMLA leave related to a health condition for them or their families.  Package the sick days with a benefit like Short-Term Disability, and you've got a great safety net for employees, in addition to what's required by law.   

Employers of choice already do this since they have to compete for talent.  Organizations with mostly entry level jobs - food service, poultry processing plants, etc., probably don't offer that type of leave.  You show, you get paid, you don't - tough - regardless of the circumstances.  That's harsh and worthy of trying to come up with a better way.

Here's the catch and why more government isn't always the best solution - the bill as currently written would also prohibit employers from eliminating existing leave coverage in order to comply with the Act.  That can get complicated.  Early readings suggest that if you are an employer trying to do the right thing by offering a Paid Time Off (PTO) plan, you couldn't adjust the total number of PTO days to reflect the legal requirement for a stand-alone sick-time policy.   You would have to simply add the seven to what you currently offer to be in compliance.  For those of us offering a great benefit, that's crazy talk...

Here's hoping someone gets to the bill's sponsors and explains that if an employer is already offering 3 weeks of PTO to new employees, they're taking care of people.   Otherwise, expect companies to start breaking out their PTO policies into vacation/sick designations, if it looks like the bill will pass. 

The Tony Soprano 401k Loan....

I saw a defaulted 401k loan from earlier this century (sounds cool to say that) and thought Paulie Walnuts was going to walk around the corner and start asking me for the weekly payment for "protection"...

More on that after the jump.  For now, let's review your role as a HR pro regarding 401k Loans.

Where's your head as a HR pro on the wisdom of 401k loans?  Do you talk to employees who are asking about the procedure about the downside of the 401k loan, or do you zip it and consider it none of  your business?    How does your responsibility as a fiduciary come into play?  Does that responsibility mean you speak up or shut up?

As with all things in life, balance is probably the best approach.  For some employees, taking out a loan against their 401k may be the only source of cash they have in an emergency.  That's hard to argue with.  Employees looking to finance the second waverunner may need a financial consultant. 

Here's your checklist of talking points if you want to advise a member of your tribe of the downside of a 401k loan, provided by the 401khelpcenter:

1. There are "opportunity" costs. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, the interest rate paid on a plan loan is often less than the rate the plan funds would have otherwise earned.
2. Smaller contributions. Because you now have a loan payment, you may be tempted to reduce the amount you are contributing to the plan and thus reduce your long-term retirement account balance.
3. Loan defaults can be harmful to your financial health. If you quit working or change employers, the loan must be paid back right away. It's not uncommon for plans to require full repayment of a loan within 60 days of termination of employment. If you can't repay the loan, it is considered defaulted, and you will be taxed on the outstanding balance, including an early withdrawal penalty if you are not at least age 59 ½.
4. There may be fees involved.
5. Interest on the loan is not tax deductible, even if you borrow to purchase your primary home.
6. You have no flexibility in changing the payment terms of your loan.

That's a pretty strong list, especially the one saying that if an employee leaves the company, they must payback the loan in the short term.  If an employee is taking out a loan from the 401k in the first place, they probably don't have the means to do that, which likely means default.

So back to the loan that made me flinch from visions of Tony Soprano and Paulie.. Here are the specs of the loan from 2000, which was part of another plan, a long time ago, in a land far away (enough disclaimers?):

-Original Loan Amount - $8,600 and change...
-Interest Rate - 11.5% (ouch)
-Total Payments Needed to Retire Loan - 390 (15 years)
-Total $$ Needed to Retire Loan - $18,000 and change (Meaning over 9K in interest expense beyond the $8,600 principle)..

Again, some employees won't have access to any funds other than their 401k in emergencies.  That's OK.  But coach everyone who asks about the realities related to a 401k loan, especially if the loan must be paid back immediately after the employee leaves the company. 

I saw a defaulted 401k loan from earlier this century (sounds cool to say that) and thought Paulie Walnuts was going to walk around the corner and start asking me for the weekly payment for "protection"...

More on that after the jump.  For now, let's review your role as a HR pro regarding 401k Loans.

Where's your head as a HR pro on the wisdom of 401k loans?  Do you talk to employees who are asking about the procedure about the downside of the 401k loan, or do you zip it and consider it none of  your business?    How does your responsibility as a fiduciary come into play?  Does that responsibility mean you speak up or shut up?

As with all things in life, balance is probably the best approach.  For some employees, taking out a loan against their 401k may be the only source of cash they have in an emergency.  That's hard to argue with.  Employees looking to finance the second waverunner may need a financial consultant. 

