I've mentioned that we are doing some work, sponsored by the Scottish Government and the ESRC, on measuring the impact of human capital investment in the public services. One of the most useful pieces of research that we'll draw on is the Institute of Employment Studies (IES) report 'Human Capital Measurement: Approaches, issues and case studies', Report 454. This report, written by Dilys Robinson, Hulya Hooker and Mary Mercer, has only just been published in July 2008.
The report stemmed from a series of workshops with IES network members, some of whom were relatively advanced in linking their human capital measures to performance, including the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Standard Chartered Bank, Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Centrica, the Royal Navy, the MoD, two local authorities (East Sussex and Haringey Councils) and Medway NHS Foundation Trust.
It comprises a well-written review of some of the academic literature on human capital and a summary of the good consulting work in this field. However, the report's real strengths lie in the short case illustrations of how the above organizations have developed and used human capital measures and in the approach they used to producing their findings, which was very much in the action research mode.
Some of the key findings were as follows:
Few of the participating organizations used the term 'human capital', which was poorly understood, sometimes meaningless and sometimes offensive to managers.
Although there was some consensus over basic measures, there was no 'one-size-fits-all' approach or framework. Context mattered: while each organization felt they could learn from others, their was little possibility of developing a standard set of measures. This was most obvious in the differences between the private and public sectors, with the latter having to concern themselves with more intangible measures and more diverse stakeholders.
A 'workable' approach emerged during the course of the research workshops, fitting the needs of a majority of participants. This was the CAA's approach of asking a series a searching questions on what they wanted to know (e.g. are we retaining key employees?) and attaching a series of measures to each question, forming a four stage hierarchy - basic underpinning employee data, operational measures (e.g recruitment costs, training days), outcome measures (employee turnover) and 'strategic' measures, where the links were made between, say, absence and engagement. On this last series of measures, much more work was needed. We would suggest that this was particulalry true of the public sector, where intangible issues such as public value come into play.
In the cases, there is quite of bit of evidence of correlational work, though much less in the field of predictive measurement, which is our goal for the Scottish Government research. The most notable exception is RBS's well publicised and researched integrated human capital system.
In summary, this report is well worth the £18 investment for any practitioner or researcher. It is another example of good research/knowledge into practice from the IES, an organizations with which we are beginning to do a little bit of work . This starts with a 1-day conference on employer branding in Glasgow on November 4th, but more of this in a future post!
Friday, August 29, 2008
Human Capital Measurement and Performance
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Office Gossip
My issue is that I've recently had a conversation with my HR manager about what I believe to be an uncomfortable working environment. The talk made me feel better along with a few days off. However, a friend at work has informed me that some employees there were gossiping about who I am engage to. I told my HR manager and she apparently told my fiance's supervisor. I've kept it a secret for over a year for many reasons. I didn't want other employees opinions about me to affect how my fiance is treated and vise versa. I feel that the HR manager had no right to share that information with anyone. What is your opinion and how should I handle this?
I don't feel like I can really give a good, quality answer without knowing what your uncomfortable working environment was. I suspect you aren't very happy in your current job. I assume this for two reasons: 1. The "uncomfortable environment" and 2. Not telling anyone you are engaged.
Now the lack of vocalizations about the upcoming wedding are to be commended, as no one really likes a bridezilla who can't shut up about the impending nuptials. But I'm a bit concerned that you think this will affect how you are treated. It suggests that you are either violating some office romance policy or there is some objective reason why people would object to your engagement--are you too young, not yet divorced, or on your third fiance in 3 years?
But, you cry, none of this matters. The HR manager shouldn't have said anything! Well, maybe, and maybe not. HR managers aren't your lawyer, your therapist nor your priest. They aren't required by law to keep things confidential. They are, in fact, required to make some things known. Some problems cannot be solved by just listening. They require action. If you are experiencing an "uncomfortable" environment, just talking about it won't solve the problem. The environment needs to change (or you need to change). In order for that to happen, people have to be talked to.
I suspect that the "environment" problem is somehow related to your fiance. And speaking of him, what's his opinion on this whole thing? Is he as bothered as you are? If not, why not? Should you follow his lead?
Now, as to what to do--go back to the HR manager and express your concerns. Tell her that discussions of your personal life make you uncomfortable and ask what YOU can do to minimize such discussions. Please note that I put YOU in all caps because YOU are the only one you can control. Don't go up and say, "I really hate how you are out gossiping about me." This may be true, but this statement won't help you in the long run.
I am concerned, though, about continuing to work in a place where you feel so uncomfortable. If there is something illegal (sexual harrassment, for instance) going on that causes you to feel uncomfortable, then the HR manager should be taking care of it. If it's just that you don't fit in, that's not anything the company is doing wrong, it's just mismatched personalities. Keep in mind that discussions about co-workers upcoming weddings aren't harrassing, they are normal office banter. People like to talk about other people.
Other than mentioning to the HR manager that you are uncomfortable and trying to take people's discussions about your fiance in a good light, I don't have much advice for you. Perhaps some of my brilliant colleagues can help you out in the comments.
I don't feel like I can really give a good, quality answer without knowing what your uncomfortable working environment was. I suspect you aren't very happy in your current job. I assume this for two reasons: 1. The "uncomfortable environment" and 2. Not telling anyone you are engaged.
Now the lack of vocalizations about the upcoming wedding are to be commended, as no one really likes a bridezilla who can't shut up about the impending nuptials. But I'm a bit concerned that you think this will affect how you are treated. It suggests that you are either violating some office romance policy or there is some objective reason why people would object to your engagement--are you too young, not yet divorced, or on your third fiance in 3 years?
But, you cry, none of this matters. The HR manager shouldn't have said anything! Well, maybe, and maybe not. HR managers aren't your lawyer, your therapist nor your priest. They aren't required by law to keep things confidential. They are, in fact, required to make some things known. Some problems cannot be solved by just listening. They require action. If you are experiencing an "uncomfortable" environment, just talking about it won't solve the problem. The environment needs to change (or you need to change). In order for that to happen, people have to be talked to.
I suspect that the "environment" problem is somehow related to your fiance. And speaking of him, what's his opinion on this whole thing? Is he as bothered as you are? If not, why not? Should you follow his lead?
Now, as to what to do--go back to the HR manager and express your concerns. Tell her that discussions of your personal life make you uncomfortable and ask what YOU can do to minimize such discussions. Please note that I put YOU in all caps because YOU are the only one you can control. Don't go up and say, "I really hate how you are out gossiping about me." This may be true, but this statement won't help you in the long run.
I am concerned, though, about continuing to work in a place where you feel so uncomfortable. If there is something illegal (sexual harrassment, for instance) going on that causes you to feel uncomfortable, then the HR manager should be taking care of it. If it's just that you don't fit in, that's not anything the company is doing wrong, it's just mismatched personalities. Keep in mind that discussions about co-workers upcoming weddings aren't harrassing, they are normal office banter. People like to talk about other people.
Other than mentioning to the HR manager that you are uncomfortable and trying to take people's discussions about your fiance in a good light, I don't have much advice for you. Perhaps some of my brilliant colleagues can help you out in the comments.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Making it Harder to Get Hired
People like to get their knickers all twisted up over discriminatory hiring practices. (And for the record, it's not illegal to discriminate in hiring; it's only illegal to discriminate based on certain protected classes. Certainly you can discriminate against idiots, if you would like. You can also discriminate against smart people, which I have known some bosses to do on the misguided theory that they'll look smarter if all their underlings are dumb. But, that's an other topic.)
