human resources and servise departement

This blog is intended to provide you with useful information, links and ideas on HR, people management, organizational change and leadership. It will also provide you with insights into our current research into practice and activity at the University of Glasgow's Centre for Reputation Management through People. We hope it will be a useful resource for HR practitioners, line managers and students. Please contribute to help make this site more useful for all readers

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Web 2.0: McKinsey Global Survey Results

The latest review by McKinsey, which can be downloaded from their website after registering, shows that Web 2.0 is becoming more popular with organizations in their now annual survey of nearly 2000 companies. Web services, blogs, RSS feeds and wikis are the most popular tools, with the main internal uses being to manage knowledge, foster collaboration, enhance the company culture and training. However, there is a wide variety of levels of satisfaction with Web 2.0 technologies, along with marked regional variations. Asia Pacific respondent were most satisfied with Web 2.0 with Latin American companies least satisfied. The main barriers to take up were that companies didn't understand the financial benefits, didn't have a supportive culture or sufficient incentives to experiment with Web 2.0. Its main HR impact seems to be that it has changed the way companies hire and retain people, though one has to question the way in which they addressed these issues. Interestingly, nearly half of respondents suggested that Web 2.0 had not changed the company nor the way it was organized. As one commentator suggested on our CIPD discussion space on Web 2.0 and HR, these findings are in line with our own preliminary thoughts in the field and with the CIPDs research on Web 2.0 and recruitment.

These surveys give an indication of what is happening, but respondents can only respond to the quality of questions asked. I'm not so sure these questions are as well constructed as they could be in the McKinsey survey. Any thoughts?

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Six Signs You Don't Care About Workers

Six Signs You Don't Care About WorkersPosted by Liz Ryan on July 30, 2008 at 11:46pm

Previous Post View Blog Posts
Admin OptionsFeature Edit Post Edit Your Tags
Delete Post Manage Blog It has become a sad cliché: "Our People are our Greatest Asset." That hackneyed phrase doesn't mean anything in particular, so it's an easy bit of boilerplate to stamp on hallway posters and marketing brochures. When certain employers do elevate their talent-retention and team-welfare initiatives to the level of strategic priority, it's obvious.

Google (BusinessWeek.com, 10/25/07) (GOOG) is a hot stock, but it's even hotter as a desirable workplace because of the attention paid to hiring and keeping the best folks on board. When companies talk about valuing talent but don't put that talk into action, it shows. As a business leader, there are easy ways to gauge whether the happy talk about employees has a basis in reality. Here are our Top Six not-walking-the-walk red flags:

1. The talent chief is a half-chief.

If the human resources leader in the organization isn't at the same level as the rest of the E-staff—whether that's executive vice-president, senior vice-president, or chief [whatever] officer—the "greatest asset" language is a lie. Why would a company that values talent demote its top people officer relative to the rest of its leadership staff? Talk is cheap. If your company values talent, it will bring on an HR exec with the experience and wherewithal to operate at the same level as the rest of the leadership roster

To read the full story on BusinessWeek.com, please click here

Vacation

I'm going on one. I am taking a vacation from the internet. So, I shall miss all of you.

I've sworn to my family that I won't even check my e-mail. We'll see if I last.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Cohorts Anonymous

Here you can see which generation you're a part of. News to me, I'm more of a Gen Xer than a Baby Boomer. I knew it! (deep inside) I wrote this article to protest my inclusion in the Boomer cohort, awhile back.

Employer Branding Link with Adcorp, Australia

Employer branding has largely been an American and European phenomenon, often associated with the needs for organizations to compete in the market for talent and to engage more fully the talent they have at their disposal. However, in our opinion this topic it is not well enough researched for practitioners; most of the current writing and case work is a little light on evaluation/ analysis and heavy on simple messages, 'silver bullets' or bullet points. Professional HR bodies such as the CIPD have been active in helping investigate this phenonenon more deeply, further evidenced by a recent call for research into the impact of mergers and acquisitions on employer branding.

There is even less written about this subject in an Asian context, however; though we have contributed to an Indian book on the subject and have recently signed a memorandum of agreement to set up a joint venture in China on employer branding and reputation management with a leading university, recruitment consultancy and TV channel (more on this development in a forthcoming blog).

So, given the Asian connections, and Australia's ambitions in this region, we are pleased to announce that we are working with Adcorp, a leading Australian employment communications agency, to run a series of one-day master classes, breakfast meetings and luncheons in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney between November 17th-21st of this year. These master classes will focus on strategic HR and its links with employer branding, corporate reputation management and leadership branding, and will draw on our recent case study research and our most recent publications in these fields.

Anyone interested in attending these events should contact Tim Grogan from Adcorp timgrogan@adcorp.com.au, who is leading this initiative.

Leadership and HR

Leadership and HR are rapidly becoming more intertwined, as our research into leadership branding is beginning to indicate. Human resource development has a key role to play in developing leaders in organizations, so HR professionals need to understand leadership theory, its promises and problems. At the same time, leadership of the HR function has become increasingly more important, yet needs to be better explained than the current vogue for HR competence frameworks are able to do. Currently we have a project on strategic leadership in HR that has produced a new framework for HR leaders, which we've written about in a recent conference paper and will be publishing in the near future. If you want a copy of the paper, just mail me on g.martin@mgt.gla.ac.uk.