Here's your checklist of talking points if you want to advise a member of your tribe of the downside of a 401k loan, provided by the 401khelpcenter:

1. There are "opportunity" costs. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, the interest rate paid on a plan loan is often less than the rate the plan funds would have otherwise earned.
2. Smaller contributions. Because you now have a loan payment, you may be tempted to reduce the amount you are contributing to the plan and thus reduce your long-term retirement account balance.
3. Loan defaults can be harmful to your financial health. If you quit working or change employers, the loan must be paid back right away. It's not uncommon for plans to require full repayment of a loan within 60 days of termination of employment. If you can't repay the loan, it is considered defaulted, and you will be taxed on the outstanding balance, including an early withdrawal penalty if you are not at least age 59 ½.
4. There may be fees involved.
5. Interest on the loan is not tax deductible, even if you borrow to purchase your primary home.
6. You have no flexibility in changing the payment terms of your loan.

That's a pretty strong list, especially the one saying that if an employee leaves the company, they must payback the loan in the short term.  If an employee is taking out a loan from the 401k in the first place, they probably don't have the means to do that, which likely means default.

So back to the loan that made me flinch from visions of Tony Soprano and Paulie.. Here are the specs of the loan from 2000, which was part of another plan, a long time ago, in a land far away (enough disclaimers?):

-Original Loan Amount - $8,600 and change...
-Interest Rate - 11.5% (ouch)
-Total Payments Needed to Retire Loan - 390 (15 years)
-Total $$ Needed to Retire Loan - $18,000 and change (Meaning over 9K in interest expense beyond the $8,600 principle)..

Again, some employees won't have access to any funds other than their 401k in emergencies.  That's OK.  But coach everyone who asks about the realities related to a 401k loan, especially if the loan must be paid back immediately after the employee leaves the company. 

Approve My Headcount Budget Or Everyone Is Fired...

You think your budget process is tough?  Really?  Does it involve you posting layoff notices to large numbers of employees unless your budget is approved?

No?  Then your budget hardball is nothing compared to what goes on this time of year in Washington.   

From the Washington Post:

"200,000 Federal employees who work for the Army may get layoff notices before Christmas if Congress and the White House do not reach an accord on funding for the Iraq war, the Pentagon said yesterday.

The warning, posted near the top of the Defense Department's Web site, was the latest in a series from Pentagon officials in recent weeks.

The warning came a day after Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) released a letter, signed by seven other Washington area House members, calling on the Pentagon to shift money around in the department's many budget accounts to stave off furloughs.

"This is an old budget showdown tactic -- and they're using federal employees' livelihoods as leverage in a turf battle with Congress," Moran said."

Maybe that 21-inch monitor that got denied in my budget isn't such a big deal. 

You think your budget process is tough?  Really?  Does it involve you posting layoff notices to large numbers of employees unless your budget is approved?

No?  Then your budget hardball is nothing compared to what goes on this time of year in Washington.   

From the Washington Post:

"200,000 Federal employees who work for the Army may get layoff notices before Christmas if Congress and the White House do not reach an accord on funding for the Iraq war, the Pentagon said yesterday.

The warning, posted near the top of the Defense Department's Web site, was the latest in a series from Pentagon officials in recent weeks.

The warning came a day after Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) released a letter, signed by seven other Washington area House members, calling on the Pentagon to shift money around in the department's many budget accounts to stave off furloughs.

"This is an old budget showdown tactic -- and they're using federal employees' livelihoods as leverage in a turf battle with Congress," Moran said."

Maybe that 21-inch monitor that got denied in my budget isn't such a big deal. 

Smoking Discrimination - Truth or Fiction for HR Departments?

If you're like me, one of the things that keeps you up at night is the cost of healthcare.  So much so, I've followed the recent news that companies have begun to penalize smokers and employees with other risk factors (high cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc.) with great interest.  It seems like an eventual fact that those who display voluntary risk factors will pay via higher employee contributions/premiums than employees who don't engage in the same risky behavior.

Of course, smoking's the easy one, since it's safely classified as voluntary.  The other health metrics (blood  pressure, etc) are more problematic, since heredity and other factors are at play.

So, Open Enrollment season is upon us.  I didn't take the leap and consider raising employee contributions for those that smoke, and certainly didn't raise them for poor scores in the health metrics.

The biggest issue for me?  I'm at a startup, and I know all the people who work at our company.  It's one thing to mandate increased premiums for smokers when you are sitting in the Death Star of a Fortune 500, it's another thing all together when you see those that smoke every day.  Much tougher to make the business decision that probably will ultimately be necessary or routine as an early adapter when you are at a place where everybody knows your name...

So, it's no to increased premiums for smokers this year, and yes to finding a toehold for a cessation program sometime soon. 

