I get a weekly e-mail from BLR called HR Strange But True. It's usually some fluff about resumes or such. Interesting, but nothing to blog about.
Until the last e-mail. They proclaim that "Sexists Get Paid More!" This, is a "strange" phenomenon. Bah. They have not thought it through.
First of all, let's get rid of the inflammatory language. Sexists connotes someone who thinks women aren't capable of competing with men. That's not what the study says at all. Why don't we say, "Traditional Men Get Paid More!" That, I think, is a bit less biased.
Anyway, BLR is in shock (shock, I tell you!) that men who want a wife that stays at home make more money then those with more "egalitarian views" do. It's all about choices, people.
If a man believes that the best situation is for him to be married and have a wife that does not work, then guess what? He's most likely to marry a woman who will stay at home. And what will that wife be doing? Taking care of the house, the kids, paying the bills, waiting for the plumber, arguing with the phone company, and generally taking responsibility for a million different things.
The man who believes the best situation is for him to be married to a woman who also works will most likely be married to a...drum roll please...a wife who also works. What does this mean? Well, he's got to either share in all those responsibilities listed above, or he is a real jerk who lets his wife, who works as much as he does, take care of all that stuff plus his marriage is shakier because she's angry at him for not helping. What about the woman who works with a working husband? Or the single person? All of these people have essentially two jobs--the one at home and the one at work.
The "traditional" man has someone else taking care of all the outside hassles of life. He, essentially, only works one job--the one he's paid for. Does it not make sense that he should be able to focus more on work? He never has to worry about having clean socks or missing an important meeting because one of the kids is puking.
It's all about choice. And it shouldn't surprise anyone that there are consequences with each choice.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Important Carnival of HR Update!
The Carnival of HR has a new home! Yeah! All the updates and info you need is over there.
Ask A Manager has taken over the responsibility of tracking and guiding the carnival. She's awesome.
Party on!
Ask A Manager has taken over the responsibility of tracking and guiding the carnival. She's awesome.
Party on!
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Power of [Passive Aggressive] Suggestion
This week, I had an employee come to me and complain about other employees not washing their hands after using the bathroom. They wanted me to put up signs telling people they need to wash their hands before returning to work. Needless to say, I do NOT work at a McDonald's. My (rhetorical) question is this: does putting up a sign telling people to do something or not do something actually work?? If so, I need to rethink our whole office communication plan. It might save me a whole lot of time and trouble.
First question for the person who asked this question: How do you know that people aren't washing their hands? Are you hanging out in the bathroom? Really? Because I believe that studies show that even avowed non-washers wash their hands when someone else is in the bathroom.
My second question is why would anyone think that someone who is brazen enough to walk out of a public restroom, observed by a co-worker, and still not wash their hands would see a sign "reminding" them to wash their hands and go, "Oh! I'm supposed to wash my hands after piddling? I had no idea! Thank you place of work for telling me this. I shall now wash my hands."
Not gonna happen. Not even close.
I will say, though that there is a time and a place for passive aggressive notes. And that place is here, and nowhere else. Otherwise, if you won't say it to their faces, leaving notes won't help. (I was strongly tempted to leave a "If you sprinkle when you tinkle, be a sweetie, wipe the seatie" sign when someone in my office used to hover and then not wipe up after herself. I mean, honestly, are you that delicate that you can't clean up after yourself but expect the rest of the world to do it? Actually what I would have liked to do is put a sign saying, "I don't know who you are, but if we find out, you're going down." I didn't. You shouldn't either. But, geesh, people, have some consideration for others!)
I would be willing to bet (if I were a gambling woman, which I'm not), that the complainer has other problems that need to be addressed. People don't come to HR over this unless there is an underlying issue. Sure, they may say, "Sue in accounts payable doesn't wash her hands!" while they are chatting, with people giving furtive glances at Sue and wondering about the bacteria colonies on her keyboard, but they don't come to HR about it. This is someone who is frustrated over something else and needs a little control in her life. (I just switched from gender neutral into female, because I'll also bet this is a woman. I don't think men care about this and if they did and saw other men not washing their hands they'd say, "Dude, you didn't wash your hands" instead of coming to HR.)
So, no. I don't think a sign will solve any problems. I think the problem isn't handwashing. I think it's something else.
First question for the person who asked this question: How do you know that people aren't washing their hands? Are you hanging out in the bathroom? Really? Because I believe that studies show that even avowed non-washers wash their hands when someone else is in the bathroom.
My second question is why would anyone think that someone who is brazen enough to walk out of a public restroom, observed by a co-worker, and still not wash their hands would see a sign "reminding" them to wash their hands and go, "Oh! I'm supposed to wash my hands after piddling? I had no idea! Thank you place of work for telling me this. I shall now wash my hands."
Not gonna happen. Not even close.
I will say, though that there is a time and a place for passive aggressive notes. And that place is here, and nowhere else. Otherwise, if you won't say it to their faces, leaving notes won't help. (I was strongly tempted to leave a "If you sprinkle when you tinkle, be a sweetie, wipe the seatie" sign when someone in my office used to hover and then not wipe up after herself. I mean, honestly, are you that delicate that you can't clean up after yourself but expect the rest of the world to do it? Actually what I would have liked to do is put a sign saying, "I don't know who you are, but if we find out, you're going down." I didn't. You shouldn't either. But, geesh, people, have some consideration for others!)
I would be willing to bet (if I were a gambling woman, which I'm not), that the complainer has other problems that need to be addressed. People don't come to HR over this unless there is an underlying issue. Sure, they may say, "Sue in accounts payable doesn't wash her hands!" while they are chatting, with people giving furtive glances at Sue and wondering about the bacteria colonies on her keyboard, but they don't come to HR about it. This is someone who is frustrated over something else and needs a little control in her life. (I just switched from gender neutral into female, because I'll also bet this is a woman. I don't think men care about this and if they did and saw other men not washing their hands they'd say, "Dude, you didn't wash your hands" instead of coming to HR.)
So, no. I don't think a sign will solve any problems. I think the problem isn't handwashing. I think it's something else.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The Mom Advantage: Making the Workplace Hospitable to Working Moms
No life event seems to get a corporation's collective undies in abundle so much as the birth or adoption of a baby. Perhaps it's the
unpredictability of the event. One day Sally
is working quietly at her desk, and the next day she drops the B-bomb
on her boss like it's nothing.
Unlike vacations, promotions, work schedules and travel requirements,
a baby's arrival is in the employee's court all the way.
Lots of people prefer predictability to unpredictability, and so the
disappearance of an employee on maternity leave feels like a terrible
inconvenience and an affront.
I like to remind employers that a garden-variety skiing accident
could easily land an employee of either gender in a six-week medical
leave of absence, but that doesn't seem to quiet their fears.
After all, they tell me, an employee with a torn tendon comes back to
work post-leave unencumbered. S/he hasn't taken on a major life
obligation in the process! This is true. New motherhood (or repeat
motherhood) is its own animal.
Yet, babies are not about to stop appearing, and employers need to
handle their working moms' arrivals and departures without panic.
Having made an investment in an employee already, wouldn't you rather
keep her on board than lose her to a more family-friendly environment?
Accommodating Moms
But you'll need more than a family-friendly policy. You'll need to do
lots of listening and lots of communicating, to consider each
returning mom's situation on its own merits, and to guard against a
backlash from non-moms who may wonder why having a baby entitles an
employee to special hours and other privileges.
The most common accommodations for returning moms are flexibility in
their work schedules and flexibility of place (e.g. telecommuting). A
baby's early months require doctor visits during the day and
childcare can create scheduling demands.
Less common accommodations for new moms are on-site child care, the
ability to bring Baby to work, and company-paid babysitting when Mom
travels for business.
Overcoming Barriers
Employers typically have three big fears in the accommodating-new-
moms department. Be prepared to deal with these cultural obstacles.
If we offer special programs to new moms…
Other employees will complain.
The last thing we want to do is to send a signal that moms are golden
and all other employees are chopped liver.
Accommodations need to be based on a realistic assessment of job
requirements,
the returning mom's tenure and performance, and how the accommodation
could be applied to others.
If you can't extend the same kind of flexibility to other employees,
consider putting a timeframe on the agreement. Meet and discuss the
arrangements every quarter to see whether it makes sense to stay the
course.
When I was a corporate HR person, I'd hear from non-parents fairly
often about our company's few family-friendly offerings. I'd say to
them:
"We need to develop all the employee groups that we have here at XYZ
Corp, and spot any gaps between the performance or tenure of any
group of employees and the team overall. If new moms are quitting at
an alarming rate, that's a business problem. If Latvian red-headed
Capricorn employees were dropping like flies, that would be a
business problem, too."
If we can help employees see our outreach and accommodation measures
as the solution to a legitimate business problem, we have a chance to
get them over the 'why not me?' hump.
To read the full story, please jump here.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Strategies for Web 2.0 and HR
We are in the middle of writing our report for the CIPD on Web 2 and HR, which, as well as helping HR specialists understand what is going on in this space, has to help them develop policies and strategies to take advantage of these new social media. With this aim in mind, I've been reading a veritable rash of articles,books, blogs and the like aimed at advising companies on Web 2 and their dealings with customers. Two of the best of these are by Charlotte Li and Josh Bernoff(2008) Groundswell: winning in a world transformed by social technologies, Bostong: Harvard Business School Press and Amy Schuen (2008) Web 2.0: a strategy guide, CA:OReilly Media.
I'll say a little more in a later post about the second, but having just finished reading the first one I'm happy with my practitioner hat on to recommend it to HR colleagues or students seeking to implement or talk about implementing Web 2 into organizations.