Two very useful insights into the fields of leadership and HR leadership, which we will incorporate into our thinking, are discussed in a new special edition of the Leadership Journal (Vol 4, no. 3), edited by a colleague of mine, Dennis Tourish, and a brief, but timely, perspective on HR leadership by Pat Wright from Cornell in the current issue of Human Resource Executive Online. Both of these sources are well worth accessing.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Drug Screening

We pre-employment drug screen all applicants. Manager started someone, against my better judgment, before we got drug screen results. Of course, came back positive for Marijuana. Manager told applicant to stay home today, but this manager is in love with this applicant and wants to make exception to policy to keep them on board. Our policy says that the applicant can have other half of their specimen tested at their own expense and if it comes back negative we reimburse them and they can start working for us. Applicant says they don't smoke, but their husband does and that is why she probably tested positive. Manager wants to allow her to continue working and test her again in 30 days with her continued employment contingent on the results of that test.

Let me start by saying that I have never taken an illegal drug in my past and I don't view it very highly. I try not to judge folks, but my history does affect my judgment so I am seeking outside advice. Also, to me Marijuana, while pretty widely accepted, is still Illegal. My thoughts are to follow policy and terminate them immediately and be along our merry little way. However, what are the pluses and minuses of making the exception. Of course, our Regional Manager brings it to my attention that we have made this exception in the past, but it was before my time here. Another point I gave the manager was that this person, while they may not be smoking it themselves, is living with someone that does. If the cops break down the door and bust them, chances are they may both be going to jail and now we have a whole other situation. My gut says follow procedure and do not make exception and set a precedent.

I'm with you, 100%. You really have no way of knowing if the person is lying or not, but do you want to start down that road? The drug screen is what it is. She may well be telling the truth, but how can you really believe that? Sure, I wasn't the one inhaling...

Now, I did watch a Mythbuster's episode about poppy seeds and that was rather frightening. It made me believe that drug testing isn't quite so straight forward as we'd like to think it is. (HR according to Mythbusters...hmmm.) But, the problem you run into is that if you make one exception, what's going to be the rules around the exception policy? (Horrors--rules for exceptions? I've been in HR way too long.)

But, yes, rules for exceptions. Think about how the rule would have to be written to allow this: "If candidate says, 'that test gave a false positive' or 'someone put something in my drink' or 'it was just a poppyseed bagel' then re-test in 30 days." See, it sounds kind of silly.

Truth be told, I'm all in favor of meeting the needs of the individual--you want flex time, part time, telecommuting, I'm all there. You want to work with a positive drug screen? Hmmm, not so much.

The biggest problem in granting an exception is the appearance of favoritism, or discrimination. So, if this is a white woman who tested positive and you let her re-test in 30 days because the manager loves her, what happens if the next person to test positive is a so-so candidate that you made an offer to because you were desperate--and happens to be a black male? Oh joy. See you in court.

Now, as for drug testing in general--as I said, I watched Mythbusters and learned that a relatively small amount of poppy seeds can give you a false positive. Can walking through a smoky room where cigarettes aren't the vice of choice lead to the same result? I don't know. You might want to check with your vendor to ask what level of sensitivity you want to pick up. And make sure your vendor contacts the candidates for a list of the drugs they are taking legally. (Yes, I've had a candidate told he flunked the drug test only to find out that he was taking legally prescribed Ritalin. He'd tried to tell the vendor, they wouldn't listen. So they just reported back to the company that he'd failed. HR had to call the vendor back, who then called the candidate's physician and all was well--except he was unnecessarily embarrassed. I wasn't in charge of the vendor contract, but if i had been, they would have been fired.)

But for now, I'd say, "I'm so sorry. Good luck with your job search."

The Five Most Idiotic HR Policies Ever

The Five Most Idiotic HR Policies Ever
by Liz Ryan

Ask a company recruiter the state of the job market, and s/he'll tell
you that certain, key jobs are always hard to fill. A great marketing
chief, a terrific CTO or other pivotal 'value creator' is not born
every minute. So which companies end up with the talent?

The ones that treat people like adults, rather than like
irresponsible children. The ones that assume that people are doing
what they're hired to do, without being watched like hawks. The
companies that will always get the talent, when competition is stiff,
are the ones who don't allow in idiotic HR practices like the five
prize turkeys listed here.

Here's our roundup of all-time most offensive HR policies. If these
sound familiar, you might want to think about whether your talents
would be more highly valued elsewhere!

1) FORCED-RANKING SYSTEMS
You know these systems, especially if you've ever worked in the
technology industry: they're the ones that force managers to rank
their employees in "best to worst" order, to literally rank Susie
ahead of Jim and behind Jane in an annual listing. These policies are
appalling. Apart from the built-in hypocrisy that has the company
telling everyone all year long, "We're a team! We're a team!" and
then literally pitting each one against the other once a year,
there's a horrifying philosophy associated with a Forced Ranking
system: the belief that people can be reduced to one, lowest common
denominator (called "worth" or "usefulness" or "indispensability" or
something else, although never defined)and listed in rank order on
that basis. What a vile presumption.

If we're not being viewed by our employers as the complex, creative,
insightful beings we believe ourselves (on our good days, anyway) to
be, then it's time for us to find new employers. Forced Ranking
systems don't work, they're insulting, and the companies that employ
them don't deserve us.

2) MATERNITY LEAVE/DISABILITY POLICIES
As a corporate HR person for over 20 years, there were policies that
I hated to enforce, and others that I fought to overturn. Without
question, the most absurd benefits-related policy was the one that
said to expectant moms, "If you tell us that you're coming back to
work after your maternity leave, your health premiums will be paid
for. But if you say that you're not coming back to work, you'll have
to pay your own premiums." D-oh! What would you expect a mom
(especially a first-time mom) to say? She'll say she's coming back to
work, ninety-nine percent of the time. After all, no one can say for
sure that she's NOT intending to return to work.