But, what about the things we do to ourselves to make us less hireable? Liz Wolgemuth over at U.S. News asks if being a smoker makes you a less desirable candidate. Right now her poll is running very strongly towards smoking being a career killer. I have to say I see smoking as a huge negative. Here are three reasons:
1. The smell. I'm sorry if this is offensive, but it's a rare smoker that doesn't smell like smoke.
2. Multiple breaks throughout the day.
3. Higher health care costs.
Is it fair to discriminate against smokers? What about fat people? Putting food in the communal fridge doesn't generally cause smells (unless you are a gourmet cheese aficionado, in which case, why are you eating something that smells like gym socks?). But, there are negative connotations associated with being overweight.
1. Implied laziness and lack of self control.
2. Higher health care costs.
3. Lack of "professional" appearance.
Now, I write this as someone who used to be bona fide fat. Now, I'm just slightly overweight. (I blame that on the baby though. 14.4 pounds to go.) I know full well that there are medical conditions that make it easy to gain weight and difficult to lose weight. I know that some people have no problem quitting smoking and others can never quite break the habit. I also know that I ate too much and exercised too little.
So, do you HR types, do you see evidence of people who smoke or are overweight having a hard time getting hired? Has it impeded your job search? And what if you have ummm, less than traditional parents who stick you with a bad name. Does that hurt your job chances?
But, what about the things we do to ourselves to make us less hireable? Liz Wolgemuth over at U.S. News asks if being a smoker makes you a less desirable candidate. Right now her poll is running very strongly towards smoking being a career killer. I have to say I see smoking as a huge negative. Here are three reasons:
1. The smell. I'm sorry if this is offensive, but it's a rare smoker that doesn't smell like smoke.
2. Multiple breaks throughout the day.
3. Higher health care costs.
Is it fair to discriminate against smokers? What about fat people? Putting food in the communal fridge doesn't generally cause smells (unless you are a gourmet cheese aficionado, in which case, why are you eating something that smells like gym socks?). But, there are negative connotations associated with being overweight.
1. Implied laziness and lack of self control.
2. Higher health care costs.
3. Lack of "professional" appearance.
Now, I write this as someone who used to be bona fide fat. Now, I'm just slightly overweight. (I blame that on the baby though. 14.4 pounds to go.) I know full well that there are medical conditions that make it easy to gain weight and difficult to lose weight. I know that some people have no problem quitting smoking and others can never quite break the habit. I also know that I ate too much and exercised too little.
So, do you HR types, do you see evidence of people who smoke or are overweight having a hard time getting hired? Has it impeded your job search? And what if you have ummm, less than traditional parents who stick you with a bad name. Does that hurt your job chances?
Friday, August 22, 2008
Leadership: What is it and Does it Matter in Healthcare?
I'm doing a presentation on leadership next week for the senior management team of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, the largest health authority in the Scotland employing upwards of 40,000 people. This has caused me to think seriously about what I can usefully say - without being academically bland - to experienced people operating at a senior level on matters that can have extremely serious outcomes.
Like most management academics in these situations, I've chosen to do something which challenges the shibboleths of the 'leadership industry' from an evidence-based perspective and points to some useful things that leaders and leadership can achieve, again drawing on evidence rather than managerial cant. Some of this evidence is drawn from the provocatively titled and beautifully written books by Jeff Pfeffer and Robert Sutton on 'Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense', Phil Rosenzweig on 'Eight Delusions that Deceive Managers', and Rakesh Khurana on 'The Irrational Question for the Charismatic CEO', with a of little Henry Mintzerg's 'Managers not MBAs' thrown in for good measure.
Other evidence, however, is taken from recent articles in journals or reports that most managers wouldn't pick up on. These include new material by Helen Dickinson and Chris Ham (2008) Engaging Doctors in Leadership', which can be found on the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement website at the bottom of this page; research into the importance of social capital; research into public value creation, including Mark Moore and Jean Hartley's (2008) paper 'Innovation in Governance' Public Management Review, 10, 1, 3-20; and two articles in the current issue of the British Journal of Management on something call 'top echelon theory', which deals with the impact of top management teams on performance (Patzelt, H., Zu Knyphausen-Aufseff, D. and Nikol, P., 2008, Top management teams, business models and performance of bio-technology ventures: an upper echelon perspective, British Journal of Management, 19, 3, 205-221; Naranjo-Gil, D., Hartmann, F. and Mass, V. S. (2008) Top management hetrogenity, strategic change and operational performance, British Journal of Management, 19,3, 222-234).
It's a real shame that these latter two articles weren't written with managers in mind because they have important practical things to say about what effective senior management teams in the healthcare sector need to take into account and need to become. However, I'm drawing readers, especially my postgraduate healthcare students, attention to these articles and to the other references because they are certainly worth reading, though some are more easily understood than others.
My storyline is as follows:
Like most management academics in these situations, I've chosen to do something which challenges the shibboleths of the 'leadership industry' from an evidence-based perspective and points to some useful things that leaders and leadership can achieve, again drawing on evidence rather than managerial cant. Some of this evidence is drawn from the provocatively titled and beautifully written books by Jeff Pfeffer and Robert Sutton on 'Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense', Phil Rosenzweig on 'Eight Delusions that Deceive Managers', and Rakesh Khurana on 'The Irrational Question for the Charismatic CEO', with a of little Henry Mintzerg's 'Managers not MBAs' thrown in for good measure.
Other evidence, however, is taken from recent articles in journals or reports that most managers wouldn't pick up on. These include new material by Helen Dickinson and Chris Ham (2008) Engaging Doctors in Leadership', which can be found on the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement website at the bottom of this page; research into the importance of social capital; research into public value creation, including Mark Moore and Jean Hartley's (2008) paper 'Innovation in Governance' Public Management Review, 10, 1, 3-20; and two articles in the current issue of the British Journal of Management on something call 'top echelon theory', which deals with the impact of top management teams on performance (Patzelt, H., Zu Knyphausen-Aufseff, D. and Nikol, P., 2008, Top management teams, business models and performance of bio-technology ventures: an upper echelon perspective, British Journal of Management, 19, 3, 205-221; Naranjo-Gil, D., Hartmann, F. and Mass, V. S. (2008) Top management hetrogenity, strategic change and operational performance, British Journal of Management, 19,3, 222-234).
It's a real shame that these latter two articles weren't written with managers in mind because they have important practical things to say about what effective senior management teams in the healthcare sector need to take into account and need to become. However, I'm drawing readers, especially my postgraduate healthcare students, attention to these articles and to the other references because they are certainly worth reading, though some are more easily understood than others.
My storyline is as follows:
- that leaders matter a little less than the leadership industry would have you believe, especially in organizations that remain professional bureaucracies, dominated by doctors,
- that investment in followership and microsystems of distributed leadership in healthcare is key to effective performance, but they need to be connected to:
- diversely-constituted top management teams that both fit and shape innovative 'business models' or organizational architectures. These TMTs can be a positive force for strategic change in healthcare in ways that charismatic individuals can't. However, the composition of these teams matter a great deal because it determines their absoptive capacity to take in and exploit new knowledge. The diversity of these teams also matters because different people bring different things to the table and, equally importantly, diversity is also likely to reduce professional tribalism and motivate increasingly dissenchanted and/or sceptical clinicians to become more involved in the running of their organizations.
There may be little that's novel in this message, but I hope the evidence-base just about makes it credible.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Pay Me Extra to Train Peers?
If you don't recognize the guy in the photo, you're in good company. Here's a clue: this guy was Cool. COOL. Still not sure?It's Calvin Coolidge, a most excellent former President of the U.S. You can read about old Cal here. I'm the same age Calvin was when he became President of the U.S., so I remember a hot HR trend of the late 80's and early 90's called Skill-Based Pay. Ever heard of it?