Then I see the following information - Health Populi puts the true cost of smoking at $222 per pack over a lifetime...

Maybe I'm doing no one a favor by waiting another year to be more aggressive.....

If you're like me, one of the things that keeps you up at night is the cost of healthcare.  So much so, I've followed the recent news that companies have begun to penalize smokers and employees with other risk factors (high cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc.) with great interest.  It seems like an eventual fact that those who display voluntary risk factors will pay via higher employee contributions/premiums than employees who don't engage in the same risky behavior.

Of course, smoking's the easy one, since it's safely classified as voluntary.  The other health metrics (blood  pressure, etc) are more problematic, since heredity and other factors are at play.

So, Open Enrollment season is upon us.  I didn't take the leap and consider raising employee contributions for those that smoke, and certainly didn't raise them for poor scores in the health metrics.

The biggest issue for me?  I'm at a startup, and I know all the people who work at our company.  It's one thing to mandate increased premiums for smokers when you are sitting in the Death Star of a Fortune 500, it's another thing all together when you see those that smoke every day.  Much tougher to make the business decision that probably will ultimately be necessary or routine as an early adapter when you are at a place where everybody knows your name...

So, it's no to increased premiums for smokers this year, and yes to finding a toehold for a cessation program sometime soon. 

Then I see the following information - Health Populi puts the true cost of smoking at $222 per pack over a lifetime...

Maybe I'm doing no one a favor by waiting another year to be more aggressive.....

Performance Management at Microsoft - Moving from 5-point to 3-point Rating Scale

It's been awhile since I waxed about the limitations of the performance management systems most of us use in our companies.  Probably my biggest pet peeve is the 5 point rating scale, where managers invariably use a combination of 3's and 4's to bail themselves out of tough conversations with average employees (click through on the link to get my take). 

I like the 3-point scale better.  With that in mind, it was good to see Microsoft featured in the most recent print edition of Workforce Managment as having ripped out their 5-point rating scale and installed a 3-point scale.  From the article:

"Under that old system, Microsoft managers assigned current performance ratings of 0 to 5 in half-point increments based on a forced distribution.  Because current performance ratings not only determine annual salary increases but also come in to play when employees apply for another position with the company, the forced distribution approach was a sore spot.

"We also discovered the old system was not fully effective", Ritchie (Microsoft GM for Performance Management) notes.  Consequently, Microsoft trashed its 0 to 5 rating scale and adopted a three point "commitment" scale of "exceeded", "achieved" and "underperformed" with no forced distribution.

"Distribution under the new system is about what we expected," Richie reports.  In the last full cycle, 37 percent of employees received a rating of "exceeded", 58% received a rating of "achieved" and 5 percent were rated "underperformed".  The general rule is that the top group receives a merit increase that is 50% higher than average performers."

Of course, your problems don't end just because you move from a 5-point to 3-point scale.  You still have to have managers that can communicate the difference between a "meets" and an "exceeds", and the distribution of overall ratings can still be an issue. 

But you are taking the "Sometimes Exceeds" crutch away by moving to a 3-point scale, and that's worth the effort alone.

It's been awhile since I waxed about the limitations of the performance management systems most of us use in our companies.  Probably my biggest pet peeve is the 5 point rating scale, where managers invariably use a combination of 3's and 4's to bail themselves out of tough conversations with average employees (click through on the link to get my take). 

I like the 3-point scale better.  With that in mind, it was good to see Microsoft featured in the most recent print edition of Workforce Managment as having ripped out their 5-point rating scale and installed a 3-point scale.  From the article:

"Under that old system, Microsoft managers assigned current performance ratings of 0 to 5 in half-point increments based on a forced distribution.  Because current performance ratings not only determine annual salary increases but also come in to play when employees apply for another position with the company, the forced distribution approach was a sore spot.

"We also discovered the old system was not fully effective", Ritchie (Microsoft GM for Performance Management) notes.  Consequently, Microsoft trashed its 0 to 5 rating scale and adopted a three point "commitment" scale of "exceeded", "achieved" and "underperformed" with no forced distribution.

"Distribution under the new system is about what we expected," Richie reports.  In the last full cycle, 37 percent of employees received a rating of "exceeded", 58% received a rating of "achieved" and 5 percent were rated "underperformed".  The general rule is that the top group receives a merit increase that is 50% higher than average performers."

Of course, your problems don't end just because you move from a 5-point to 3-point scale.  You still have to have managers that can communicate the difference between a "meets" and an "exceeds", and the distribution of overall ratings can still be an issue. 

But you are taking the "Sometimes Exceeds" crutch away by moving to a 3-point scale, and that's worth the effort alone.