Why enforce a policy that encourages people to be less than truthful?
Pay the blinking premiums, ask the employee what her plans are,
listen to what she tells you, and proceed accordingly. If you're
going to have to replace her, you don't want to have to wait until
the day she's due back from maternity leave to learn that -
surprise! - she's decided to stay home with the baby. You can't blame
a person for waiting until the last minute to make such a decision,
when hundreds to thousands of dollars are at stake.

3) ABSENCE OF COMP TIME POLICIES
Smart companies hire smart people, and they use Comp Time policies to
give these folks some time off when they earn it. Comp time is just a
way of saying that when you've worked a lot of hours (and you're also
a salaried employee, who can't be paid a dime for that overtime) you
should be able to take some time off here and there. Comp time allows
people to go see the doctor, go Christmas shopping, or otherwise take
care of the business of living without using vacation, sick or
personal time. If your company doesn't hesitate to let people work on
weekends and at night, but won't hear of a Comp Time policy to even
things out, then I've got a couple of websites (Monster, HotJobs and
CareerBuilder, to name a few) you've got to see.

4) TALENT REDUCTION POLICIES
Of course, there's no such thing as a Talent Reduction Policy. I made
that up. But there are plenty of companies who put ridiculous and
draconian restrictions on internal transfers and promotions, to the
point that frustrated (but talented) people simply leave the company
rather than waiting around for the job they want and are qualified
for. If your company requires your manager to sign off on your
request for an internal transfer (and you've put in your dues: say,
one year in the job already), then they're asking for a Brain Drain
and they deserve one. You don't have to get your manager's signature
to apply for a job across the street, now do you?

5) CHEAPSKATE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICIES
Travel is a huge expense for most companies - sometimes it's second
only to payroll when those expense line items are rolled up. But,
still. How cheap does a company have to be to take back the Frequent
Flyer miles that employees earned with their own dang butts in those
uncomfortable airline seats? And how about policies that say that you
can take a client to dinner and spend $50, but only spend $15 if you
eat by yourself? Yes, it's important to be cost-conscious when
writing a travel policy. But a policy that requires you to get from
Pittsburgh to Chicago on a non-direct flight is valuing its cash
above your time, your mental energy, and your health. That's simply
wrong.

HR policies say a lot about what kind of company you're working for.
Considering a job offer? Ask for (and actually read) the company's
Employee Handbook, and you'll learn a ton. Run - don't walk - away
from companies that undervalue their employees every day with bad HR
practices. You won't regret it.

Embarrassed To Be In HR

I got the following comment on my post on networking:

Stop naming it networking, call it nepotism. Hiring people based on who they know is unprofessional. I work in HR and someone's recommendation means squat, I have enough of a brain to evaluate skills and not relationships. If you had to have life saving surgery would you pick the most qualified doctor or one that is funny at parties? Oh and the recruiter that says we remember names of people who turn down offers, why do you feel your time is more important than the candidates? typical HR workers that make me embarrassed to tell people my profession.

First of all, the usual use of the word "nepotism" is favoritism to family members. There are some who define it as favoritism to close friends, but a better word for what you are trying to describe is cronyism. It's all about word choice and I'm not saying the anonymous commenter's choice was technically incorrect, it was just not what I would have used.

I'm rather embarrassed that an HR person would presume to have more knowledge about the skills necessary to do the job then someone who actually does the job. Yes, yes, I can read a resume with the best of them. I can even ask interview questions. But, I would rather get an opinion from somebody who does the actual job.

Would I hire my brain surgeon based on his ability to tell jokes? No. But, if I needed brain surgery, I would start looking for one by asking for referrals for a neurologist from my current physician. Then I would ask the neurologist about neurosurgeons. Theoretically, all those years of medical school, residency and practice means they know a bit more about medicine then I do. Sure, I'd want to check the recommended person's resume and ask questions like, "how many of these types of surgeries have you performed?" But, would a physician's recommendation hold more weight than my hairdresser's recommendation? Absolutely. Why wouldn't I ask someone with knowledge and experience in the field before making my decision?

You know who else I would want to ask? The nurses that work in neurosurgery. They would know all the doctors, their success rates and their personalities. And in the case of brain surgery, I really would prefer a pompous jerk who knows how to fix my brain rather than a good joke teller. If I'm just basing my opinion on an interview, rather than someone who has worked with the surgeon before, I'm more likely to be swayed by the good conversationalist. And the reality is, conversation is nice, but what I need is a good surgeon.

I do agree that the recruiter who said they would hold it against someone who turned down a job offer is a jerk. If you are a good recruiter, you should be able to pull in quality candidates. Quality candidates frequently have other job offers because they are, you know, high quality. Just because this current position doesn't meet their current needs/goals doesn't mean they won't need a job in the future.

This reminds me of a little story. Once upon a time, my beloved husband went on a job interview that was 7 hours away from our home. He drove and paid his own expenses on the promise that he would be reimbursed. He submitted his expenses and the head hunter sent a check. The company made him an offer. The offer was a rather lousy one and he, at this point, had 4 or 5 offers that were better. So he turned it down.

And they stopped payment on the check.

My husband, being nicer than me, said, "Just let it go. It's only $300." (Clearly this was back in the days of reasonable gas prices.) I said, "It's $300 and dang it, I want the money." So, he said I could call. Generally having spouses call is a big no-no by the way, but we didn't have anything to lose. So I called and asked, innocently why they stopped payment on the check.

"Because he didn't accept the job," recruiter said.

"That wasn't part of the deal. You were to reimburse him for expenses related to the interview."

"But, he didn't accept the job! We've never had anyone get an offer and not accept it before!" she said.

"I want to talk to your boss," I said. Boss got on the phone.

"Do you even work?" he snarled, "or are you just a housewife with nothing better to do?"