The basic thesis of Groundswell is simple enough, though perhaps written in an over-evangelisitic tone befitting of US consultants from the American technology and media sector. It is simply this: that the democrastising features of the social web is enabling the ever growing numbers of people who use such technologies to 'get the things they need from each other instead of from companies' (p. x), which is a phenomenon that organizations can observe but can't control. Like most such publications, they invoke a form of social contagion, resulting in a widespread groundswell through emotional, behavioural and ideational processes. Brands and employer brands, are increasingly in the hands of customers and employees, and those 'on the street' who have the potential to influence these people. Correspondingly they are increasingly out of the control of companies, conventional marketing departments, public relations, communications and HR departments.
So far, nothing much new here, apart from some dramatic illustrations of these phenomonon. But in later chapters they begin to sketch out some 'hardish' data on these developments, a form of analysis they call 'social technolographics' that helps segment potential customers (and employees). Thus, they usefully distinguish creators (of content), critics (of others content), collectors (of content), joiners (who follow fashion), spectators (who consume content) and inactives (which formed 41% of Americans and 53% of Europeans in 2007). Like all forms of segmentation, the power of such analysis allows organizations to target their product offerings more effectively, using one of more of five strategies for addressing the external customer problem with Web 2. These strategies easily translate into strategies for HR to deal with internal customer 'problems', including engagement, employer branding, knowledge sharing and knowledge creation, based on a four stage analysis of people (what are employees ready for), objectives (what are your people management goals in introducing Web 2), strategy (how do you want your relationship with employees to change) and technology (what applications should you build).
The five strategies they identify are:
While the authors have a chapter on relating to employees, it is easy to apply the five strategies to HR and people management. Moreover, as the authors predict in their final chapter, 'groundswell' technologies are 'exploding' since they are cheap and easy to create and improve. They also draw on powerful social networking effects for their adoption, the key message of Amy Schuen's book, which I'll review in a later post.
I'll say a little more in a later post about the second, but having just finished reading the first one I'm happy with my practitioner hat on to recommend it to HR colleagues or students seeking to implement or talk about implementing Web 2 into organizations.
The basic thesis of Groundswell is simple enough, though perhaps written in an over-evangelisitic tone befitting of US consultants from the American technology and media sector. It is simply this: that the democrastising features of the social web is enabling the ever growing numbers of people who use such technologies to 'get the things they need from each other instead of from companies' (p. x), which is a phenomenon that organizations can observe but can't control. Like most such publications, they invoke a form of social contagion, resulting in a widespread groundswell through emotional, behavioural and ideational processes. Brands and employer brands, are increasingly in the hands of customers and employees, and those 'on the street' who have the potential to influence these people. Correspondingly they are increasingly out of the control of companies, conventional marketing departments, public relations, communications and HR departments.
So far, nothing much new here, apart from some dramatic illustrations of these phenomonon. But in later chapters they begin to sketch out some 'hardish' data on these developments, a form of analysis they call 'social technolographics' that helps segment potential customers (and employees). Thus, they usefully distinguish creators (of content), critics (of others content), collectors (of content), joiners (who follow fashion), spectators (who consume content) and inactives (which formed 41% of Americans and 53% of Europeans in 2007). Like all forms of segmentation, the power of such analysis allows organizations to target their product offerings more effectively, using one of more of five strategies for addressing the external customer problem with Web 2. These strategies easily translate into strategies for HR to deal with internal customer 'problems', including engagement, employer branding, knowledge sharing and knowledge creation, based on a four stage analysis of people (what are employees ready for), objectives (what are your people management goals in introducing Web 2), strategy (how do you want your relationship with employees to change) and technology (what applications should you build).
The five strategies they identify are:
- Listening to understand employees through digital research
- Talking to employees by spreading digital messages
- Energizing by building on the enthusiasm of key employees and using the power of word of mouth to spread the message/medium
- Supporting employees by setting up tools to help them support each other, and
- Embracing employees into the design of new product and HR process design and implementation
While the authors have a chapter on relating to employees, it is easy to apply the five strategies to HR and people management. Moreover, as the authors predict in their final chapter, 'groundswell' technologies are 'exploding' since they are cheap and easy to create and improve. They also draw on powerful social networking effects for their adoption, the key message of Amy Schuen's book, which I'll review in a later post.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Reflections on the CIPD Harrogate Conference
A few further thoughts on the CIPD Annual Conference at Harrogate. Of all the sessions I attended, perhaps the two most useful for me were on the CIPD's 'Shaping the Future' programme and Jack Phillips workshop on Measuring HR and Determining Return on Investment.
The CIPD's Shaping the Future agenda, which you can find details of on their website, is an ambitious set of a dozen or so action research projects intended to help members learn more about the links between people management and high performance. As they stress, this is a research programme and a development programme, based on the premise that you only ever learn about something by trying to change it. For us, this is an excellent fit with our work as we run a number of action-research based masters programmes and are about to begin a major knowledge networking and action research programme of our own with senior HR professionals.
The second session on measuring HR directly played into our project for the the Scottish Government/ESRC on measuring human capital and its links with public value. Jack Phillips work has been influential in this field for some years but this is the first time I have come across him face-to-face. Personally engaging in a low key kind of way, he was the consumate HR professional, both in his presentation and in being 'content rich'. For anyone considering a project on measuring human capital, I strongly recommend an examination of his well-research and rigorous methodology - beginning with a look at his ROI website and attending one of his seminars.
The CIPD's Shaping the Future agenda, which you can find details of on their website, is an ambitious set of a dozen or so action research projects intended to help members learn more about the links between people management and high performance. As they stress, this is a research programme and a development programme, based on the premise that you only ever learn about something by trying to change it. For us, this is an excellent fit with our work as we run a number of action-research based masters programmes and are about to begin a major knowledge networking and action research programme of our own with senior HR professionals.
The second session on measuring HR directly played into our project for the the Scottish Government/ESRC on measuring human capital and its links with public value. Jack Phillips work has been influential in this field for some years but this is the first time I have come across him face-to-face. Personally engaging in a low key kind of way, he was the consumate HR professional, both in his presentation and in being 'content rich'. For anyone considering a project on measuring human capital, I strongly recommend an examination of his well-research and rigorous methodology - beginning with a look at his ROI website and attending one of his seminars.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Carnival of HR Reminder
There has been some serious slacking in the Carnival world and we don't want to get bad performance reviews because of it.
If you hurry up and make a submission, you just might make today's carnival at Sharp Brains. Send an e-mail to alvaro at sharpbrains dot com.
If you hurry up and make a submission, you just might make today's carnival at Sharp Brains. Send an e-mail to alvaro at sharpbrains dot com.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
CIPD Annual Conference and Web 2.0
I chaired a highly enjoyable interactive session at the CIPD Annual Conference at Harrogate yesterday, during which we took the chance to gain feedback from around fifty-five members about the relevance of this topic for their jobs and organizations. This cannot be described as a representative sample in any statistical sense, but provided us with an indication of the high level of interest in Web 2, but relatively low levels of understanding of its potential. This contrast was even more marked at a presentation we did at Olympia in June for the CIPDs software and recruitment event, where well over a hundred people packed into a space that could only seat sixty or so.
The session comprised of three purposefully short but highly informative presentations by three industry speakers on different aspects of Web 2 and its application to HR. These were followed by questions and break out groups to discuss key some of the key issues raised by the presentations and by our research for the CIPD. Andrew Unsworth, Head of E-Government at Edinburgh City Council, began with some evidence on the Virtual Generation and how it is and would affect models of organizational learning in his organization. This generational driver is one of the most important in getting HR to think seriously about how to incorporate these social media into their communications and ways of working, a point taken up in the following presentation by Tom McCabe, Head of Human Capital in IBM's North East Europe Consulting Division. IBM is a highly sophisticated user of the complete family of Web 2 media and a serious experimenter, which was demonstrated by a short video of how they are using Second Life as an induction and conference tool. He also explained how they used wikis, blogs and their in-house version of LinkedIn to create and share knowledge in the organization. For me, however, one of the most interesting applications was the Jam, where thousand of IBMers collaborate online to generate ideas for the company and to share their views. This demonstrated the power of Web 2.0 to reach parts that surveys can't reach, in ways they can't reach, which shows how employee voice can be surfaced and acted upon. Finally, Andy Hyatt, who leads Web 2.0 for Hodes, a recruitment and HR consulting firm, drilled deeper into the potential of social media for recruitment and selection. He provided a number of examples of how organizations are using interactive online media to connect with potential recruits, including passive candidates, which were topics of immediate interest to many of the audience.
Following questions of clarification, we posed five questions to the audience, which they discussed in groups. In true Web 2 spirit, they were also given the opportunity to discuss any other questions they thought to be more relevant. Our questions were of the type: what are the implications for knowledge sharing and collaboration, surfacing employee voice, etc in your organization. Also, what are the implications/ dangers for loss of control over the corporate message and/ or brand. We gained two strong impressions from participating in the groups and listening to the feedback from them. The first was that our questions weren't particularly relevant to them at this stage in their understanding; most participants were at a level of finding out about the basics of these new technologies. The second was that many were still pre-occupied with the dangers of open/democratic communications, and with the damaging impact on brands.
As Martyn Sloman from the CIPD suggested, these impressions were similar to those he gained during the early years of e-learning. Most HR professionals have not been in the vanguard of adopting new technologies in businesses, which was evidenced by the lack of interest in technological issues on their website - technology and HR ranked 400 and something on the list of important issues for them, some distance below many of the traditional 'tea and toilet' issues.