In Skill-Based Pay, you'd pay employees more per hour as they acquired more skills. I always thought it was an idiotic idea. Of course, back in those days, you weren't assumed to have acquired a skill unless you took a class to learn it. So it was really get-through-the-training-based-pay. And you were only sent to training when your manager decided to send you. So if you worked your tush off and learned every system in the joint from your colleagues and ended up being irreplaceable, too bad for you - you'd only get paid more per hour after you went to the class. Goofy.
Todd Hudson writes a great piece on pay for mentoring here. Todd says that it's a bad idea to pay people to train other people on the job, because if you do that, you're encouraging people to hoard what they know. How do you create a hospitable climate for knowledge transfer? Read Todd's blog and subscribe to his newsletter to keep on top of that pithy topic. To get on the newsletter mailing list, send an email message to info@maverickinstitute.com.
Age Discrimination
Our friends over at Overlawyered write about the tale of a 63 year old woman who was terminated and then sued for age discrimination.
Yawn. I know you are thinking that this is about the most boring post ever. (Well, there was one that had a heated discussion about armpits...) It's not. And the reason it's not boring is the company this woman is suing, for age discrimination is...drum roll please...the AARP. That's right, the American Association of Retired Persons (or people--too lazy to look it up right now).
Geez Louise. I know nothing concerning this case. Nothing, so I'm not commenting on merit. I'm just commenting that either we should be aware because anyone can violate discrimination laws or we should be aware because no matter how much we do, you are always in danger of being sued.
Yawn. I know you are thinking that this is about the most boring post ever. (Well, there was one that had a heated discussion about armpits...) It's not. And the reason it's not boring is the company this woman is suing, for age discrimination is...drum roll please...the AARP. That's right, the American Association of Retired Persons (or people--too lazy to look it up right now).
Geez Louise. I know nothing concerning this case. Nothing, so I'm not commenting on merit. I'm just commenting that either we should be aware because anyone can violate discrimination laws or we should be aware because no matter how much we do, you are always in danger of being sued.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
PTO Problems.
I'm an exempt, salaried employee. I've been in my position for a year. I recently learned that my employer has been using a full 8 hours of PTO for every full day I'm gone - regardless of whether I still managed to put in a full 40-hour work week.
For example: I work 8 hours each on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, am sick on Thursday, and work 8 hours each on Friday and Saturday. In this situation, I work and am paid for 40 hours, but my employer also uses 8 hours of PTO. Here's another example: I work 8 hours each on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, have a 2-hour appointment on Thursday but work 8 hours, and work 8 hours each on Friday and Saturday. I've effectively worked 48 hours, get paid for 40, and my employer still uses 2 hours of PTO.
Regardless of the fact that I obviously work too much, and this policy is reverse incentive to work more than absolutely necessary, not to mention wholly unscrupulous and downright evil, I have nonetheless "lost" over 25 hours of paid time off in the last six months alone. Oh, and this unwritten policy was not disclosed to me until this week. Do you have insight into the legalities of this and/or ways to recoup my lost PTO?
First, a question. Who is docking your PTO? Because that is the person I would start with.
It makes sense to me that if you miss a Wednesday because you are sick, and sick days count against your Paid Time Off (PTO) that you would be "charged" 8 hours of PTO. Since Saturday isn't a normal work day, it wouldn't be logical to assume that because you were sick during the week you'll work Saturday. What would be logical is for you to say to your boss, "Jan, since I had to take Wednesday off because I was sick, I'd like to work on Saturday to make up the time so I'm not charged against my PTO bank."
Jan can say yes or no (and, by the way, I think in this example, it would be perfectly legal to do so but any of you lawyers out there feel free to correct me). If Jan is a smart boss, she'll say yes.
Being charged for taking two hours off in the middle of the day chaps my hide, by the way. Especially if you still end up working at least 8 hours.
You say this policy is unwritten. It may be just how whoever is tracking this chooses to do so. No one cares about your vacation time like you do. You need to make sure you are on top of this.
It should be your boss (or your boss's boss) who is responsible for tracking PTO. (Actually, I think it should be you, but your company doesn't.) You need to have a conversation with this person to get clear understanding of how it works. You should ask for flexibility. When you need to take time off you need to be extremely clear about how it will be counted and if additional hours you work can make up for it.
Don't assume anything. Additionally, after you've had your conversation with your boss and she's approved you taking Wednesday off in exchange for you working Saturday, send her an e-mail that confirms your understanding of the conversation.
If they aren't willing to be flexible, it may be time to either stop working so much or find a new job. You're right about how the incentives are all wrong here.
Now, if it's some other group that is imposing this, you still need to deal with it through your boss. People are much more likely to listen to someone who is advocating for an employee then someone who is advocating for himself.
For example: I work 8 hours each on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, am sick on Thursday, and work 8 hours each on Friday and Saturday. In this situation, I work and am paid for 40 hours, but my employer also uses 8 hours of PTO. Here's another example: I work 8 hours each on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, have a 2-hour appointment on Thursday but work 8 hours, and work 8 hours each on Friday and Saturday. I've effectively worked 48 hours, get paid for 40, and my employer still uses 2 hours of PTO.
Regardless of the fact that I obviously work too much, and this policy is reverse incentive to work more than absolutely necessary, not to mention wholly unscrupulous and downright evil, I have nonetheless "lost" over 25 hours of paid time off in the last six months alone. Oh, and this unwritten policy was not disclosed to me until this week. Do you have insight into the legalities of this and/or ways to recoup my lost PTO?
First, a question. Who is docking your PTO? Because that is the person I would start with.
It makes sense to me that if you miss a Wednesday because you are sick, and sick days count against your Paid Time Off (PTO) that you would be "charged" 8 hours of PTO. Since Saturday isn't a normal work day, it wouldn't be logical to assume that because you were sick during the week you'll work Saturday. What would be logical is for you to say to your boss, "Jan, since I had to take Wednesday off because I was sick, I'd like to work on Saturday to make up the time so I'm not charged against my PTO bank."
Jan can say yes or no (and, by the way, I think in this example, it would be perfectly legal to do so but any of you lawyers out there feel free to correct me). If Jan is a smart boss, she'll say yes.
Being charged for taking two hours off in the middle of the day chaps my hide, by the way. Especially if you still end up working at least 8 hours.
You say this policy is unwritten. It may be just how whoever is tracking this chooses to do so. No one cares about your vacation time like you do. You need to make sure you are on top of this.
It should be your boss (or your boss's boss) who is responsible for tracking PTO. (Actually, I think it should be you, but your company doesn't.) You need to have a conversation with this person to get clear understanding of how it works. You should ask for flexibility. When you need to take time off you need to be extremely clear about how it will be counted and if additional hours you work can make up for it.
Don't assume anything. Additionally, after you've had your conversation with your boss and she's approved you taking Wednesday off in exchange for you working Saturday, send her an e-mail that confirms your understanding of the conversation.
If they aren't willing to be flexible, it may be time to either stop working so much or find a new job. You're right about how the incentives are all wrong here.
Now, if it's some other group that is imposing this, you still need to deal with it through your boss. People are much more likely to listen to someone who is advocating for an employee then someone who is advocating for himself.
Monday, August 18, 2008
What If You are About To Be Fired?