So, now my blood is boiling, but I managed to reply, rather sweetly, if I do say so myself, "Your comment is insulting on many levels, but in fact, I do work. I'm in Human Resouces and I happen to know that paying travel expenses is part of the cost of recruiting."

"But, we've never had anyone turn down an offer before!" he said.

"In that case," I replied, "you must not be used to working with highly qualified candidates because people like that frequently have more than one offer."

"You'll have your check," he said.

And we did. And he was an idiot. And he was in HR. But, fortunately, most of us are not like that. And most of us recognize networking for what it is--an invaluable tool.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

HR, Social Networking and Blogging

Alongside the CIPD's website, one of the most useful site for HR practitioners to visit from an evidence-based practice perspective is the new social networking site for the HRM journal run by Theresa Welbourn. This site already has some interesting discussions going on but has greater potential to link practitioners to academic work than any other medium I'm currently aware of. This potential will be realised the more it is subscribed to and used by practitioners and academics, so please join.

The site already has a number of useful interest groups, including ones on networking, e-HR, HR in healthcare, teaching HR, HR in China, all subject areas of interest to my colleagues and I. In addition, there are a number of HR forums on issues such as ethics in HR, innovations in HR. You might also want to check out her leadership pulse site for some excellent tools and papers for practitioners and academics. This is related to http://www.energizeengage.com/, which explains/ debates the regular pulse surveys

Lazy Posting

I can't write a real post today. Why? Because I found Not Always Right and I must sit here and read every single entry. It's like some sort of strange compulsion.

One other interesting thing I found yesterday was this listing of HR bloggers and their start dates by Michael Fox over at Jottings of an Employer's Lawyer.

And I just got an e-mail from Kris and the new HR Carnival is up!

Now I've given you lots of things to read.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Excessive Sick Time

I have worked for a company in Northern California for over 5 years. We have a small inside sales force that is extremely busy and we are all exempt employees. We are paid on commission (after our salary is covered). The company policy does not have a sick time policy for exempt employees and everyone is good about it but one of our top sales people. When he is out we are expected to do the best we can to cover all of his clients. Everyone was good about it the first two years(things will change right?) and now are very fed up about it. It is costing us time and all the customers are getting upset.

We are in our 5th year of this person being out 2 to 5 weeks a year (more like 3 to 4) and it takes away from our work (and commission). We've had several managers but since this guy's sales numbers are giant they keep saying they're "monitoring" it. This person has a sense of entitlement, is always sick (doesn't take care of themselves) and thinks as long as they bring in a number it doesn't matter.

The managers seem to feel that California law "ties their hands" and they keep thinking it will go away. There have been other employees fired in the company for excessive absences so wouldn't this be a bit discriminatory based on this employee's excessive number of sick days? What type of recourse do we have besides not help this guys clients and make them all mad?

Now, now, let's not make the clients mad. That would be vindictive and biting the hand that feeds us all at once. While it seems like justifiable fun and would "wake up" management, it will reflect poorly upon you.

First and foremost, I have little experience with California's special laws. So, I'm going to pretend you live in Kansas instead. (I have NO experience with any special laws Kansas may have, but I did drive through Kansas once and saw Bob Dole's home town, so that makes me feel more confident about Kansas law.)

Your problem is not your co-worker. Repeat after me: "My co-worker is not my problem. My co-worker is not my problem. My co-worker is not my problem." See if you can get into a zen state while you say this. Now you can switch, "My problem is my work load. My problem is my work load."

Since you are commissioned sales people, if you are supporting clients for your ill co-worker, you should be reaping the rewards for his clients. Present that to your boss. And sit down and say, "When Bob's out of the office, I have to do x and y for his clients, which means I can't do x and y for my clients. How would you like me to handle this?" No whining about Bob. Just "how should we manage our workload."

Since Bob has such stellar sales numbers, I doubt your management really believes customers aren't happy. (Now, of course, they may be and one day they'll all just drop you company like a hot potato, and then where you will be?) As for Bob's excessive sick days--he may have an FMLA approved illness. He may even be approved for "intermittent" FMLA, which means he can takes days off as needed, rather than taking a 12 week chunk of time off. If he does have an FMLA covered condition, your manager's hands are tied. Since his performance when he is in the office is stellar, they would find it very difficult, legally, to fire him. And why would they want to?

Stop worrying about him and worry about your workload and your clients. I think it's fair to get compensated for the work you do for Bob's clients. Ask for it. But, remember, your problem is not your co-worker. It's your workload. Don't worry about him (and his unhealthy lifestyle). Solve your workload issues and ignore him.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

A Potential Bad Manager

I've been reading your wonderful blog for a while, so I'm hoping you and/or your readers can come up with some helpful suggestions. I've been working at the same medium-sized company for 15years. My current manager is getting ready to retire within the next 2 years. He supervises 8 people (including me), divided into 3 teams, and is generally very by-the-book but can be flexible with the rules if one makes a good case. My current team leader has been with the company 2 years longer than I have and is a smoking buddy of his (they are the only2 who smoke).

It is generally known within the department at the non-managerial level that the reason my team leader got the position instead of me after the last team leader resigned is because she used her special relationship to sabotage my reputation with our manager while I was on maternity leave. As might be expected, my team leader has started campaigning for the manager slot, but the rest of us in our unit feel she would be a terrible manager. Leaving aside the fact that she doesn't understand what our unit does except at a very superficial level, she is very vindictive against people who call her on her mistakes, and she's even more strictly by-the-book than my current manager.

Unfortunately, she has seniority over almost everyone in the department who is likely to apply for the manager position, so she is very likely to become my manager soon. Other than hunkering down and trying to be invisible, is there anything constructive that my coworkers and I can do? The head of the department is pretty clueless about personnel issues, so I'm pretty sure talking to her would be a bad idea.