However, given the interest shown by the numbers of people that have turned up at these events on these new social media, we remain encouraged that the HR function is beginning to 'get it', an impression supported by many of the comments from participants in the room
The session comprised of three purposefully short but highly informative presentations by three industry speakers on different aspects of Web 2 and its application to HR. These were followed by questions and break out groups to discuss key some of the key issues raised by the presentations and by our research for the CIPD. Andrew Unsworth, Head of E-Government at Edinburgh City Council, began with some evidence on the Virtual Generation and how it is and would affect models of organizational learning in his organization. This generational driver is one of the most important in getting HR to think seriously about how to incorporate these social media into their communications and ways of working, a point taken up in the following presentation by Tom McCabe, Head of Human Capital in IBM's North East Europe Consulting Division. IBM is a highly sophisticated user of the complete family of Web 2 media and a serious experimenter, which was demonstrated by a short video of how they are using Second Life as an induction and conference tool. He also explained how they used wikis, blogs and their in-house version of LinkedIn to create and share knowledge in the organization. For me, however, one of the most interesting applications was the Jam, where thousand of IBMers collaborate online to generate ideas for the company and to share their views. This demonstrated the power of Web 2.0 to reach parts that surveys can't reach, in ways they can't reach, which shows how employee voice can be surfaced and acted upon. Finally, Andy Hyatt, who leads Web 2.0 for Hodes, a recruitment and HR consulting firm, drilled deeper into the potential of social media for recruitment and selection. He provided a number of examples of how organizations are using interactive online media to connect with potential recruits, including passive candidates, which were topics of immediate interest to many of the audience.
Following questions of clarification, we posed five questions to the audience, which they discussed in groups. In true Web 2 spirit, they were also given the opportunity to discuss any other questions they thought to be more relevant. Our questions were of the type: what are the implications for knowledge sharing and collaboration, surfacing employee voice, etc in your organization. Also, what are the implications/ dangers for loss of control over the corporate message and/ or brand. We gained two strong impressions from participating in the groups and listening to the feedback from them. The first was that our questions weren't particularly relevant to them at this stage in their understanding; most participants were at a level of finding out about the basics of these new technologies. The second was that many were still pre-occupied with the dangers of open/democratic communications, and with the damaging impact on brands.
As Martyn Sloman from the CIPD suggested, these impressions were similar to those he gained during the early years of e-learning. Most HR professionals have not been in the vanguard of adopting new technologies in businesses, which was evidenced by the lack of interest in technological issues on their website - technology and HR ranked 400 and something on the list of important issues for them, some distance below many of the traditional 'tea and toilet' issues.
However, given the interest shown by the numbers of people that have turned up at these events on these new social media, we remain encouraged that the HR function is beginning to 'get it', an impression supported by many of the comments from participants in the room
Friday, September 12, 2008
A Final Thought from BAM: Two to Track on Leadership
The developmental papers at the British Academy of Management are always interesting because of the short presentations and long discussions, a format used in many conference nowadays.
I attended a few sessions on leadership to learn something for our research projects and was delighted to come across two pieces of work in progress that deserve a wider audience - which I'm sure they will get when they're more complete. One was on the popular topic of Authentic Leadership (based on Goffee and Jones's work) by Jane Turner from Northumbria. She has only recently moved into academia from practice, which was reflected in the practitioner-oriented nature of her excellent presentation. Authentic leadership focuses on being true to others and true to yourself, and she described work she was doing with a group of senior leaders to try to get them to get to grips with this concept and turn it on themsevles. The mode of action research and her results were of great interest to the audience, though there were some unresolved questions over what to do about the insightful reflections she had generated among her group of leaders. The notion of authenticity links both our work on strategic HR leadership and our work on employer branding; I'm certainly going to read more on this and look forward to seeing Jane's work in the future.
Gareth Edwards from the Leadership Foundation presented an excellent joint paper with Birgit Schyne from Portsmouth Business School on emotions and implicit leadership theory. This notion is a highly attractive one to me because it helps explain why leadership is becoming such an important topic. In a recent post on the NHS, I raised the issue of 'does leadership matter'? The objective evidence suggests it is not all that important to performance in many contexts but has become something of an industry. However, many of us in attitude surveys and in our everyday discussions about work raise the issue of leadership as an important one, because we hold implicit theories of what leaders should do and how they should behave, based on our individual and cultural belief sets. In other words, leadership can be thought of more as a phenomena created by followers to help them make sense of organizational life and performance, and because we need to attribute cause and blame to complex organizational problems (attribution). The paper raised two questions: how do emotional reactions to the same leader vary among followers and to what extent are these reactions shaped by the implicit leadership theories. Gareth and Birgit produced a very useful framework for explaining how follower characteristics and implicit leadership theories will cause employees to see the same leader differently and to generate different emotions reactions to him/her, which they hope to test in a laboratory setting. Again, I look forward to reading more because it helps us make sense of some results we are unearthing in out branding project for the NHS in Scotland. Leadership really seems to matter to employees perhaps because they expect it to make a signicant difference in this world of celebrity, which places incredible pressure on senior managers who are often unable to fulfil these expectations. This may be because of the difficult constraints they operate under (especially in political organizations such as the NHS) and simply because different people expect different things of the same leader. A no-win situation for mangers? Which might explain why leaders recruit in their own image and engage in emotion shaping culture management/employer branding/leadership branding programmes?
I attended a few sessions on leadership to learn something for our research projects and was delighted to come across two pieces of work in progress that deserve a wider audience - which I'm sure they will get when they're more complete. One was on the popular topic of Authentic Leadership (based on Goffee and Jones's work) by Jane Turner from Northumbria. She has only recently moved into academia from practice, which was reflected in the practitioner-oriented nature of her excellent presentation. Authentic leadership focuses on being true to others and true to yourself, and she described work she was doing with a group of senior leaders to try to get them to get to grips with this concept and turn it on themsevles. The mode of action research and her results were of great interest to the audience, though there were some unresolved questions over what to do about the insightful reflections she had generated among her group of leaders. The notion of authenticity links both our work on strategic HR leadership and our work on employer branding; I'm certainly going to read more on this and look forward to seeing Jane's work in the future.
Gareth Edwards from the Leadership Foundation presented an excellent joint paper with Birgit Schyne from Portsmouth Business School on emotions and implicit leadership theory. This notion is a highly attractive one to me because it helps explain why leadership is becoming such an important topic. In a recent post on the NHS, I raised the issue of 'does leadership matter'? The objective evidence suggests it is not all that important to performance in many contexts but has become something of an industry. However, many of us in attitude surveys and in our everyday discussions about work raise the issue of leadership as an important one, because we hold implicit theories of what leaders should do and how they should behave, based on our individual and cultural belief sets. In other words, leadership can be thought of more as a phenomena created by followers to help them make sense of organizational life and performance, and because we need to attribute cause and blame to complex organizational problems (attribution). The paper raised two questions: how do emotional reactions to the same leader vary among followers and to what extent are these reactions shaped by the implicit leadership theories. Gareth and Birgit produced a very useful framework for explaining how follower characteristics and implicit leadership theories will cause employees to see the same leader differently and to generate different emotions reactions to him/her, which they hope to test in a laboratory setting. Again, I look forward to reading more because it helps us make sense of some results we are unearthing in out branding project for the NHS in Scotland. Leadership really seems to matter to employees perhaps because they expect it to make a signicant difference in this world of celebrity, which places incredible pressure on senior managers who are often unable to fulfil these expectations. This may be because of the difficult constraints they operate under (especially in political organizations such as the NHS) and simply because different people expect different things of the same leader. A no-win situation for mangers? Which might explain why leaders recruit in their own image and engage in emotion shaping culture management/employer branding/leadership branding programmes?
Two to Read for HR Specialists in Airlines and Healthcare
I enjoyed my first visit to the British Academy on Management (BAM) since 2001 (see previous post). Two papers in the HR stream particularly caught my attention. The first was a presentation by Greg Bamber, who is now at Monash, on a new book written with American and European colleagues (including colleagues from Glasgow - Judy Pate and Phil Beaumont) entitled 'Up in the Air: how airlines can improve performance by engaging their employees', Cornell University Press (januray 2009). The second was a paper presented by Paula Hyde and Claire Harris on 'Expectations and Performance in Healthcare', which is based on the study they, and others from Manchester Business School, undertook for the Department of Health and the CIPD on HR in the NHS in England.
The material on the airlines was very well researched and well argued, with some useful frameworks for understanding the relationships between commitment strategies and unionisation. The authors have done an interesting job in mapping out the changes in HR strategies over time of the low cost and legacy airlines, showing that being low cost and good at HR isn't incompatible. For example, South West Airlines has a positive relationship with unions, employees high commitment strategies and was the most profitable airline in the industry last year. Greg quoted a senior airline official from one of the pilots associations, which went along the lines of 'Why is it that other airlines don't get it'? It is clear that some don't and have developed other consistent strategies of low cost and low commitment HR/anti-union stance, which also have been successful. The problem children seem to be those airlines that, to borrow from Michael Porter's phrase, are 'stuck in the middle', neither making one decision or another. While this is an appealing analogy, it only takes us so far. Reminiscent of criticisms of Porter's boxology, life isn't quite so simple and if everyone followed the same strategy, where's the competitive advantage in that?
The HR in the NHS study is the culmination of three years 'hard labour' for a multi-author research project for the CIPD and Department of Health. For any HR manager in healthcare, this research is an essential read. Claire and Paula's paper provided some excellent data on HR strategies, psychological contracting and HR outcomes. They have also developed a very useful model bringing these issues together, which is both rigorous and relevant (the theme of the conference) to academics and practioners in healthcare. However, they may want to think about how the issue of public value might be incorporated into their model (see earlier post from work we are doing on human capital and public value) and on the notion of valued expectations in psychological contracting, which I discussed in our book on corporate reputations, branding and HR.