I just read some of the best advice ever, for someone in this situation. Hop on over to US News and read Ask A Manager's Alison Green's advice. For example:
2. Next, drop your ego some more, and go to your manager with your guard down. Tell her that you know she hasn't been happy with your performance and that you'd like her advice on how to improve. This conversation is not about defending yourself, even if you ultimately become convinced she's wrong. This step is simply about hearing what she's saying, correct or not, because even if she's objectively wrong, you need to fully grasp her answer in order to figure out the best step for yourself.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
A Counter Offer
I found your blog through Punk Rock HR and love it. I check it everyday and feel not so alone in my HR-ness. I am hoping you can help me with an existential question about relocation. I'm not expecting you to make a decision for me as much as offer an opinion as someone who is not me or my spouse, who are no longer objective about this situation.
About a month ago I decided it was time to start looking for some career opportunities that do not include my current employer. I live in one of the last affordable areas of CA, which meant that my search included employers outside of CA, in places we have family (i.e. some stability and some people we know). My spouse works in a company with plenty of transfer opportunities, so his finding a job is not so much an issue. I was very lucky and have been offered a position in a different state, which is less expensive than CA, at a starting rate 13% above my current rate of pay. I was made this offer based solely on a phone interview and as part of agreeing to take the offer, my potential new employer is flying me out to meet face to face and sign on the dotted line. My current employer, who I have been with for nine years, knows that I have been made an offer and that I will be flying out to see for myself whether I am ready to make the leap.
Today, my boss pulled me aside and asked me if there was a dollar amount that would make me stay. Needless to say, there are many reasons I started looking for a new position but the big two are that I do not believe I am part of the succession plan at my current employer and at a dead end, and as the lowest paid person in my dept. I am currently training a new person who came in as the highest paid, non-exempt employee in my dept. Have I mentioned that this is all happening in an HR department?
I am leaning heavily on the "no dollar amount could make me stay" side of things. If I am worth more when I say I'm leaving, why wasn't I worth more when I said I wanted to retire from the company?
Follow your gut feelings. (I write this, but then I think, oh, I hope she likes the new job! Because she'll blame me if she doesn't!) No, seriously, follow your gut. Your assessment is all correct--if you were that valuable to them before, why isn't your salary higher to begin with? And, it's not all about the money. It's never is. (Money is nice, but it's not everything.)
Most people who take counter offers end up leaving the company within a year anyway. Do you really want to go on a job search again? I didn't think so.
The one thing that has me a bit worried is that you haven't met with these people face to face. You may go out there and think, "no way, no how can I work for/with/around these people! And what's with the green slime on the trash can?" So, go and check it out, but follow your gut.
And let this be a lesson to all you other people out there who have valuable employees. Yes, I know--a long term employee is likely to stay working for you. This does not mean you can continuously underpay and treat her like dirt and expect her to stay with you forever. Think to yourself, "what would I have to pay to replace this person?" and pay them that. Or at least a high percentage of that. This lame counter offer stuff is for the birds. It just screams "we've been taking advantage of you for years! Sorry we got busted!"
Plus a 13% raise in a cheaper area will seem like a heck of a lot more. I live in a very expensive area, but my sister lives in Silicon Valley, and let's just say that what they paid for their 1970s, avacado green, popcorn ceiling house would buy a mansion here. And we're not cheap either! So, in reality, it's much more than a 13% raise.
Good luck in the new job!
About a month ago I decided it was time to start looking for some career opportunities that do not include my current employer. I live in one of the last affordable areas of CA, which meant that my search included employers outside of CA, in places we have family (i.e. some stability and some people we know). My spouse works in a company with plenty of transfer opportunities, so his finding a job is not so much an issue. I was very lucky and have been offered a position in a different state, which is less expensive than CA, at a starting rate 13% above my current rate of pay. I was made this offer based solely on a phone interview and as part of agreeing to take the offer, my potential new employer is flying me out to meet face to face and sign on the dotted line. My current employer, who I have been with for nine years, knows that I have been made an offer and that I will be flying out to see for myself whether I am ready to make the leap.
Today, my boss pulled me aside and asked me if there was a dollar amount that would make me stay. Needless to say, there are many reasons I started looking for a new position but the big two are that I do not believe I am part of the succession plan at my current employer and at a dead end, and as the lowest paid person in my dept. I am currently training a new person who came in as the highest paid, non-exempt employee in my dept. Have I mentioned that this is all happening in an HR department?
I am leaning heavily on the "no dollar amount could make me stay" side of things. If I am worth more when I say I'm leaving, why wasn't I worth more when I said I wanted to retire from the company?
Follow your gut feelings. (I write this, but then I think, oh, I hope she likes the new job! Because she'll blame me if she doesn't!) No, seriously, follow your gut. Your assessment is all correct--if you were that valuable to them before, why isn't your salary higher to begin with? And, it's not all about the money. It's never is. (Money is nice, but it's not everything.)
Most people who take counter offers end up leaving the company within a year anyway. Do you really want to go on a job search again? I didn't think so.
The one thing that has me a bit worried is that you haven't met with these people face to face. You may go out there and think, "no way, no how can I work for/with/around these people! And what's with the green slime on the trash can?" So, go and check it out, but follow your gut.
And let this be a lesson to all you other people out there who have valuable employees. Yes, I know--a long term employee is likely to stay working for you. This does not mean you can continuously underpay and treat her like dirt and expect her to stay with you forever. Think to yourself, "what would I have to pay to replace this person?" and pay them that. Or at least a high percentage of that. This lame counter offer stuff is for the birds. It just screams "we've been taking advantage of you for years! Sorry we got busted!"
Plus a 13% raise in a cheaper area will seem like a heck of a lot more. I live in a very expensive area, but my sister lives in Silicon Valley, and let's just say that what they paid for their 1970s, avacado green, popcorn ceiling house would buy a mansion here. And we're not cheap either! So, in reality, it's much more than a 13% raise.
Good luck in the new job!
Friday, August 15, 2008
Pay Discrepancy
This is a salary rounding question.
A non exempt is hired at a salary rate. The HR system contains an hourly rate since they are non exempt. The employee is given their merit raise of 5%.
The merit raise paperwork they sign has only a percentage raise, say 5% and does not note any hourly or annual rate on it. This paperwork is signed by the employee and their management.
Due to rounding applied to the hourly rate, the employee ends up with a raise of 4.995% (making 36.19 an hour instead of 36.1935) causing a difference of $7 a year due to the effect of rounding on their hourly rate.
Can the employee raise be less than 5% if that is due to mathematical rounding of the hourly dollar rate even though the signed review states they will get a 5% raise?
FYI: there are no written HR policies in regards to how salary rates are to be rounded. They are using standard rounding practices.
Oh for heaven's sake. It's $7 per year. Not $7 per week or month, but $7 per year. By my calculations, with a 40 hour work week and 52 weeks a year, there are 2080 hours in a standard work year. $7/2080 results in a difference of $0.003365 per hour.
Is this the hill you want to die on? Because I'll tell you right now, if you come into HR or your boss with this complaint, whether it's fixed or not you'll have a huge black mark on your official office gossip record.
Oh hush up those of you who are saying HR needs to keep everything confidential. No law against discussing stupidity.
Now on a policy question there are two problems. One, they should never make an offer that states an annual salary for a non-exempt position. The offer should have been stated as an hourly rate. Two, they should always round up. But you should absolutely let this go. It will not help you out in the long run. And as for the $7, give up one Burger and Fries per year and you'll be okay. Unless it's at Five Guys, which in that case I understand your pain.
A non exempt is hired at a salary rate. The HR system contains an hourly rate since they are non exempt. The employee is given their merit raise of 5%.
The merit raise paperwork they sign has only a percentage raise, say 5% and does not note any hourly or annual rate on it. This paperwork is signed by the employee and their management.