Two years. Your manager is getting ready to retiree within the next two years. On the one hand, I applaud you for looking at your career that far in advance. (Despite the ubiquitous “where you see yourself in 5 years” question, people don’t do enough career planning.)

Anything can happen in two years. Your arch nemesis could quit. Your “clueless” department head could quit, be promoted, or gain a renewed interest in your group. You could quit. You could get promoted. You could be transferred to a different department. The whole company could collapse. [Enter presidential candidate you don’t like] could win the election and the entire country could be taken over by Iran. Anything can happen in two years.

Why do I mention this? Well, to give you some perspective. Here’s some other perspective. Your department head may well know precisely what is going on. She may be simply waiting for your manager to retire before making big changes. She may be counting down as well. It may be a carefully calculated decision to appear to be ignoring your department personnel issues.

And speaking of not knowing what is going on, how is it possible that the team lead, who has the most seniority, doesn’t understand what the department done, yet she is very by the book? You may be letting your distaste for this person color you views as well. You say it’s “well known” that she sabotaged your relationship with the boss while you were on maternity leave. I’d ask you to figure out what evidence there really is of that.

My suggestions are as follows:

1. Approach your manager and ask for career planning guidance. You want to move into a manager role. Ask her advice on how to achieve that.

2. Let your manager know that you are also going to approach your department head on the same topic. Let her know you are interested in taking your manager’s job when she retires, and ask if that is a possibility and what skills you will need to gain and ask for help in gaining those skills. Are there projects or classes you can take on to help with this.

3. If it really is clear that the team lead will be your new boss, evaluate how much you want to stay in this job. You have two years to find a new job if you don’t wish to report to this person. Did I mention two years? If something bad is going to happen in two years, I’d make plans now to change that. You can work to gain the job yourself (see above), you can work to get a job in the same company in a different group, or you can look for a new job with a new company. You can also try to get to know the team leader. Just because she’s smoking buddies with the boss doesn’t mean she’s a bad person.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Leadership Branding

Julie Hodges from Durham University and I are exploring the use of Ulrich and Smallwood's introduction of the term, 'leadership branding' into HR. For those not familiar with the notion, it focuses on how an organization wants to position its leadership and governance idenity with customers, investors, media and, importantly, employees. Julie has been exploring the use of leadership branding in a piece of action research with a major multinational and we are in the process of writing this work up for publication (suitably anonymised).

We are interested in hearing from anyone who has experience of leadership branding, either as having been involved in the design and implementation phase or as an employee? What was your experience? Or, it this just another brand extension too far?

Employer Branding

Judy Pate, Sheena Bell and Steve Ansell (all from Glasgow University Business School) and I are conducting a major exercise for NHS Scotland on employer branding and reputation management. This involves an examination of internal and external perceptions by different groups staff and potential employees of four NHS Boards in Scotland, which cover more than half of the population. We are using a mixture of group interviews and questionnaires to establish the extent of identification of people with the current employer brand(s) with a view to recommending changes in the design of the brand(s) and the HR and people management drivers of the brand. We hope to report on this project later on this year. However, anyone interested in these issues might want to look at a new survey and research report, entitled 'What matters to staff in the NHS' by Ipsos/Mori for the Department of Health, published in June 2008.

This work builds on recent ideas that colleagues and I have published for the CIPD and a book of our own (see side-bar) and in chapters in two forthcoming books on HR by Paul Sparrow on international HR and by Cary Cooper and Ron Burke on High Performance Organizations due out later this year.

In February, we presented at a conference on 'Employer Branding and Employee Voice' run by the London School of Economics and the CIPD. At that conference, a panel made up of employers were largely sceptical of the notion of branding as it applies to HR practice. We were quite surprised but would enjoy hearing from practitioners one way or another. We are particularly interested in any work that has been done to evaluate the effectiveness of employer branding on either improved recruitment or on improvements in employee identification or engagement with organizations.

Who Will Companies Hire?

I have often been told that employers hire people they know to fill positions before they pick someone qualified for the position. Is this true? if so are there companies that prohibit the hiring of friends of friends and relatives of relatives?

Sure, lots of companies prohibit the hiring of relatives of current employees. I work in such a large company that this would be impractical, so we prohibit the hiring of relatives within the same department.

But friends? Honey, that's called networking and it's how the business world works. Unless the management is utterly incompetent (not saying such companies don't exist), they still hire qualified people--just not you. (That's what I'm getting out of your e-mail anyway. Why can't I find a job? Forgive me if I'm wrong or jumping to unwarrented conclusions.)

Hiring is an unpleasant and risky activity. Even though I harp on here that most employment in the United States is "at-will," meaning that a company can fire you for cause or no cause at any time, most companies don't terminate people willy-nillly. They have processes and procedures and just because termination is technically legal, they have to be concerned about lawsuits. (Even if a company wins a lawsuit they still have to pay legal bills.) Not to mention, no actual work gets done while you are dealing with a bad hire.

Because hiring is so risky, if Bob is a fabulous employee and he comes to me and says, "Hey, I worked with Karen at my previous company. She has all the skills needed for this vacant position and she's wonderful because of A, B, and C," then of course I'm going to interview Karen.

Karen gets an automatic bump up because Bob (who I know) has personally worked with her and recommends her. This is smart hiring, and not something to be stopped. (Not saying that hiring managers should automatically hire people who come recommended, but rather that these people are more likely to be a good fit.)

Now, of course, if Bob's reason for recommending Karen is "I understand I get a referral bonus if you hire her," she won't get that bump. "Hey, Karen was my college roommate, and dude, she's awesome!" probably will get an eyeroll from me.