This is definitely one to read for my colleagues and students working in the NHS in Scotland.
See Hyde, P., Boaden, R., Marchington, M.P., Claire Harris, Paul Sparrow, Sarah Pass, Carroll, M. & Penny Cortvriend (2008) 'The process of engagement and alignment: Improving health through human resource management', Department of Health, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
The material on the airlines was very well researched and well argued, with some useful frameworks for understanding the relationships between commitment strategies and unionisation. The authors have done an interesting job in mapping out the changes in HR strategies over time of the low cost and legacy airlines, showing that being low cost and good at HR isn't incompatible. For example, South West Airlines has a positive relationship with unions, employees high commitment strategies and was the most profitable airline in the industry last year. Greg quoted a senior airline official from one of the pilots associations, which went along the lines of 'Why is it that other airlines don't get it'? It is clear that some don't and have developed other consistent strategies of low cost and low commitment HR/anti-union stance, which also have been successful. The problem children seem to be those airlines that, to borrow from Michael Porter's phrase, are 'stuck in the middle', neither making one decision or another. While this is an appealing analogy, it only takes us so far. Reminiscent of criticisms of Porter's boxology, life isn't quite so simple and if everyone followed the same strategy, where's the competitive advantage in that?
The HR in the NHS study is the culmination of three years 'hard labour' for a multi-author research project for the CIPD and Department of Health. For any HR manager in healthcare, this research is an essential read. Claire and Paula's paper provided some excellent data on HR strategies, psychological contracting and HR outcomes. They have also developed a very useful model bringing these issues together, which is both rigorous and relevant (the theme of the conference) to academics and practioners in healthcare. However, they may want to think about how the issue of public value might be incorporated into their model (see earlier post from work we are doing on human capital and public value) and on the notion of valued expectations in psychological contracting, which I discussed in our book on corporate reputations, branding and HR.
This is definitely one to read for my colleagues and students working in the NHS in Scotland.
See Hyde, P., Boaden, R., Marchington, M.P., Claire Harris, Paul Sparrow, Sarah Pass, Carroll, M. & Penny Cortvriend (2008) 'The process of engagement and alignment: Improving health through human resource management', Department of Health, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Blogging's Contribution to HR
James Hayton’s recent post on his Threee blog referring to the apparent stalling of social networking and James Richards work on blogging has got me thinking more and more about the contribution of this type of social media to people management and HR. So when the second of these two excellent HR bloggers brought our attention to a new book on the topic by Jill Walker Rettberg, an American academic teaching at the University of Bergen, I had to dash off to Amazon and buy it. En route to the British Academy of Management (BAM) annual conference in Harrogate, where I met some new friends from Australia (hello Naomi, Sandra and Elisabeth) and some old friends (hello Stuart and Anne Claire) who were interested in this topic, I read this short but excellent publication. In a field where it is difficult to find good writing that is both rigorous for scholars and relevant to practitioners - the theme of the BAM conference - this book is certainly one that will repay readers seeking to understand some of the serious conversations on Web 2 and get practical advice on how to blog. Not many attempt and clear the double hurdle of rigour and relevance but she does so admirably.
James Hayton rightly questioned the perhaps modish nature of social networking with his reference to a survey published in Mashable (see earlier blog) showing the dissatisfaction and lack of penetration among 18-65 year olds worldwide, while James Richards has focused on the extent and potential of blogging for employee voice in his work on organizational misbehaviour. Both of these academics raise important questions which has caused us to revise our thinking for the CIPD research Web 2. Jill Walker Rettenberg’s book addresses these issues head on. On social networking, she quotes a statistic that shows its potential among the ‘V-gen’. Facebook was originally developed for US college students and has now achieved over 90% penetration, a fact that was supported by the recent work on social networking at the AOM conference, which I reported on in an earlier blog. So while social networking may show signs of running out of steam among older generations, it seems to have become the norm among young, educated people, a fact not lost on some organizations and universities looking to recruit them.
Like James Richards, however, blogging is Rettberg’s preferred social medium and it is on the application and potential of this phenomenon that she scores heavily because her book works at different levels; it is also beautifully written. For anyone wanting to either begin to blog or improve their blogging potential, this book is a godsend (I’ll certainly use many of her ideas on how to make a blog more interesting and widely read); for any serious scholar interested in new digital media or any HR manager wishing to understand the potential of blogging in their own organization, it is a genuine ‘ eye-opener’. Unlike me, she has not come to this topic late, having researched and blogged in the field for most of this decade, so she shows a real mastery of her topic.
In a book of only 160 pages she explores fully the potential and problems of blogging. On the plus side, she outlines bloggers potential to democratise society (and the workplace) by creating a ‘modern public sphere’. To quote one famous press critic, ‘the power of the press is huge if you own one’; blogging now allows everyone to own a press. On the downside, she invokes the worries of both Plato and Jurgen Habermas, a modern social philosopher, to explain the dangers involved in having too many writers and readers because such a groundswell can result in a ‘ lacks authority and, ultimately, a lack of control’ (p48). Both of these perspectives on blogging are evident in our case research and in other research on Web 2 and HR. Some organisations, such as Microsoft, Google, IBM and UK government departments, see the potential for unearthing authentic employee voice through blogging and actively do all they can to encourage employees to blog; they also learn to with the consequences of the occasional and usually in the process rant. We recently made this point to the CIPD’s policy and research committee, which seemed to take this on board for their ‘Shaping the Future’ programme. However, most organisations want to control employee blogging or even ban it altogether (such as the UK armed forces but, interestingly, not their US equivalents). These organisations see significant threats to their authority to be sole authors of the official corporate story and brand identity, so that they attempt to control blogging through a range of mechanisms, ranging from banning employee blogs outright to bringing them behind the firewalls, having policies on what and what can’t be said if you want to keep your jobs, by having the communications departments monitor and respond to employee blogs or by creating corporate blogs or their own.
Walker Rettberg makes the point in her conclusions that the future of blogging lies not only in a form of direct participation by facilitating often unheard voices, providing a basis for participation in issues that truly matter to people, and in the power of a read-write web to collaborate and learn together, but also in an important form of indirect or implicit participation that is grounded in social networking theory. This kind of theorising, probably best known for the work of Mark Granovetter, points to the importance of ‘weak ties’. When we set up strong ties with colleagues, according to Granovetter, we are less likely to learn from them because we share with them common perspectives and common knowledge (we are likely to know and understand what they know and understand). By establishing lots of weak ties, however, we tap into perspectives and knowledge we are much less likely to know about. Thus social networking, outside of our Facebook friends or immediate contacts, is the best way of increasing our absorptive capacity for new knowledge, the sine qua non for innovation. Blogging, more than social networking sites, helps us do this by establishing more weak ties. At a deeper level, it allows organizations such as Google, Flickr and You Tube to harness our collective intelligence by mapping our IP addresses and use them to make recommendations on what might be of interest to us in the same way that Amazon does with books. It is not to difficult to imagine a situation in which the new attitude survey is replaced by software that maps our IP addresses and offers us tailored employee value propositions or knowledge. Indeed some of that future is with us already, with companies such as IBM mapping the social networks of their internal bloggers/networkers to create organizational structures around naturally occurring communities of practice rather than top down imposed structures that do not reflect hoe people interact.
See Jill Walker Rettberg (2008) Blogging, Polity Press, Cambridge:UK
James Hayton rightly questioned the perhaps modish nature of social networking with his reference to a survey published in Mashable (see earlier blog) showing the dissatisfaction and lack of penetration among 18-65 year olds worldwide, while James Richards has focused on the extent and potential of blogging for employee voice in his work on organizational misbehaviour. Both of these academics raise important questions which has caused us to revise our thinking for the CIPD research Web 2. Jill Walker Rettenberg’s book addresses these issues head on. On social networking, she quotes a statistic that shows its potential among the ‘V-gen’. Facebook was originally developed for US college students and has now achieved over 90% penetration, a fact that was supported by the recent work on social networking at the AOM conference, which I reported on in an earlier blog. So while social networking may show signs of running out of steam among older generations, it seems to have become the norm among young, educated people, a fact not lost on some organizations and universities looking to recruit them.
Like James Richards, however, blogging is Rettberg’s preferred social medium and it is on the application and potential of this phenomenon that she scores heavily because her book works at different levels; it is also beautifully written. For anyone wanting to either begin to blog or improve their blogging potential, this book is a godsend (I’ll certainly use many of her ideas on how to make a blog more interesting and widely read); for any serious scholar interested in new digital media or any HR manager wishing to understand the potential of blogging in their own organization, it is a genuine ‘ eye-opener’. Unlike me, she has not come to this topic late, having researched and blogged in the field for most of this decade, so she shows a real mastery of her topic.
In a book of only 160 pages she explores fully the potential and problems of blogging. On the plus side, she outlines bloggers potential to democratise society (and the workplace) by creating a ‘modern public sphere’. To quote one famous press critic, ‘the power of the press is huge if you own one’; blogging now allows everyone to own a press. On the downside, she invokes the worries of both Plato and Jurgen Habermas, a modern social philosopher, to explain the dangers involved in having too many writers and readers because such a groundswell can result in a ‘ lacks authority and, ultimately, a lack of control’ (p48). Both of these perspectives on blogging are evident in our case research and in other research on Web 2 and HR. Some organisations, such as Microsoft, Google, IBM and UK government departments, see the potential for unearthing authentic employee voice through blogging and actively do all they can to encourage employees to blog; they also learn to with the consequences of the occasional and usually in the process rant. We recently made this point to the CIPD’s policy and research committee, which seemed to take this on board for their ‘Shaping the Future’ programme. However, most organisations want to control employee blogging or even ban it altogether (such as the UK armed forces but, interestingly, not their US equivalents). These organisations see significant threats to their authority to be sole authors of the official corporate story and brand identity, so that they attempt to control blogging through a range of mechanisms, ranging from banning employee blogs outright to bringing them behind the firewalls, having policies on what and what can’t be said if you want to keep your jobs, by having the communications departments monitor and respond to employee blogs or by creating corporate blogs or their own.