Due to rounding applied to the hourly rate, the employee ends up with a raise of 4.995% (making 36.19 an hour instead of 36.1935) causing a difference of $7 a year due to the effect of rounding on their hourly rate.
Can the employee raise be less than 5% if that is due to mathematical rounding of the hourly dollar rate even though the signed review states they will get a 5% raise?
FYI: there are no written HR policies in regards to how salary rates are to be rounded. They are using standard rounding practices.
Oh for heaven's sake. It's $7 per year. Not $7 per week or month, but $7 per year. By my calculations, with a 40 hour work week and 52 weeks a year, there are 2080 hours in a standard work year. $7/2080 results in a difference of $0.003365 per hour.
Is this the hill you want to die on? Because I'll tell you right now, if you come into HR or your boss with this complaint, whether it's fixed or not you'll have a huge black mark on your official office gossip record.
Oh hush up those of you who are saying HR needs to keep everything confidential. No law against discussing stupidity.
Now on a policy question there are two problems. One, they should never make an offer that states an annual salary for a non-exempt position. The offer should have been stated as an hourly rate. Two, they should always round up. But you should absolutely let this go. It will not help you out in the long run. And as for the $7, give up one Burger and Fries per year and you'll be okay. Unless it's at Five Guys, which in that case I understand your pain.
No More College Requirement?
Having a Bachelor's degree is generally a requirement for a professional job. Sure, there are people who have such jobs without one, but I don't recommend it as the way to go. But, what does having one really mean? Charles Murray argues, in the Wall Street
Well, when you put it that way, it sounds so silly. He proposes certification tests for all sorts of subjects as substitutes. He uses the CPA exam as an example. This sounds all well and good, but being a CPA is very different then, oh, behing an HR person.
I have a PHR certificate, so theoretically I'm now qualified to do all sorts of HR stuff. Great! Hire me! (Well, I'm not looking for a new job, but if you want to give me lots more money, we'll chat.) But I worked in HR for 8 years without one. Was I not qualified to do what I did before? (Debatable...)
I have hired people who knew squat about the actual tasks they had to perform in the job, but who could think and write and learn. They turned out just fine. Theoretically, a BA (or BS) degree shows that you can do those things. But, there is, in actuality, no guarentee that the student learned anything. (For a story of a student I "taught" go here.)
So, if you were to set up certification exams, how would you do it? What requirements would you meet? Wouldn't everyone freak out? I mean, look at how peole deplore "teaching to the test" in elementary, middle and high school.
I'm an old school hardliner on math facts, history time lines, hard sciences, and grammar. Really. But, I also realize that some of the soft skills, such as those needed to handle a delicate employee relations issue, can be difficult to test for.
So, what kinds of careers would you set up tests for? What would they test? My brother the lawyer tells me that even the Bar Exam doesn't cover Labor and Employment law, which makes me wonder why it matters that my boss passed the bar, except that it's required for her to work as a lawyer. It certainly doesn't certify that she understands FMLA. (Does anyone really understand FMLA?)
(Via Joanne Jacobs.)
Journal, that it's not necessary, and in fact absurd:
Imagine that America had no system of post-secondary education, and you were a member of a task force assigned to create one from scratch. One of your colleagues submits this proposal:
First, we will set up a single goal to represent educational success, which will take four years to achieve no matter what is being taught. We will attach an economic reward to it that seldom has anything to do with what has been learned. We will urge large numbers of people who do not possess adequate ability to try to achieve the goal, wait until they have spent a lot of time and money, and then deny it to them. We will stigmatize everyone who doesn't meet the goal. We will call the goal a "BA."
Well, when you put it that way, it sounds so silly. He proposes certification tests for all sorts of subjects as substitutes. He uses the CPA exam as an example. This sounds all well and good, but being a CPA is very different then, oh, behing an HR person.
I have a PHR certificate, so theoretically I'm now qualified to do all sorts of HR stuff. Great! Hire me! (Well, I'm not looking for a new job, but if you want to give me lots more money, we'll chat.) But I worked in HR for 8 years without one. Was I not qualified to do what I did before? (Debatable...)
I have hired people who knew squat about the actual tasks they had to perform in the job, but who could think and write and learn. They turned out just fine. Theoretically, a BA (or BS) degree shows that you can do those things. But, there is, in actuality, no guarentee that the student learned anything. (For a story of a student I "taught" go here.)
So, if you were to set up certification exams, how would you do it? What requirements would you meet? Wouldn't everyone freak out? I mean, look at how peole deplore "teaching to the test" in elementary, middle and high school.
I'm an old school hardliner on math facts, history time lines, hard sciences, and grammar. Really. But, I also realize that some of the soft skills, such as those needed to handle a delicate employee relations issue, can be difficult to test for.
So, what kinds of careers would you set up tests for? What would they test? My brother the lawyer tells me that even the Bar Exam doesn't cover Labor and Employment law, which makes me wonder why it matters that my boss passed the bar, except that it's required for her to work as a lawyer. It certainly doesn't certify that she understands FMLA. (Does anyone really understand FMLA?)
(Via Joanne Jacobs.)
Web 2.0, HR and the Long Tail
I've just come back from the Academy of Management (AOM) annual conference in Disney's 'smile factory' at Anaheim convinced of a couple of contradictory thoughts about that conference and Web 2.0. Now being something of a regular (this was my seventh stint in the last nine years) at what is the world's premier academic management event, I'm more convinced than ever that practitioners, consultants and non-attending academics in HR would benefit greatly from coming along. There is no doubt that the standard of papers and presentation of evidence-based HR (and any other topic on management) is higher than at any other academic or practitioner event I've attended; yet, there is a certain anti-intellectual bias, not in the sense of there being a lack of strong academic rigour but because there is too much focus on academic/scientific specialisation at the expense of big or innovative ideas and engagement of practitioners.
Nevertheless, if you can past the formulaic hypotheses testing, numerous discussions of regression and structural equation modelling, etc., by young academics looking to hit the top tier journals, most of whom have had few connections with practitioners, you can pick up many real chunks of insights that other conferences just won't give you.
One such paper dealt with the role of social network sites in hiring. Written by two not so young American academics, Donald Kluemper from Louisanna State University and Peter Rosen from Evansville University, this work was both rigorous and relevant. They argued that the use of social networking websites, like Facebook, has become extremely popular, particularly with
high school and college students in the US (interestingly more than half of the academics in the room had facebook sites). As a consequence, employers have begun to use the personal information available on social networking websites not only for recruitment, which we all know about, but also to make hiring decisions. Using ratings from 274 Facebook websites of students, this study assessed the validity of using Facebook to predict self-rated and other-rated
personality. Their data showed that Facebook ratings of Big-5 personality traits were correlated with each of the self-ratings of the Big-5 personality factors often used to predict performance at work: correlations ranged from .23 for neuroticism to .45 for extroversion, which in selection studies would be seen high. In a follow-up study of 54 employees, Facebook ratings were also shown to predict supervisor rated job performance and to show additional validity beyond self-rated personality in predicting supervisor ratings of job performance. In summary, Facebook entries can do a reasonable job of predicting the important personality characterisitics employers seek from potential employees without having to bring them in for assessment.
This study led to an interesting discussion of why this should be so, what employers can use Facebook and other sites for beyong recruitment and what happens when people wise up to the potential uses by employers of social networking, e.g. faking, impression management through competing over friends, etc. It also raised the issue of whether or not people will be left behind if they don't have a social networking site as recruiters week passive rather than active candidates.