Karen still needs to be qualified for the job. But, to an outsider who is trying to crack through the company fortress it can look like we only hire people's friends. This isn't likely to be true, but it can seem that way.

So, you need to start meeting people and networking. You also need to do a fabulous job at whatever company you are at now. Your co-workers may one day be in a position to recommend you. And heck, you may be in a position to to recommend them. Of course, networking has it's limitations. A recommendation from someone who worked with you for 5 years is going to pull a lot more weight than a recommendation from someone you exchanged business cards with at a mutual friend's birthday party.

Now, there are some problems with hiring via employee referral. One is that employees tend to be friends with people like themselves--same age, race, gender, socio-economic status. Fine, fine, fine, but if you've got affirmative action goals recruiting this way can make you over-represented in whatever hiring group you started with. (I seem to recall a court case where a cleaning company got sued for discrimination because almost all the employees were Korean. The case hinged on whether they were legally hiring people they knew or illegally discriminating against people who weren't Korean. I'd tell you how the case resolved, but that would involve either Googling (feasible)or going downstairs and pulling out my old constitutional law text book out and looking it up (ain't gonna happen).)

So, if you are recruiting, you need to use many methods to source your candidates. Referrals are great, but shouldn't be the be-all, end-all of existence.

If you are looking for a job, keep on it. Talk to everyone you know. Don't get angry and try not to get frustrated when it seems like you have to know someone to get a job. My first "real" job was at a company that was extremely difficult to get into. I didn't realize this (I was new to the area) and applied because I had the right skill set. I got the job even though I didn't know a soul in the company. People who had been recommended internally didn't get the job because they lacked a critical skill that I had. (In this case, the ability to do statistical analysis. Few HR people have that skill, which is a topic for another day.)

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Measuring Human Capital

Stacey Bushfield and I are investigating ways of measuring the impact of human capital investment in public services as part of a project funded by the Scottish Government and ESRC. Currently we are at the stage of producing a literature review on the topic but are still searching for new material and insights into this problem. Has anyone come across or developed interesting ideas that you are willing to share with us? In return, we would be happy to send you our review.

The work done so far is a systematic review of most of what has been written on human capital and its relationships with social capital, organizational capital and innovation. This is linked to a discussion of public value and client outcomes from public services, an important topic in public sector management.

The next stage of the exercise is to investigate how public services currently measure their investments in human capital. Judging from our preliminary work, there is little evidence of predictive measures of the kind, 'to what extent does investment in, say, leadership development, pay-off in key outcomes measures' and the timing of any returns. If anyone has come across any examples of predictive measures of this kind, we would be pleased to hear about them and exchange ideas.

Web 2.0 and HR

Martin Reddington, Mary Beth Kneafsey and I have recently produced a Research Insight document for the CIPD on Web 2.0 and HR as part of their 'Shaping the Future' agenda. This can be found at the CIPD's website, which we encourage members of the CIPD to visit and participate in the online discussion . Other people who are not members of the CIPD can contribute by joining our discussion forum/ resource space, which is also listed on the side bar. We are looking for feedback on the issues we raise in the document. These focus on the potential advantages (and some of the problems) of social media in helping organizations become more effective in recruiting, engaging staff, allowing greater individualisation of psychological contracts and encouraging collaboration to increase the organization's collective IQ.

The questions we would like readers to share their thoughts with us are:

Are these social media - for example, blogs, wikis, social networking sites, image sharing sites, virtual worlds, etc., - like to be 'disruptive innovations' for people management, and thus likely to help create sustainable high performance organizations? Or are they part of the technology hype?
Does the HR function need to be where the net or virtual generation communicate to reach them? Or is the net generation too general a term so as to be misleading?
Can these technologies be used to enhance employee voice/engagement and the extended IQ or the organizations, or are their better ways of achieving these ends?
To what extent is the HR community up to speed with these innovations, and do they need to be?
To what extent does Web 2.0/social networking represent a threat to HR's desire to control?

Please take some time out to record your thoughts on these questions, either on the CIPD website or this blog. On this topic, you might also want to visit James Richards blog, 'Work-related blogs and news', for an expert, evidence-based insight into one of the most important social media technologies. John Castledine's blog has an excellent introduction to Enterprise 2.0, while Jon Ingham's Human Capital Management and Ross Dawson's 'Living Networks' are also highly informative on Web and Enterprise 2.0

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Why Do You Want This Job?

I am a graduate looking for jobs. I frequently attend interviews and I am asked “ Why do you want to join this job?” I actually couldn’t reply anything.

In the same way I got a interview call from another company in India. They have a opening for software engineer job. They have asked me to update my details and have to write “Reason why I am interested in this job” in 300 words. Could you please help me out in this.

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but no. I can't help you. Why? Because not only do I not want a job as a software engineer, my desire to move to India is, well, low.

But apparently you want to be a software engineer. That is good. Now tell me why you want to work for this company? IF you don't want to work for the company don't bother going through with the application.

They want to know why you want to work there because they want someone who wants this job, not just a job. They want to know if you've done your homework about the company. They want to know what you know about the company and why you will be a good fit. What is it about this company that makes you want to work there.

Since the position is for a software engineer and they are only looking for 300 words, they aren't after brilliant prose that will be published in the company newsletter. They just want to know why you want to work for this company.

Stop overthinking it, and just write out a draft. Have some trusted friends review it and make the necessary changes. If you don't know why you would want to work for this company, find out. Do your research. Find out.

My guess is that you didn't write a cover letter when you applied. I could be wrong, but a cover letter should establish why you want to work for this particular company.

Good luck!