Walker Rettberg makes the point in her conclusions that the future of blogging lies not only in a form of direct participation by facilitating often unheard voices, providing a basis for participation in issues that truly matter to people, and in the power of a read-write web to collaborate and learn together, but also in an important form of indirect or implicit participation that is grounded in social networking theory. This kind of theorising, probably best known for the work of Mark Granovetter, points to the importance of ‘weak ties’. When we set up strong ties with colleagues, according to Granovetter, we are less likely to learn from them because we share with them common perspectives and common knowledge (we are likely to know and understand what they know and understand). By establishing lots of weak ties, however, we tap into perspectives and knowledge we are much less likely to know about. Thus social networking, outside of our Facebook friends or immediate contacts, is the best way of increasing our absorptive capacity for new knowledge, the sine qua non for innovation. Blogging, more than social networking sites, helps us do this by establishing more weak ties. At a deeper level, it allows organizations such as Google, Flickr and You Tube to harness our collective intelligence by mapping our IP addresses and use them to make recommendations on what might be of interest to us in the same way that Amazon does with books. It is not to difficult to imagine a situation in which the new attitude survey is replaced by software that maps our IP addresses and offers us tailored employee value propositions or knowledge. Indeed some of that future is with us already, with companies such as IBM mapping the social networks of their internal bloggers/networkers to create organizational structures around naturally occurring communities of practice rather than top down imposed structures that do not reflect hoe people interact.
See Jill Walker Rettberg (2008) Blogging, Polity Press, Cambridge:UK
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Tuition and Quitting
I was reading your blog about Tuition Policies. I'm in a very unique situation and wondered your advice.
My previous company paid for my Tuition for 1 year, then they informed me that they were going to outsource my job, and I wouldn't have to pay this back.
However, they refused to give me a set time frame for my last day of work. Since I was a new home owner, and would only receive 4 weeks severance pay I felt I would be gambling on finding a new job with a small time frame, so I decided to leave once I was offered another job. Now, I put myself in the position to re-pay what they paid for my tuition. I noticed in your blog that you said . . ."it's next to impossible to get that money back if the person doesn't willingly cough up the check", I just wanted to know your thoughts on this topic? What can the company do, if I don't repay this money?
The company can take you to court and sue you and they would win. Yeah! Just what you want to do. You want a court judgment issued against you.
Now, the probably won't, but they might. You don't want it to come to that. You also signed a contract and legally you are obligated to repay, since your resignation was voluntary. Now, since you had already been told that your position was being outsourced, you might be able to argue that this was a version of a constructive discharge. Usually this is applied when your company makes it so miserable that you have to leave. I could argue that by telling you your job is eliminated and not giving you a time frame, the only rational decision was to quit and therefore you were forced into it.
I doubt you could win that argument in court. And as I said, you don't want to go to court anyway. Plus, you are an honest person and want to do the right thing. It's one year of tuition. Step up to the plate and approach the person responsible for such things. Present your case and say, "under the circumstances, I believe it's fair if I repay 1/3 of the tuition. After all, my job was scheduled for outsourcing and I saved you the cost of 4 weeks severance." They'll probably jump at it, given that they don't want to go to court either.
Keep in mind that the person who manages the tuition reimbursement program probably does not have the authority to approve such a thing. So, if she immediately says no, ask who would have the authority to approve a deal and go to them. Frankly, I think they'd be fools not to accept it. You may have to negotiate a little bit and pay a bit more, but I doubt they'll come after you for the whole amount.
Or, you could get someone who is a complete policy nut who will become apoplectic at the mere thought of granting an exception. If so, I'm sorry.
I feel your pain. And for the record, I think you made the right decision. No point staying on when you have an indefinite term date. Companies that do that type of thing to you should be offering stay bonuses, but even those are rarely worth turning down a real job for.
Good luck in your new job.
My previous company paid for my Tuition for 1 year, then they informed me that they were going to outsource my job, and I wouldn't have to pay this back.
However, they refused to give me a set time frame for my last day of work. Since I was a new home owner, and would only receive 4 weeks severance pay I felt I would be gambling on finding a new job with a small time frame, so I decided to leave once I was offered another job. Now, I put myself in the position to re-pay what they paid for my tuition. I noticed in your blog that you said . . ."it's next to impossible to get that money back if the person doesn't willingly cough up the check", I just wanted to know your thoughts on this topic? What can the company do, if I don't repay this money?
The company can take you to court and sue you and they would win. Yeah! Just what you want to do. You want a court judgment issued against you.
Now, the probably won't, but they might. You don't want it to come to that. You also signed a contract and legally you are obligated to repay, since your resignation was voluntary. Now, since you had already been told that your position was being outsourced, you might be able to argue that this was a version of a constructive discharge. Usually this is applied when your company makes it so miserable that you have to leave. I could argue that by telling you your job is eliminated and not giving you a time frame, the only rational decision was to quit and therefore you were forced into it.
I doubt you could win that argument in court. And as I said, you don't want to go to court anyway. Plus, you are an honest person and want to do the right thing. It's one year of tuition. Step up to the plate and approach the person responsible for such things. Present your case and say, "under the circumstances, I believe it's fair if I repay 1/3 of the tuition. After all, my job was scheduled for outsourcing and I saved you the cost of 4 weeks severance." They'll probably jump at it, given that they don't want to go to court either.
Keep in mind that the person who manages the tuition reimbursement program probably does not have the authority to approve such a thing. So, if she immediately says no, ask who would have the authority to approve a deal and go to them. Frankly, I think they'd be fools not to accept it. You may have to negotiate a little bit and pay a bit more, but I doubt they'll come after you for the whole amount.
Or, you could get someone who is a complete policy nut who will become apoplectic at the mere thought of granting an exception. If so, I'm sorry.
I feel your pain. And for the record, I think you made the right decision. No point staying on when you have an indefinite term date. Companies that do that type of thing to you should be offering stay bonuses, but even those are rarely worth turning down a real job for.
Good luck in your new job.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Hire and Step Back
HIRE AND STEP BACK
by Liz Ryan
I was on a tour of a local employer’s facility with its human resources leader when we heard raised voices. We turned a corner and saw a middle-aged man venting his spleen on a young colleague.
"Our CEO," the HR chief whispered to me.
"A yeller?" I asked, and she replied under her breath, "Not normally."
We ran into the CEO again in the cafeteria, where he came over to introduce himself. "You witnessed me losing my temper," he said. "That's not really like me, but I must say I was very angry at something that happened this morning."
Naturally, I wanted to hear the story.
Turns out that the young associate had asked the CEO for permission to handle a high-stakes customer issue, and the CEO had agreed. The young man had dropped the ball, badly. The CEO had been expressing his displeasure with the incident when we ran into him. He'd only learned about the ball-drop when the customer called him to complain.
"We try to hire people who don't need a lot of direction," the CEO told me. "Ninety-eight percent of the time, it works. Two percent of the time, we give some heavy guidance or we make a change. I can't imagine running this place any other way. If our managers had to watch people like hawks, we'd be done — it's too expensive."
The CEO got no disagreement from me, because he's right on the money. It is expensive to spend supervisory time watching people work, double-checking their output and second-guessing their decisions.
Granted, there are regulatory requirements (Sarbanes Oxley being just one) that require us to conduct audits and set up groups to watchdog one another's processes. But in the vast majority of business actions where that sort of oversight isn't required, why would we impose it?
It takes more time and more careful interviewing (notice I didn't say more steps in the selection process) to hire people who view their jobs the way Harry Truman ("the buck stops here") did, but the savings in leadership time are enormous. Why would we hire anyone else?
I spoke to a group of HR leaders at a workshop last week, and we talked about the silly ways that employers too often approach the hiring process. We pilloried the time-honored job-ad phrase, "Must be able to hit the ground running."
That company is saying it would rather hire someone who knows every aspect of the job and can be productive right away, than a person with twice the talent and vision who doesn't have the specific skills the job requires. What a bad trade!
If we hire a person expecting him or her to stick around for a year or three, why would we trade off long-term potential for the ability to navigate some software developer's latest release - especially if the fine points of that newly released application could be mastered in two days?
Short-term thinking is the culprit.
We can't wait; we need you to hit the ground running! That’s poor leadership on display.
But we get to choose.
We can hire people capable of learning what they need to know on the job, quickly; folks whose intellect and character will move our companies forward dramatically.
We can hire people who don’t need constant watching via internet snooping programs that count their minutes on Facebook or Ebay.
We can hire people who can be trusted to get their jobs done without a manager’s eagle-eyed supervision.
If we have the confidence to hire Harry Trumans and set them free, we'll have the advantages the CEO in this story has. He raises his voice two or three times a year at an employee who is confused about what the word 'commitment' means.
The rest of the time, he deals with the issues on a CEO's plate and lets the employees, capable adults that they are, manage themselves.
Read this story on CoBizMag
On that School/Forms Theme
Check this out. It's a parody of a school form. I need to get more creative and make up a new hire form.
Advance Vacation Notice
I am currently looking for employment (I was laid off) and was wondering about how to ask for a few days off that I know I would like to take. I am completing my MBA in December, and the graduation is in a neighboring state, which would require a few days off for driving, plus the actual ceremony and celebration. Since I already know about this desire for time off, when would be the appropriate time to mention this, in the event that I am interviewed and/or offered a position? I am ok with being told it is not possible, if that is the employer's policy, but if I can take the time off (even without pay), I would prefer to do so. I don't want to offend the employer by them thinking I would always be asking for time off, but also feel the kind of employer I want to work for would be understanding for this special occasion.