So, here we have a paper that provided evidence on an important social phenomenon in a useful way, but will probably be read by only a few interested academics because practitioners don't tend to read academic journals (for good reason). So it was left to a guru to give me further food for thought and to provide some genuinely intellectual argument that will be read. On the journey back I picked up the new addition of Chris Anderson's recent reworking of 'The Longer, Long Tail' with a new chapter on marketing. Although we have used his ideas from the earlier book in our discussion paper for the CIPD, re-reading this book and the new material, showed the power of genuine insight and engagement with practitioners to present innovative issues in a rigorous fashion. His discussion of how the the the long tail of employees in Microsoft changed the way in which that company does business, despite the worries of lawyers and the brand police, showed the power of letting employee blogging rip. As he argues, ...Microsoft is a less monolithic company run by two titans, and more a collection of thousands of people pretty much like us. Whatever, Microsoft product you use..., there is an engineer or product manager carrying on a conversation in public about it.' (p 241). He also makes the point that Microsoft's customer and employer brand is now controlled by employee bloggers, and, what is more, they are relatively happy about this.
There is no doubt in my mind that social media will be more and more used by employees to give voice to their thoughts about their employers in ways that shed much more light on what matters to them than than through conventional attitude surveys. Some firms are beginning to recognise this, for example, IBM, which is one of our CIPD case study companies; perhaps others should begin to think about how the surface employee voice more innovatively.
If you want to participate in our CIPD study on Web 2.0, please go to CIPD website and look up the discussion under 'Helping People Learn'; if you are not a member, you can repond to this entry by going into the discussion listed on the side-bar.
Because there was so much at this conference of interest to readers of this blog, I'll take up a few more of the HR themes, such as the impact of HR and innovation and performance in forthcoming entries. I'll also examine the growing practitioner and academic interest on employer branding and corporate reputations, which was the subject of my paper.
Nevertheless, if you can past the formulaic hypotheses testing, numerous discussions of regression and structural equation modelling, etc., by young academics looking to hit the top tier journals, most of whom have had few connections with practitioners, you can pick up many real chunks of insights that other conferences just won't give you.
One such paper dealt with the role of social network sites in hiring. Written by two not so young American academics, Donald Kluemper from Louisanna State University and Peter Rosen from Evansville University, this work was both rigorous and relevant. They argued that the use of social networking websites, like Facebook, has become extremely popular, particularly with
high school and college students in the US (interestingly more than half of the academics in the room had facebook sites). As a consequence, employers have begun to use the personal information available on social networking websites not only for recruitment, which we all know about, but also to make hiring decisions. Using ratings from 274 Facebook websites of students, this study assessed the validity of using Facebook to predict self-rated and other-rated
personality. Their data showed that Facebook ratings of Big-5 personality traits were correlated with each of the self-ratings of the Big-5 personality factors often used to predict performance at work: correlations ranged from .23 for neuroticism to .45 for extroversion, which in selection studies would be seen high. In a follow-up study of 54 employees, Facebook ratings were also shown to predict supervisor rated job performance and to show additional validity beyond self-rated personality in predicting supervisor ratings of job performance. In summary, Facebook entries can do a reasonable job of predicting the important personality characterisitics employers seek from potential employees without having to bring them in for assessment.
This study led to an interesting discussion of why this should be so, what employers can use Facebook and other sites for beyong recruitment and what happens when people wise up to the potential uses by employers of social networking, e.g. faking, impression management through competing over friends, etc. It also raised the issue of whether or not people will be left behind if they don't have a social networking site as recruiters week passive rather than active candidates.
So, here we have a paper that provided evidence on an important social phenomenon in a useful way, but will probably be read by only a few interested academics because practitioners don't tend to read academic journals (for good reason). So it was left to a guru to give me further food for thought and to provide some genuinely intellectual argument that will be read. On the journey back I picked up the new addition of Chris Anderson's recent reworking of 'The Longer, Long Tail' with a new chapter on marketing. Although we have used his ideas from the earlier book in our discussion paper for the CIPD, re-reading this book and the new material, showed the power of genuine insight and engagement with practitioners to present innovative issues in a rigorous fashion. His discussion of how the the the long tail of employees in Microsoft changed the way in which that company does business, despite the worries of lawyers and the brand police, showed the power of letting employee blogging rip. As he argues, ...Microsoft is a less monolithic company run by two titans, and more a collection of thousands of people pretty much like us. Whatever, Microsoft product you use..., there is an engineer or product manager carrying on a conversation in public about it.' (p 241). He also makes the point that Microsoft's customer and employer brand is now controlled by employee bloggers, and, what is more, they are relatively happy about this.
There is no doubt in my mind that social media will be more and more used by employees to give voice to their thoughts about their employers in ways that shed much more light on what matters to them than than through conventional attitude surveys. Some firms are beginning to recognise this, for example, IBM, which is one of our CIPD case study companies; perhaps others should begin to think about how the surface employee voice more innovatively.
If you want to participate in our CIPD study on Web 2.0, please go to CIPD website and look up the discussion under 'Helping People Learn'; if you are not a member, you can repond to this entry by going into the discussion listed on the side-bar.
Because there was so much at this conference of interest to readers of this blog, I'll take up a few more of the HR themes, such as the impact of HR and innovation and performance in forthcoming entries. I'll also examine the growing practitioner and academic interest on employer branding and corporate reputations, which was the subject of my paper.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Call A Lawyer
We have a situation in which an individual in the family was let go and given 6 months’ severance. This person presented a letter saying he had one year of severance in his contract. Since the company had been bought out, they responded that their severance offer superseded any previous offer. This employee was never notified of the change when the company was bought out, nor would he have agreed to go on with the new employer had the terms of his contract been changed to a six-month deal. Do you think this is legal?
This is one of the few times in which I will say you should call a lawyer. I may be brilliant (ha!) but even I can't evaluate a contract without reading it.
Is it possible that the severance clause is null and void if the company gets sold? Absolutely. Is it possible that it is still enforceable? Absolutely. It all depends on how it is written. If the person who wrote it was a lawyer and not some staffing rep, it should state what the effect of a sale would be.
Send your relative to a lawyer with a copy of the original contract. It will cost money, although an initial consultation should be relatively inexpensive.
I'm guessing that this relative was a fairly high level employee--severance clauses aren't generally handed out to everyone. This already should give him some clout. Don't sign anything related to the offered severance until this is resolved. There should be a general release associated with severance. It will contain a clause that states that this overrides all previous contracts. So DO NOT SIGN UNTIL A COMPETENT LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAWYER HAS BEEN CONTACTED. This is not a job for the guy who helped with your real estate closing.
This is one of the few times in which I will say you should call a lawyer. I may be brilliant (ha!) but even I can't evaluate a contract without reading it.
Is it possible that the severance clause is null and void if the company gets sold? Absolutely. Is it possible that it is still enforceable? Absolutely. It all depends on how it is written. If the person who wrote it was a lawyer and not some staffing rep, it should state what the effect of a sale would be.
Send your relative to a lawyer with a copy of the original contract. It will cost money, although an initial consultation should be relatively inexpensive.
I'm guessing that this relative was a fairly high level employee--severance clauses aren't generally handed out to everyone. This already should give him some clout. Don't sign anything related to the offered severance until this is resolved. There should be a general release associated with severance. It will contain a clause that states that this overrides all previous contracts. So DO NOT SIGN UNTIL A COMPETENT LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAWYER HAS BEEN CONTACTED. This is not a job for the guy who helped with your real estate closing.
How Important is Your Front Line?
We just got home from vacation. We had to rent a car. Which meant we had about a zillion places to choose from. We flew into Las Vegas (we don't gamble, but we sure can eat, and the food there is quite good). (Side note, we stayed at the Palazzo which we got for a cheap price on Priceline and it was fabulous.)