Monday, July 14, 2008

The Strangest Vacation Policy I've Ever Seen

We are a very small company and, up until now, haven’t had a need for anything more than a vacation policy. Recently, I have been placed in charge of creating a sick leave policy or PTO policy. My research has lead me to wonder about the legality of our vacation policy. Basically we are given a set number of days off for various years of service. Where the issue lies is taking the vacation time.

If vacation is taken during the months of November through February, we are allowed to use ½ day of paid vacation time per full day off; if vacation is taken during the months of March, April, September and October, vacation time is day for day; if vacation is taken during the months of May through August, 1 ½ days of paid vacation time is used per day off. So if I take 5 day vacation in January, I only have to use 2 ½ days of my paid vacation time. If I take the same vacation in July, I have to use 7 ½ days of my paid vacation time. Bonus in the winter, but for those of us who have school-age children, the summer months are family vacation time and time off from school in the winter is limited.

Do you have any insight into this? Is it legal to require employees to use their vacation time in this manner?

Not a lawyer and not going to comment on the legalities. I am going to comment that you are nuts if you think the only official policy you need is a vacation one, but I'm now going to leave that alone as well.

On the one hand, I think this vacation policy is brilliant! It would effectively encourage winter vacations and discourage summer vacations. I assume you have a business that is busier in the summer. Or perhaps you just don't want everyone on vacation at the same time.

On the other hand, I think, are you people on crack? Talk about discriminating against parents of school age children! Now, honestly, my oldest child starts kindergarten this fall (sob!), so up until this September, I would have loved your policy. I'd much rather go places on the off season anyway. But, starting September 2 I'd be really ticked about it. Not only do I get the priviledge of spending all my vacations with other people's annoying children, now my vacation time is cut! In all honesty, I'd start looking for a new job right about now.

Yes, you heard me. That policy alone would make me start looking for a new job. I love vacation. Do you hear me? I love it. I use every allotted vacation day. Every.single.one.

So, anyway, I'm intrigued as to what other people think. I'd think there would have to be a pretty strong business reason for such a policy. If there is one, I might be able to get behind it. Otherwise, say goodbye to people who can't (easily) take vacations during the winter.

Unfair Discipline

I was issued a written warning for failure to use the proper channels to report a complaint, referencing a policy from the handbook. This stems from a private conversation I had with another manager regarding how my boss/hostile environment is making me sick.

The other manager was concerned and reported to HR (or as some would say "threw me under the bus"). When I read the policy, I found that there was a paragraph that stated 'if you do not feel comfortable talking with your direct supervisor, you can talk with any other member of management', which I did.

I told the HR lady and my boss that i was not making a complaint and later emailed my comments and asked that the warning be revoked because it had not been violated. No response. I have been with the company for 12 years and have always received good performance reviews and have never experienced anything like this. I am sick over this. Our workplace is very dysfunctional and policies are broken every day without discipline (including harassment, safety violations, etc.).

The injustice of it all is what really bothers me. Can an employer just pick out one employee and one policy and decide to enforce it? I am under the care of several therapists and a doc and need to be medicated to go to work. I am feverishly looking for another job, but am sure that it will create a financial burden to my family. Thanks for any help you can provide.

You are clearly upset over this incident, but if nothing else was said, it is possible that the HR lady realizes she made a mistake and is too embarrassed to admit it to you, so she's ignoring it, hoping it will go away.

Or she has 112 unread messages in her inbox and hasn't gotten to yours yet.

Or she's a complete idiot who writes someone up for making a complaint according to the company's established procedures.

Take your pick.

I'm glad you are looking for a new job, because you aren't happy at this one. But, you aren't going to find a better one until you calm down and process what happened. Were there consequences to you, other than the write up in your file? Demotion, bad assignments, or something similar? I ask because this doesn't seem, in and of itself, something to be so horrified at that you are sick over it. This fear and panic are going to come across in your job interviews and it may prevent you from getting a good job. There ARE good jobs available. Being positive will help you in your search.

You also need to come up with an answer to the "why are you looking for a new job?" question that doesn't involve any of this. It needs to be an accurate answer, but without being negative towards your current company.

Now, the above was the answer to the question you didn't ask. Here's the answer to the question you did ask: Companies should apply their policies fairly across the board. No one should ever be punished for bringing a legitimate complaint to management. It should always be perfectly acceptable to approach a member of a management team with your concerns.

My advice to you is to make an appointment with your boss to apologize for not speaking with her first, and to ask what you can do to help resolve the issue. I realize you were acting within policy when you went to another manager. I realize you did nothing wrong. I also realize that you are miserable and if something doesn't change you will continue to be miserable and it will affect your ability to find a new job. Be willing to work with your boss to find a solution.

For future reference, except in the rarest of rare circumstances, you should go to your boss first. Sidestepping her can cause animosity to rise from the boss. You should only go to someone else if you have attempted to resolve the issue with your boss. Remember also that even if you go to happy hour with this management team member you spoke to, it's still business. When you are with people you work with, you are absolutely at work, regardless of the setting.

I don't know what your complaint was about, but if it was something involving safety, harassment, or an illegal practice, this manager was required to act. You can't come up to me and say, "Hey Evil HR Lady, the funniest thing happened on the factory floor yesterday. Karen and Steve were having a water gun fight!" and not expect me to act on it.

Now some of you are shaking your heads and wondering why on earth I'd care about a harmless water fight. Well, water on the floor could be a safety hazard--hello, OSHA violation. Depending on the product it could cause contamination and be an FDA violation. Do you want to have product fail? Me neither. Perhaps neither did the manager you confided in.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Training to the Rescue

The Emergency Room is about to get some communication training.

The docs met with the “communication expert” the other day who is a social working, behavioral health RN (who I am sure has not practiced in years).