First, good luck with the job hunt. It's a painful, but hopefully fruitful time. Second, congratulations on the MBA. (Almost! I probably shouldn't congratulate you until you actually receive it.)
Now, as for time off at the end of December, take a deep breath and don't worry about it. Everyone and their dog wants to take vacation at the end of December and no future employer is going to be shocked by the request. (And, FYI, if you came and worked for my company, we shut down between Christmas and New Year's Day anyway, so everybody gets time off!) This is something I wouldn't even bring up in an interview.
I would, however, bring it up in the negotiation phase. Once they've offered you the job, then you can mention, "I'm graduating from [MBA Program] in December and the graduation ceremony is on December 22. I'd really like to take December 21-23rd off. Would that be a problem?"
Chances are the answer will be no. If the answer is yes, then you get to decide if the new job is worth missing your graduation.
This would be a problem if what you wanted was 6 weeks off to tour Africa or something. Two-three days off to attend your own graduation is not an unreasonable request. And a manager would be a fool to not want you to work for them because you have something so reasonable scheduled. (Heck, I once hired someone who said she couldn't start for three weeks because she had a vacation planned between the offer and then and didn't want to request time off. I needed her on board for various reasons and said, "come on and you can take that vacation paid!" So she did and she went on her vacation and 7 years later she's my job share partner, so aren't I glad she came to work?)
You're almost done with your MBA and you've been laid off, so I presume you have work experience to go along with your degree. This means you probably aren't looking for entry level positions where you have to work six months before getting a single day off. Most companies will pro-rate your vacation time anyway. If you were hired in October in a company that offers 2 weeks of vacation per year, you'd have 2.5 days of vacation to use by year end anyway. (10 days/12 months=.833 days per month X 3 months=2.5 days of vacation.)
Good luck with the job hunt. May you land one quickly.
First, good luck with the job hunt. It's a painful, but hopefully fruitful time. Second, congratulations on the MBA. (Almost! I probably shouldn't congratulate you until you actually receive it.)
Now, as for time off at the end of December, take a deep breath and don't worry about it. Everyone and their dog wants to take vacation at the end of December and no future employer is going to be shocked by the request. (And, FYI, if you came and worked for my company, we shut down between Christmas and New Year's Day anyway, so everybody gets time off!) This is something I wouldn't even bring up in an interview.
I would, however, bring it up in the negotiation phase. Once they've offered you the job, then you can mention, "I'm graduating from [MBA Program] in December and the graduation ceremony is on December 22. I'd really like to take December 21-23rd off. Would that be a problem?"
Chances are the answer will be no. If the answer is yes, then you get to decide if the new job is worth missing your graduation.
This would be a problem if what you wanted was 6 weeks off to tour Africa or something. Two-three days off to attend your own graduation is not an unreasonable request. And a manager would be a fool to not want you to work for them because you have something so reasonable scheduled. (Heck, I once hired someone who said she couldn't start for three weeks because she had a vacation planned between the offer and then and didn't want to request time off. I needed her on board for various reasons and said, "come on and you can take that vacation paid!" So she did and she went on her vacation and 7 years later she's my job share partner, so aren't I glad she came to work?)
You're almost done with your MBA and you've been laid off, so I presume you have work experience to go along with your degree. This means you probably aren't looking for entry level positions where you have to work six months before getting a single day off. Most companies will pro-rate your vacation time anyway. If you were hired in October in a company that offers 2 weeks of vacation per year, you'd have 2.5 days of vacation to use by year end anyway. (10 days/12 months=.833 days per month X 3 months=2.5 days of vacation.)
Good luck with the job hunt. May you land one quickly.
Monday, September 8, 2008
An Ethical Question
I've been tapped to choose an important service provider for our small business. In taking bids, I've discovered that one of the bidders may have run afoul of the law in another state, but likely settled without any criminal charges (a white collar crime). I learned this from a competing bidder, but believe it to be true. I know this person, and have worked with them before in another business (the incident was a few years before that, evidently). Their work was always of an excellent quality. The person does NOT know that I'm aware of the incident, and the bid is in line with the others.
First, should I notify my boss of this, even if I believe it will not affect the providing of this critical service?
Next, should I use this person in the first place if the offense may be interpreted as having to do with a lack of character? I know frighteningly little about the facts of the case, I'm afraid.
Lastly, if we reject the bid for this reason, do I have an ethical responsibility to tell this person why, and how I found out?
I'm not sure I'm the right person to ask an ethical question to. Why? Because I spent a good part of Saturday trying to figure out how to cheat at Candyland. Not because I wanted to win, mind you. But because I wanted the game to end. As soon as one of us would get in striking distance of the blessed end of the game, that person would draw Mr. Mint or Grandma Nutt or some other blasted character that would send you backwards. Aaargh! Could somebody just win the darn thing?
But, for the record, I didn't cheat and fortunately, the offspring won, so there was no tears and (horrors) demand for a re-match. So, I guess I am an ethical sort.
So, you heard a rumor that someone who you have worked with in the past did something extra bad in their past--not that you are very clear on what--and you wonder what to do with that information. This is a horrible gut-wrenching situation to be in. You want to do what is right. You don't want to embarrass somebody needlessly. What if you tell your boss, the guy doesn't get the contract and it turns out that his competitor is lying? Aaargh!
Here is what I suggest: Talk to the vendor directly. Tell him you heard a rumor and you are very sorry, but you need to talk to him about it. This stops the gossip altogether and gets to the heart of things. If he says yes, that was him, then he gets an opportunity to explain and you take all the information to your boss and decide if you wish to continue working with him.
If he says no, that's not true, well then you've got a more difficult situation. You've got one vendor saying his direct competitor is a criminal and that vendor denying it. Oy. I still say your boss needs to know. I'm not a fan of gossip, but this situation speaks to the character of one of them, it's just hard to tell which one.
Since you don't believe this "problem" will affect his performance, you could just let it all go. But, the problem I see with that is that any criminal behavior reflects on the integrity of the person. (Incidentally, the rules around criminal CONVICTIONS and hiring don't apply--to the best of my knowledge--when you are seeking a vendor, rather than an employee. Since he wasn't convicted, this is moot anyway, but I thought I'd bring it up.) And telling you this information reflects on the integrity of the competitor. (Not saying he's a bad person, mind you, just saying "why is he telling me this? Is it to give himself an advantage? Or does he really think it's important.)
So, now that I've given a long winded answer, I'll summarize your three questions.
1. Yes, you should notify your boss. But, first speak to the vendor directly.
2. Depending on what you find out, it speaks to someone's character, and I think that's important to know. Keep in mind that lots of people have made mistakes in life and if it's been a while and he's done good work for you in the past, you probably don't care.
3. Yes, I believe if you are going to take this information into consideration, you need to talk to the person. I'm into being open and honest. If he did this, it's lurking in the back of his mind anyway and you bringing it up won't devastate him (I hope!). It will allow you to clear the air.
4. And no matter what, investigate this yourself. This means more than google.
I'm feeling a bit uneasy about my answer now. Someone else chime in and give a better one. I hate situations like this!
First, should I notify my boss of this, even if I believe it will not affect the providing of this critical service?
Next, should I use this person in the first place if the offense may be interpreted as having to do with a lack of character? I know frighteningly little about the facts of the case, I'm afraid.
Lastly, if we reject the bid for this reason, do I have an ethical responsibility to tell this person why, and how I found out?
I'm not sure I'm the right person to ask an ethical question to. Why? Because I spent a good part of Saturday trying to figure out how to cheat at Candyland. Not because I wanted to win, mind you. But because I wanted the game to end. As soon as one of us would get in striking distance of the blessed end of the game, that person would draw Mr. Mint or Grandma Nutt or some other blasted character that would send you backwards. Aaargh! Could somebody just win the darn thing?
But, for the record, I didn't cheat and fortunately, the offspring won, so there was no tears and (horrors) demand for a re-match. So, I guess I am an ethical sort.
So, you heard a rumor that someone who you have worked with in the past did something extra bad in their past--not that you are very clear on what--and you wonder what to do with that information. This is a horrible gut-wrenching situation to be in. You want to do what is right. You don't want to embarrass somebody needlessly. What if you tell your boss, the guy doesn't get the contract and it turns out that his competitor is lying? Aaargh!
Here is what I suggest: Talk to the vendor directly. Tell him you heard a rumor and you are very sorry, but you need to talk to him about it. This stops the gossip altogether and gets to the heart of things. If he says yes, that was him, then he gets an opportunity to explain and you take all the information to your boss and decide if you wish to continue working with him.
If he says no, that's not true, well then you've got a more difficult situation. You've got one vendor saying his direct competitor is a criminal and that vendor denying it. Oy. I still say your boss needs to know. I'm not a fan of gossip, but this situation speaks to the character of one of them, it's just hard to tell which one.
Since you don't believe this "problem" will affect his performance, you could just let it all go. But, the problem I see with that is that any criminal behavior reflects on the integrity of the person. (Incidentally, the rules around criminal CONVICTIONS and hiring don't apply--to the best of my knowledge--when you are seeking a vendor, rather than an employee. Since he wasn't convicted, this is moot anyway, but I thought I'd bring it up.) And telling you this information reflects on the integrity of the competitor. (Not saying he's a bad person, mind you, just saying "why is he telling me this? Is it to give himself an advantage? Or does he really think it's important.)
So, now that I've given a long winded answer, I'll summarize your three questions.