Anyway, the Las Vegas airport has a central car rental garage. Everyone takes the same shuttle over and then each car rental company has a space in a multi-story garage. There are security features set up to prevent you from stealing a car from this place. These include a large metal bar and tire shredders. In order to leave, you must take your rental car contract and scan the bar code on it. Then the metal bar raises up and the tire shredders go down and you can drive off.
Unless, of course, the front line person forgets to put a bar code on your contract. And by the time you have your car seats installed and your luggage shoved into the trunk, he has gone home, turning off the lights and locking the door. So, there we were: 12:30 a.m. Pacific time. We're East Coasters, so our body clocks were saying 3:30 a.m. I have one screaming infant and one helpful almost 5 year old saying, "what can I do to make you happier?" and my husband and I are dead tired and we are trapped in the garage. We call the car rental place's 800 number and the following conversation ensues:
Husband: We’re trapped in the garage in Las Vegas. We don’t have a bar code so we can’t leave.
Car Rental Customer Service Person: Why would you need a bar code?
Husband: You have to scan a bar code or you can’t get out. Everyone has gone home. So, we’re trapped.
Car Rental Customer Service Person: Just go ahead and exit, then. Don’t worry about the bar code.
Husband: We can’t exit. There’s a huge metal bar and tire shredders.
Car Rental Customer Service Person: Well, I guess you’ll just have to wait until morning when the workers come back. Sorry! Click!
My husband walked over to another company's booth and explained our plight. They gave us a bar code so we could exit.
Now, when we returned the car, 12 days later, the manager said, "How was your rental?" My husband explained. The manager took $150 off our bill. Even so, I would be very hesitant to rent from them again.
I didn't mention the name of the company on purpose. Why? Because while I was explaining this drama to my sister, who also flew from the east coast to the west for this reunion, she mentioned she'd rented from the same company, although she had flown into Salt Lake. She gushed with how wonderful everything had been. "They gave us a free upgrade! Provided cold bottled water for us! Carried our luggage! We're customers for life!"
Now, the original rental guy didn't leave us with any warm fuzzies--he made the mistake of not giving us a bar code, and he left before we did. That's bad customer service. The phone person was worse. Even if there was nothing he could have done, he made no effort to escalate the issue.
He probably figured, "hey, I'm only making $X per hour. What do I care?" He didn't care. But that is precisely why you need to be careful in hiring your front line people.
And now back to regular Evil HR Lady stuff.
Anyway, the Las Vegas airport has a central car rental garage. Everyone takes the same shuttle over and then each car rental company has a space in a multi-story garage. There are security features set up to prevent you from stealing a car from this place. These include a large metal bar and tire shredders. In order to leave, you must take your rental car contract and scan the bar code on it. Then the metal bar raises up and the tire shredders go down and you can drive off.
Unless, of course, the front line person forgets to put a bar code on your contract. And by the time you have your car seats installed and your luggage shoved into the trunk, he has gone home, turning off the lights and locking the door. So, there we were: 12:30 a.m. Pacific time. We're East Coasters, so our body clocks were saying 3:30 a.m. I have one screaming infant and one helpful almost 5 year old saying, "what can I do to make you happier?" and my husband and I are dead tired and we are trapped in the garage. We call the car rental place's 800 number and the following conversation ensues:
Husband: We’re trapped in the garage in Las Vegas. We don’t have a bar code so we can’t leave.
Car Rental Customer Service Person: Why would you need a bar code?
Husband: You have to scan a bar code or you can’t get out. Everyone has gone home. So, we’re trapped.
Car Rental Customer Service Person: Just go ahead and exit, then. Don’t worry about the bar code.
Husband: We can’t exit. There’s a huge metal bar and tire shredders.
Car Rental Customer Service Person: Well, I guess you’ll just have to wait until morning when the workers come back. Sorry! Click!
My husband walked over to another company's booth and explained our plight. They gave us a bar code so we could exit.
Now, when we returned the car, 12 days later, the manager said, "How was your rental?" My husband explained. The manager took $150 off our bill. Even so, I would be very hesitant to rent from them again.
I didn't mention the name of the company on purpose. Why? Because while I was explaining this drama to my sister, who also flew from the east coast to the west for this reunion, she mentioned she'd rented from the same company, although she had flown into Salt Lake. She gushed with how wonderful everything had been. "They gave us a free upgrade! Provided cold bottled water for us! Carried our luggage! We're customers for life!"
Now, the original rental guy didn't leave us with any warm fuzzies--he made the mistake of not giving us a bar code, and he left before we did. That's bad customer service. The phone person was worse. Even if there was nothing he could have done, he made no effort to escalate the issue.
He probably figured, "hey, I'm only making $X per hour. What do I care?" He didn't care. But that is precisely why you need to be careful in hiring your front line people.
And now back to regular Evil HR Lady stuff.
I'm back
I'm back home. I know you missed me. (Or at least my trolls missed me! I know they wanted to pounce on me for something and I wasn't writing anything! Sob.)
We had a marvelous time. Although, I will warn you that red-eye flights sound good in theory (the kids will sleep!), but in reality, they are unpleasant. The kids did sleep, but the end result of that is you get home and you and your husband are dead tired and the kids want to play! I sent offspring 1 over to the neighbors, so we could take a nap.
Anyway, here is a picture of where we went!
Really. Don't you wish you could have accompanied us? We also went here:
But, least you feel too sorry for us, we also went here. Or at least my husband did. He and my brother-in-law climbed Mount Timpanogos and took that picture near the top. They said there were mountain goats within 100 feet of the summit. Which just goes to show you, I'm smarter than a mountain goat, as I would never climb that high.
And speaking of climbing, the offspring climbed as well.
I do know you are jealous. We spent most of the time at a family reunion--where all 6 of my siblings, their spouses and offspring and my parents--had a marvelous time. We ate way too much food and stayed up too late.
Now, it's back to reality. And to blogging. I have a customer service post coming up shortly.
We had a marvelous time. Although, I will warn you that red-eye flights sound good in theory (the kids will sleep!), but in reality, they are unpleasant. The kids did sleep, but the end result of that is you get home and you and your husband are dead tired and the kids want to play! I sent offspring 1 over to the neighbors, so we could take a nap.
Anyway, here is a picture of where we went!
I do know you are jealous. We spent most of the time at a family reunion--where all 6 of my siblings, their spouses and offspring and my parents--had a marvelous time. We ate way too much food and stayed up too late.
Now, it's back to reality. And to blogging. I have a customer service post coming up shortly.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Headhunter Nation
Every few years, there's a shakeup in the business world in which some function or other is shifted from a small group of specialists to a big group of - whatever. It happened in the Travel industry a decade ago. The move to online travel-booking was fast and dramatic. If I know the flight times and the prices, can't I book my own flight? The airlines thought so, and stopped paying commissions to travel agents.We are overdue for a shakeup in the real estate industry. Realtors are dashing about re-confirming their value proposition. It's not access to the MLS - we all have that. Is it negotiating prowess? Knowledge of the market? Sell-your-own-place agencies are popping up everywhere, and discount brokers who offload legwork to their sellers (who are willing to do the work and save the fees).
It's the same way with headhunting. What do headhunters have? They have databases. I have a database, and I'm not a headhunter. You have a database. Why can't we all be headhunters? Because we don't have access to the employers. We don't know which jobs are open. What if we did? What if the employers said, "I don't care who fills the job, I just want a smart person in this role by next month."