Can I just say one more time that we need business experience if we're going to be taken seriously? Yes, HR isn't specifically mentioned, but yhis is undoubtedly something HR has a hand in. I think it illustrates why so many people think HR is worthless. We run in and announce we're going to fix a communication problem without understanding what "problems" really exist. It's not like people don't know how to talk to each other.

And maybe the ER is really having a true communication breakdown. It may truly be causing the problems. The staff, however, doesn't think so. (Or at least our writer doesn't think so.) He states:

We don’t need communication classes, we need “What makes sense to run an ER safely and efficiently” classes!

And I can hear a communal HR clucking of tongues saying, "well, if you could communicate with each other more clearly, you would be more safe and efficient." Maybe so, but they aren't going to listen to anything the trainer says. Why? Because the trainer has no credibility, the trainees don't think there is a problem, and the course hasn't been designed based on the perceived needs of the department.

I realize that is a lot harder than pulling a "communication" class out of our HR bag of tricks, but it would also make it worth everyone's time.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Carnival of HR

The latest Carnival of HR is now up at Changeboard. This is the themed carnival that caused our recent controversy so head on over and see what it's all about.

Facility Closing

Is a company required to disclose to an employee that it has plans to close the facility at which they were hired to work? I was recruited by a company, that after 4 months of employing me, announced plans to close the facility. In the all-employee meeting when the closure announcement was made it was stated that the decision to close this facility had been made more than 6 months earlier. It seems to me that at the very least common decency would dictate they tell me, but does the law? I’m a bit irritated as I left a position that I could still be working at.

Quick, short answer: No. Longer also true answer: Because it is a facility closure, it would be covered by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), which means they either have to give you 60 days notice, or pay you for 60 days following notice, or a combination of the two.

Now my long, drawn out answer. Things like this make my blood boil. It's entirely possible that the person/people who hired you had no idea. Senior Management wasn't ready to tell anyone their plans so they set out to ruin people's lives. Hello, you can do a hiring freeze without telling everyone your secret plant closing plans. It's also entirely possible that they did know and didn't care. A third possibility is that the decision had been made to close the facility if they didn't sell it--and they were operating in the hopes that they would sell it.

I am of the opinion that part of the reason this company has to shut down a facility is that their management is so concerned about covering their own behinds that they forget about the people who work for them. If you take a look at the Fortune Top 100 Companies to Work For you'll also notice that these companies are profitable. Treat your people right, they'll treat your customers right, and you'll all make money together.

So, is there anything you can do about this? Probably not. You could sue for breech of contract, but undoubtedly your offer letter specifically mentioned that you are an "at will" employee, so no contract implied. I hope you get a nice severance package, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one. Do know that they need to give you an official WARN notice 60 days before your last day at work OR pay you for at least 60 days after you quit working. If they don't do that, then you could sue. (There are exceptions to WARN, but from what you've told me, this company wouldn't qualify-except perhaps on size, which my brilliant commenter just reminded me of.)

And now, polish up your resume and hit the pavement. It stinks. It's unfair. It's even unethical (in my never to be humble opinion). But, it's life.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Career Changes and Salary

I want to join the wonderful world of HR because it is just so darn interesting. I really think I could be a good HR analyst going into comp and benefits since I have been in consulting for six years and have a lot of financial data analysis, communication, and customer service skills. My issue is...when I am asked for my past salary, I am afraid to put down what I was really making before I dropped out of consulting (in the high 70's) because I don't want to be taken out of the pool of applicants. I want to be truthful but maybe the truth will hurt. What do you think?

Don't sell yourself short.

I've been telling people for years that if they want to be an effective HR person, they need to get experience on the business side. You have experience on the business side. (Well, perhaps. Some of the consultants I've met--well, let's just say a monkey could have done what they did. Well, maybe not a monkey unless the monkey knew power point. But, perhaps a toddler. One of those toddlers in the repeating stage of life. You know, where they have to repeat everything someone else says? Because, I've seen companies pay huge amounts of money to have consultants come in and "solve a problem." The consultant then sets up meetings where the employees that Senior Management refuse to take seriously tell the consultant what the problem is and how to fix it. The consultant then writes that up in a power point presentation and presents it. Ta-da! No thought involved. But, I digress.)

I don't know where you live or what industry you'd want to work in, but where I live and in my industry a comp analyst would not be out of line asking for a salary in the $70,000s or higher. You should apply for HR jobs in the same industry where you've been consulting. It makes your experience relevant.

Of course, if that kind of salary would be excessive in your area and industry then just make it clear that you are looking to change careers and you are willing to take the salary that comes with it. But, don't think you'd be walking into an analyst job with no experience. Analyzing is analyzing and you've done that. Just with different data. We can train you how to look at compensation data. It's harder to train you about the business side of things.

You may have noticed that senior people seem to jump around to jobs that they've had little experience in, yet we pay them a boatload of cash. Why? We're after their management skills and their ability to understand, learn, analyze, hire the right people and make decisions. Figure out what your skills are and sell yourself on those. Set up some informational interviews to learn about what a compensation analyst really does. (Please read the link first, or Ask a Manager will haunt me.) You should be able to see how your skills can apply there.

Good luck and welcome to the world of HR.

Public Service Announcement

This is completely off topic, and I apologize for it. On Monday, one of my friends was killed in a car crash. Her parents, who were with her, are in critical condition and the doctors don't expect her mother to survive. My friend was 46.

An 18 year old girl ran a stop sign and t-boned them. She walked away with minor injuries. She was also text messaging while driving.

Please don't do that. Texting requires that you use your hands for something other than steering and your eyes for something other than looking.

If your teenager is texting while driving, please take her phone and her car away from her.

Not only is my friend dead, this 18 year old girl has to live knowing her stupidity caused someone else's death. I don't think you would want to be in either position.