1. Yes, you should notify your boss. But, first speak to the vendor directly.
2. Depending on what you find out, it speaks to someone's character, and I think that's important to know. Keep in mind that lots of people have made mistakes in life and if it's been a while and he's done good work for you in the past, you probably don't care.
3. Yes, I believe if you are going to take this information into consideration, you need to talk to the person. I'm into being open and honest. If he did this, it's lurking in the back of his mind anyway and you bringing it up won't devastate him (I hope!). It will allow you to clear the air.
4. And no matter what, investigate this yourself. This means more than google.
I'm feeling a bit uneasy about my answer now. Someone else chime in and give a better one. I hate situations like this!
Sunday, September 7, 2008
The Future of Social Networking and Blogging
We're putting together an article for People Management on Web 2.0 and HR as part of our project for the CIPD. Just in case anyone missed them, there were two very interesting posts in links to other blogs on this site last week. One of these focused on the mixed picture on social networking by James Hayton's Threee blog. He referred to an article in Mashable on September 3rd, referring to a report from Synovate, which showed that 58% of 18-65 year olds world-wide had no clue about social networking. To quote from the article:
'The survey of more than 13,000 people in 17 developed nations also asked if users were losing interest in social networks. According to the report, 36% said “yes,” with interest fading fastest in Japan, Slovakia, and Canada, with 45% of US users supposedly losing their appetite for social networking'
However, the article also points out that this survey leaves out teenagers who are the biggest users, and that provides optimism for providers in this space. Moreover, even in countries where internet penetration is high, such as the US and UK, less than 30% of internet users use social networking, which is evidence either of potential markets or lack of interest.
James raises an important question in his post: Does this suggest a lack of future for social networking? A discussion among academics at the recent Academy of Management event thought not, and we agree. However, social networking is only one aspect of Web 2, and for HR, we believe other social media have greater potential impact, including blogs, which is where the next post by James Richards in useful. Aside from his site and his own research, he has pointed to a new book on blogging which has just come out. It's called simply 'Blogging'. Written by Jill Walker Rettberg from the University of Bergen, it looks like an interesting piece of research into this field. She also has a good blog. I'm off to read it and report back.
'The survey of more than 13,000 people in 17 developed nations also asked if users were losing interest in social networks. According to the report, 36% said “yes,” with interest fading fastest in Japan, Slovakia, and Canada, with 45% of US users supposedly losing their appetite for social networking'
However, the article also points out that this survey leaves out teenagers who are the biggest users, and that provides optimism for providers in this space. Moreover, even in countries where internet penetration is high, such as the US and UK, less than 30% of internet users use social networking, which is evidence either of potential markets or lack of interest.
James raises an important question in his post: Does this suggest a lack of future for social networking? A discussion among academics at the recent Academy of Management event thought not, and we agree. However, social networking is only one aspect of Web 2, and for HR, we believe other social media have greater potential impact, including blogs, which is where the next post by James Richards in useful. Aside from his site and his own research, he has pointed to a new book on blogging which has just come out. It's called simply 'Blogging'. Written by Jill Walker Rettberg from the University of Bergen, it looks like an interesting piece of research into this field. She also has a good blog. I'm off to read it and report back.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The Ten Worst Job Search Tips Ever
The 10 Worst Job Tips EverThe world abounds in bad advice for job-seekers. Here are some spectacularly unsound directives
Nearly every day, someone sends me a bit of astounding job-search advice from a blog or a newsletter. Some of this advice seems to come directly from the planet X-19, and some of it seems to have been made up on the spot. Here are 10 of my favorite pieces of atrocious job-search advice, for you to read and ignore at all costs:
1. DON'T WRAP IT UP
The Summary or Objective at the top of your résumé is the wrap-up; It tells the reader, "This person knows who s/he is, what s/he's done, and why it matters." Your Summary shows off your writing skills, shows that you know what's salient in your background, and puts a point on the arrow of your résumé. Don't skip it, no matter who tells you it's not necessary or important.
2. TELL US EVERYTHING
Another piece of horrendous job search advice tells job-seekers to share as much information as possible. A post-millennium résumé uses up two pages, maximum, when it's printed. (Academic CVs are another story.) Editing is a business skill, after all—just tell us what's most noteworthy in your long list of impressive feats.
3. USE CORPORATESPEAK
Any résumé that trumpets "cross-functional facilitation of multi-level teams" is headed straight for the shredder. The worst job-search advice tells us to write our résumés using ponderous corporate boilerplate that sinks a smart person's résumé like a stone. Please ignore that advice, and write your résumé the way you speak (BusinessWeek.com, 8/22/08).
4. DON'T EVER POSTPONE A PHONE SCREEN
A very bad bit of job-search advice says "Whatever you do, don't ever miss a phone screen! Even if you're in the shower or on your way to be the best man at your brother's wedding, make time for that phone interview!" This is good advice is your job-search philosophy emphasizes groveling. I don't recommend this approach. Let the would-be phone-screener know that you're tied up at the moment but would be happy to speak at 7 p.m. on Thursday night, or some other convenient time. Lock in the time during that first call, but don't contort your life to fit the screener's schedule.
5. DON'T BRING UP MONEY
Do bring up money (BusinessWeek.com, 8/7/08) by the second interview, and let the employers know what your salary requirements are before they start getting ideas that perhaps you're a trust-fund baby and could bring your formidable skills over to XYZ Corp. for a cool $45,000. Set them straight, at the first opportunity.
To read the full story, please jump here.
I've Really Got a Headache
We have an employee that has had consistent attendance problems over the course of her employment (4 years). There are times where it is better and then she falls back down again. A two week stretch of good then a bad run for a week.
Recently she has been claiming that she can not work because she has migraine headaches. This is a new excuse for her. I am trying to determine the liability to the company if we write her up for excessive tardy’s and absenteeism. I have researched migraines and I can not anything conclusive.
My first question is why has this gone on for 4 years? That makes it harder to deal with. Remember, problems seldom heal themselves. 'Tis better to deal with the problems when they first rear their ugly little heads--or headaches in this case.
Now, do you have an attendance policy? If yes, have you been enforcing the policy across the board? I suspect not, because an oft absent employee would have been terminated a long time ago--before the migraines started. But, things are as they are and here we sit.
Two things (at least!) you need to keep in mind--the Americans with Disabilities Act and FMLA. Do migraines fall under ADA? Well, the best answer I can give you is maybe. (See, aren't I helpful?) The question is does, do her migraines "substantially limit" a major life activity? If yes, then you must make reasonable accommodations for her, provided she can do the job. If no, then it doesn't apply and you don't have to accommodate her.
Let's assume they are substantial and ADA does apply. What is a reasonable accommodation? Taking time off whenever she wants is not reasonable, in my book. Depending on the job, working flexible hours, dimmed lighting, reduced computer usage or something else can all be "reasonable accommodations." If migraines truly are her problem, perhaps one of these accommodations will solve the work problem.
It probably won't, though. I imagine a migraine strong enough to substantially limit a major life activity won't allow her to function through the day, even with all the reasonable accommodations in the world. Which brings us to FMLA.
In order to qualify for FMLA she needs a doctor involved. Once the paperwork is filled out and she's granted "intermittant" FMLA--which means she can take off when she needs to for her illness--she's limited to 60 days (12 weeks x 5 days a week) of time off due to her qualifying illness. After that, you can terminate her for absenteeism.
FMLA is tricky because while she is out on an FMLA approved absence you can't count any work she didn't do against her. It's easier to administer a traditional FMLA leave where multiple weeks are taken together.
If she doesn't qualify under FMLA and she's still absent fire her.
But acknowledge that you should have dealt with this years ago. You should have an attendance policy in place and if her multiple absences violated that, then she should have been terminated. Without an attendance policy it's difficult to be fair across the board. She should be an at will employee, which means you can terminate her at any time. But, if you are concerned that she will cause problems, offer her some severance in exchange for a general release. Make very sure that you don't ask her to waive her rights to FMLA, because from what I understand, that's not waivable.
Good luck!
Recently she has been claiming that she can not work because she has migraine headaches. This is a new excuse for her. I am trying to determine the liability to the company if we write her up for excessive tardy’s and absenteeism. I have researched migraines and I can not anything conclusive.
My first question is why has this gone on for 4 years? That makes it harder to deal with. Remember, problems seldom heal themselves. 'Tis better to deal with the problems when they first rear their ugly little heads--or headaches in this case.
Now, do you have an attendance policy? If yes, have you been enforcing the policy across the board? I suspect not, because an oft absent employee would have been terminated a long time ago--before the migraines started. But, things are as they are and here we sit.
Two things (at least!) you need to keep in mind--the Americans with Disabilities Act and FMLA. Do migraines fall under ADA? Well, the best answer I can give you is maybe. (See, aren't I helpful?) The question is does, do her migraines "substantially limit" a major life activity? If yes, then you must make reasonable accommodations for her, provided she can do the job. If no, then it doesn't apply and you don't have to accommodate her.
Let's assume they are substantial and ADA does apply. What is a reasonable accommodation? Taking time off whenever she wants is not reasonable, in my book. Depending on the job, working flexible hours, dimmed lighting, reduced computer usage or something else can all be "reasonable accommodations." If migraines truly are her problem, perhaps one of these accommodations will solve the work problem.
It probably won't, though. I imagine a migraine strong enough to substantially limit a major life activity won't allow her to function through the day, even with all the reasonable accommodations in the world. Which brings us to FMLA.
In order to qualify for FMLA she needs a doctor involved. Once the paperwork is filled out and she's granted "intermittant" FMLA--which means she can take off when she needs to for her illness--she's limited to 60 days (12 weeks x 5 days a week) of time off due to her qualifying illness. After that, you can terminate her for absenteeism.