That's the idea behind YelloJobs. Anyone can pass qualified candidates on to the employer. Anyone can earn a bonus for referring the person who is ultimately hired. All of a sudden, we all have equal footing. If I only know ten people but they're all brilliant technical folks, I may be a more important talent source for a startup than the best-connected headhunter in Silicon Valley.
This is why I love YelloJobs. It's time for something new and interesting in the hidebound online recruiting space. Take a look at this post from the YelloJobs India blog to learn more about how YelloJobs works.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
I'll Give You Bereavement Leave
I got pulled into a discussion on an HR-focused email group. The discussion had to do with bereavement leave. The person posting the first message wanted some guidance on writing a bereavement leave policy that would prevent people from making up deaths in the family in order to skip work. As an HR person you might worry about your organization's culture just a tad if one of your concerns on the job was the concept of people lying about family members who had died. I would worry. This person didn't appear to be too worried, however.I wrote this Bereavement Leave Policy to help the original poster out. What do you think? Did I leave anything out?
BEREAVEMENT LEAVE POLICY:
It is the Policy of The Company to allow each employee two days off to grieve upon the death of a parent, sibling, spouse, child or grandparent. Please note the following conditions which must be met in order to be granted these two (eight-hour) days off with pay (less applicable State and Federal taxes):
The family member who has died must be related to the employee in one of the manners expressed in the first paragraph of The Policy. The dead person may not be a step-relation. If the deceased individual is the child of an employee, he or she must be a child of the employee by birth or by legal adoption in one of the 50 U.S. States or Puerto Rico, Guam or the Marshall Islands. In the case of a child by birth, DNA samples from the expired person and the employee must be submitted to HR within seventy-two hours of the death. If the time/date of death are unknown, DNA samples must be submitted within 48 hours of the publication in the local newspaper of the stiff's death notice. If no death notice is submitted and published, no pay will be allowed and the employee will be terminated for improper death management and possible theft of time.
If the former relative of the employee (now certifiably dead with appropriate documentation) is the parent of an employee, all the points in Policy Note One (1) apply.
In order to take approved Bereavement Leave and be paid for two (eight-hour) days away from work, the employee must bring a dated and notarized copy of the Funeral Notice to HR and submit it along with a Bereavement Leave Excuse Form within ten (10) minutes of his or her regularly scheduled start time on the first day back at work following the Bereavement Leave. The funeral home from which the Funeral Notice is obtained must be licensed in the State in which it is located, proof of licensure to be provided by the employee with the Funeral Notice and State Licensing forms (notarized at a Federally insured Bank, Savings and Loan or Registered Financial Institution - no check-cashing service notarization will be recognized).
If the employee does not attend the funeral, no pay shall be allowed for the Bereavement Leave, however the employee may take the two (eight-hour) days off without pay and not be terminated for improper Death Management and possible Theft of Time as long as a biological or appropriate legal relationship to the previously alive person is shown to the satisfaction of HR.
If the previously living person on behalf of whose termination of life status the employee is requesting Bereavement Leave was, when living, the Grandparent of the employee, documentation of all births and deaths meeting the standard of the DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution) by-laws shall be required to show the familial relationship between the ex-human being and the Company's employee.
These documents can include passports, obituaries in The New York Times or any other approved Rupert Murdoch publications only, genealogical charts purchased online or in person from Ancestry.com or the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, only to include registered congregations and entities associated with the LDS Church in Salt Lake City, Utah US and not those associated with the Fundamentalist Mormon Church or any other religious or secular entites. Credit card receipts and an online or in-person receipt of purchase for genealogical records must be submitted to HR with the other necessary paperwork within four (4) hours of the return of the employee to work following the Bereavement Leave period.
If the person whose not-living condition effectuated the request for Bereavement Leave by an employee of the Company was (when alive) the Spouse of the employee, the Marriage License (original, no photocopies) must be submitted to HR in order for the employee to receive Bereavement Leave benefits.
Marriage licenses submitted in accordance with this Policy will not be returned to the employee, to minimize fraud. The employee may apply to receive a photocopy of the original Marriage License by entering the Dead Spouse Marriage License Quarterly Sweepstakes, one winner to be chosen per quarter or as deemed appropriate by the Bereavement Leave Policy Administration Committee.
Upon receipt of the necessary documents according to this Policy, HR will initiate a Bereavement Leave Authentication Investigation process, upon completion of which the employee will be paid for as many or few of the sixteen (16) hours of Bereavement Time as the HR representative deems appropriate.
Falsification of any document, failure to provide any document as requested and failure to show appropriate levels of visible grief post-expiration of the non-living party (evidenced by red eyes, sniffles, references to the affected family member, and evidence gathered through a series of interviews with the employee's co-workers, manager, and next-door neighbors on either side of his or her principal residence as recorded in the Company's Human Resources Information System) will result in immediate termination, the Company's refusal to provide an employment reference and a permanent injunction, filed in State and Municipal Courts, against future fraudulent family "death" claims. So there.
Monday, August 4, 2008
I Find It Depressing
Every year I write a Ten Best and Ten Worst Corporate Practices list for Business Week. Every year, it's far easier to come up with the Ten Worst list than the Ten Best! And I'm keeping my eyes open, all year!
My favorite Ten Best item for a long time has been the employee referral bonus program. Paying our employees to bring us talent seems like one of those win-win-wins we're always looking for. Today, I have a new Ten Worst list item: requiring employees to prove their absence for a family member's death, by way of a note from the funeral home.
Ay carumba! If we haven't hired people whom we'd trust not to fabricate a family member's death, can we call ourselves managers? If an employee is bereaved and chooses not to attend a funeral, is s/he any less entitled to a day off to grieve?
I heard about this policy today (it was called a Best Practice by a member of a discussion group, not one of our groups I'm happy to say) and I must say that the news seriously depressed me. What have we come to, when we say to employees "You'd better bring me proof that your Aunt Mabel died. Maybe she didn't die. Maybe you don't even have an Aunt Mabel." That's not an employee failing - that's a leadership failure, if we even have to have that conversation. I'd rather bite my tongue in half.
How can anyone justify these Medieval HR policies? Got any idea? Please fill us in! Cheers -- Liz
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Employer Branding and Reputation Management in China and Glasgow's Supporting Role
In this week's Economist there are a number of stories highlighting the importance of branding and reputation management in China, some of it centred on the Olympics and some on the increasing need for Chinese companies to develop strategies based on branded goods and services that can be sold to the West. The available evidence also points to the need for many of the top Chinese companies to be able to compete more effectively in labour markets to attract and retain talented people to support branding strategies. So it comes as no surprise to see the establishment of a similar centre to our own being established in China, and we are pleased to announce that we have signed a memorandum of understanding to set up a co-branded Peking-Glasgow International Research Centre for Employer Brand and Reputation Management. This is to be based at Peking University, with Dr Hong Zhang (from Glasgow) and Professor Wang Hansheng from Peking University as co-directors. The relationship is to be strengthened by forming a partnership with the Zhaopin company, a leading Chinese recruitment consulting firm, and CCTV's China Best Employer Programme.
The aim of this new centre is to undertake research into employer branding and reputation management, and to examine the relationship between HR and branding. I will be helping launch the Centre with a presentation at Peking University in November of this year, and will be helping to put together an international conference on employer branding at Peking University in 2009.
We would be pleased to hear from anyone who may have something to contribute to this conference, so please take the time to email us with your ideas.
The aim of this new centre is to undertake research into employer branding and reputation management, and to examine the relationship between HR and branding. I will be helping launch the Centre with a presentation at Peking University in November of this year, and will be helping to put together an international conference on employer branding at Peking University in 2009.
We would be pleased to hear from anyone who may have something to contribute to this conference, so please take the time to email us with your ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)