FMLA is tricky because while she is out on an FMLA approved absence you can't count any work she didn't do against her. It's easier to administer a traditional FMLA leave where multiple weeks are taken together.
If she doesn't qualify under FMLA and she's still absent fire her.
But acknowledge that you should have dealt with this years ago. You should have an attendance policy in place and if her multiple absences violated that, then she should have been terminated. Without an attendance policy it's difficult to be fair across the board. She should be an at will employee, which means you can terminate her at any time. But, if you are concerned that she will cause problems, offer her some severance in exchange for a general release. Make very sure that you don't ask her to waive her rights to FMLA, because from what I understand, that's not waivable.
Good luck!
How Sending My Child to School Taught Me About Why People Hate HR
Me? I'm a fan of transparency, efficiency and as little paperwork as possible. It seems the school system tries to be opaque, mind-numbingly slow and filled with paper. As I navigated the system, I started to think "this is why people hate HR," because as much as I love letting people know what's going on, I know not all HR departments are like that.
In order to get Offspring #1 enrolled in school I had to make one trip to the district office, two trips to the doctor's office (one to get a copy of her vaccination record--which the school needed RIGHT NOW, right now being 6 months before school started), one trip to the dentist and 2 "required" trips to the school itself. (I put "required" in quotes becaused I refused to go to one of them. They wanted me to physically appear on a Thursday, between 9:30 and 11:00 to drop off a form. I said "this is why God gave us the post office" and mailed the form in.) All of these trips involved filling out forms.
Today, I picked the offspring up from her first day of school and received a whole new stack of paperwork--much of it with the same information I had already filled out on numerous other forms. And this must be returned no later than tomorrow.
Things like this drive me absolutely batty. Why do I need to fill out 3 (yes 3) different forms that list my emergency contact numbers? Can you please tell me? I understand the need to make sure about vaccinations and allergies, but what is the purpose for a dental form? When asked the school nurse said, "she can't go on any field trips without a dental form." Umm, okay, because you might stop for a couple of fillings and a good cleaning?
Now, let's talk HR. How often is an inquiry into why a form is needed is, "because it's policy"? Does everyone in HR even know why? Do we explain that HR needs to sign off on promotions, new hires, etc because we need to check that compensation guidelines aren't violated, as well as maintaining pay equity across the department? Or do we say, "Just fill out this form." Worse, are they filling out the form and you are just signing off on it without even reading it?
Do you ever have people fill out the same information more then once? (In case you are saying, "of course not," stop and think. Do new employees have to fill out an application and new hire paperwork that both ask for name, address, etc?) Are these things filled out on paper and then you pay someone to type it into your HRIS, or does the applicant type it into an online system? If so, does that system transfer the information to your HRIS and Payroll systems?
Here's another thing that bugged me about registering for school. We had to register no later than February 28. At that point we could request either morning or afternoon kindergarten, but they wouldn't guarantee either. When did they tell us what we were assigned to? August. Yes August. Why on earth did it take so long? I have no idea. And the explanation I was given was "we haven't decided how many classes to have." And when they did send out the assignments, the principal was on vacation, so there was no one to complain to if you got an assignment that you didn't agree with. The neighboring school principal did the same thing. Can we say hiding from responsibility?
Have you ever tried to get a hold of the actual PERSON who made a bad policy decision? Or does "run-around" come to your mind? If HR wants to make a policy, fine, but we better be willing to stand behind it, answer questions and deal with the fall out.
Have you ever tried to get a hold of the actual PERSON who made a bad policy decision? Or does "run-around" come to your mind? If HR wants to make a policy, fine, but we better be willing to stand behind it, answer questions and deal with the fall out.
Why does it take so long to get policies changed? Why does it take 3 weeks to get an exception granted? Why does it take an interminably long time to get a new hire on board? We may have darn good reasons for all of these things, but it's rarely transparent to the employee. What they see is delay and stalling and answers that are either lies or uninformed.
Note that none of this deals with the actual true responsibility of the schools (educating children) or HR (providing and developing and retaining the best people for the company). It's all the administrative stuff that must be dealt with. Screw this up and people begin to distrust you on the other things.
Note that none of this deals with the actual true responsibility of the schools (educating children) or HR (providing and developing and retaining the best people for the company). It's all the administrative stuff that must be dealt with. Screw this up and people begin to distrust you on the other things.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Should I Stay or Should I Go?
I'm in HR and currently have a job where I was responsible for creating a training program. I was the first person to do this for the company and everyone thinks I'm doing a fantastic job. Actually, I'm in 2nd gear. I came from a completely different industry and was in a generalist/manager position. In this capacity I worked like a dog and was generally miserable. But I felt I was doing a good job - I implemented some clear improvements, and saw real change happen. Here, I feel like I'm not doing that great of a job, I have too much free time, very little oversight and the people who need to attend training are not coming anyway.
I have an opportunity to apply for a competing organization, where the director seems more involved. I feel very loyal to my current boss, but need more oversight, guidance and structure than I am getting. My current organization would probably not be able to find a replacement given the location. The wild card in this is that I am currently trying to conceive. At which point, I'm not sure if I would want to stay home for awhile (12-18 months), come back in a part-time situation or come back to FT after 3 months. Since I've become so spoiled and lazy, what if I can no longer perform to higher expectations? I have shared with the potential director that starting a family is on the horizon, and this seems to be understood. I don't, however, think it's ethical to hop jobs and then either a) leave them in a lurch or b) feel like I cannot stay home if I want to because I changed jobs so recently (which also brings up FMLA).
Okey-dokey, let's slow down. First of all you have an "opportunity to apply" for a new job. No telling if you'll get it. This worrying may all be moot anyway. Second, you are "trying to conceive." Congratulations! May you be rapidly successful. But, you may not be. It make take a considerable amount of time to achieve pregnancy.
Now, from a practical advice standpoint, if you change jobs and get pregnant in less than 3 months you won't be eligible for FMLA. (Not that FMLA is the be-all-end-all of maternity leave, but it is what it is.) You have to have worked for a place for a year, and they must have at least 50 employees in order to even be required to grant you the 12 weeks leave. They may have a different maternity policy altogether.
Another thing to think about is that if you do get pregnant, you may have one heck of a pregnancy. Sure, you may be lucky to simply have an expanding waistline and a few delicate little kicks starting up around 20 weeks, or you may get the morning/afternoon/evening sickness that will send you to the emergency room to be rehydrated. You just don't know. So, would that be a good time to be in a brand new job? Hmmm, probably not.
If we pretend there was no TTC going on (and please, in casual conversation with co-workers, this is never something to bring up. It tells us way too much about what you are doing with your weekends.) what would I say? I'll tell you. With bullet points because it seems like a bullet point kind of an answer.
Apply for the new job. No harm in interviewing and finding out about the company.
You say you are not challenged at your training job, yet people aren't coming to their scheduled training classes. Well then, there's a challenge for you to dig into. Figure out how to get people to want to come to training. It can be done!
Don't worry that your current company won't be able to replace you. I know, it's flattering to think "the whole world will fall apart if I leave!" but reality is, you are expendable. Sorry, but you are. They will find someone new or they will realize the function isn't needed.
If you think you might possibly, in some strange universe, want to stay home after giving birth (longer than maternity leave, that is), or want a flexible schedule (from home, part time, longer leave) and your current boss would be amenable to that, I wouldn't leave. Finding that flexibility is hard and worth some cost. (For the record, I took a 16 week maternity leave--starting back on Thursday, sob!--and will be working from home now. Do I love my boss? Yes, she's fabulous and flexible. Is my job itself ideal? No. I'd rather, actually, be doing training, but I'm not giving up the fabulous deal I have now.)
You can perform to a higher expectation. Just because your current job is easy, it doesn't mean your brain cells have stopped functioning. Don't worry about that.
I have an opportunity to apply for a competing organization, where the director seems more involved. I feel very loyal to my current boss, but need more oversight, guidance and structure than I am getting. My current organization would probably not be able to find a replacement given the location. The wild card in this is that I am currently trying to conceive. At which point, I'm not sure if I would want to stay home for awhile (12-18 months), come back in a part-time situation or come back to FT after 3 months. Since I've become so spoiled and lazy, what if I can no longer perform to higher expectations? I have shared with the potential director that starting a family is on the horizon, and this seems to be understood. I don't, however, think it's ethical to hop jobs and then either a) leave them in a lurch or b) feel like I cannot stay home if I want to because I changed jobs so recently (which also brings up FMLA).
Okey-dokey, let's slow down. First of all you have an "opportunity to apply" for a new job. No telling if you'll get it. This worrying may all be moot anyway. Second, you are "trying to conceive." Congratulations! May you be rapidly successful. But, you may not be. It make take a considerable amount of time to achieve pregnancy.
Now, from a practical advice standpoint, if you change jobs and get pregnant in less than 3 months you won't be eligible for FMLA. (Not that FMLA is the be-all-end-all of maternity leave, but it is what it is.) You have to have worked for a place for a year, and they must have at least 50 employees in order to even be required to grant you the 12 weeks leave. They may have a different maternity policy altogether.
Another thing to think about is that if you do get pregnant, you may have one heck of a pregnancy. Sure, you may be lucky to simply have an expanding waistline and a few delicate little kicks starting up around 20 weeks, or you may get the morning/afternoon/evening sickness that will send you to the emergency room to be rehydrated. You just don't know. So, would that be a good time to be in a brand new job? Hmmm, probably not.
If we pretend there was no TTC going on (and please, in casual conversation with co-workers, this is never something to bring up. It tells us way too much about what you are doing with your weekends.) what would I say? I'll tell you. With bullet points because it seems like a bullet point kind of an answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)