I work at a small company that has been struggling for a long time now. A couple years ago the I was faced with a choice. Get paid under the table, accept a 25% pay cut, and lose health insurance or lose my job. I chose to become an "undocumented worker." So I not have paid or filed for taxes since 2006. I would like to be legitimate and pay my taxes but I live paycheck to paycheck and I really can't pay even this years taxes, much less taxes from previous years. Bankruptcy would offer one potential solution and is worth consideration. But my questions are not about bankruptcy but rather employment.
I have two questions:
1. I have to wonder how this will impact employment verification. When applying for a new job, will the potential employer know that I have not been paying taxes?
2. Assuming I am hired, and the new employer bringing me into their HR and tax systems, will they then learn that I was not paying taxes?
I presume you lost your health insurance anyway, as employees who don't technically exist can't really be added to your health insurance rolls. So, you've just chosen to be dishonest, working for someone who is dishonest and now you fear it might catch up to you.
Ahh, wickedness never was happiness. Sometimes it just takes a while for the unhappiness to catch up to you. Never mind, here are the answers to your questions.
1. For all intents and purposes you have not been employed. If your current company has been paying you under the table, you can't really list it on your resume as your current company. The best you can say is that you were an independent contractor who did work for this company. It's doubtful that they will ask to see your 1099s to verify. Your current employer can offer a reference, stating you are a contactor.
2. No, your new employer will not learn whether you have been paying taxes or not by simply hiring you and bringing you into their system. They will simply start reporting your income to the IRS.
Of course, when the IRS busts you (which they will), they can require your new employer to start garnishing your wages to make up for your lack of tax paying. Fun!
Now, as for the troubles you've created for yourself, I suggest you try to fix it as soon as possible. You say you have no extra money. Well, then, you have no extra money for IRS fines. I suggest you use what money you do have to hire a competent accountant (not a trained monkey at one of those fast food style tax offices) to help you figure out what you owe and what you need to do about it. It can only get worse. If you are a low income earner, it may not be as bad as you feared.
Now, I need the lawyers and accountants (of which I am neither) to weigh in and tell you how much trouble you are really in. It's best to get honest as soon as possible and be honest going forward. And while you are at it, let's get your finances in shape so you don't end up like this again.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Why Organizations Succeed and Fail: A Corporate Reputations Perspective
For those of us interested in why organizations succeed and fail from a reputation management perspective, one of the books of the year is 'Taking Brand Initiative: How Companies can Align Strategy, Culture and Identity through Corporate Branding'. This book is especially timely because it helps explain important elements of the current crisis of financial services, and also helps us explain some of the problems being experienced in healthcare. The book's authors are two of the best academics in the field - Mary Jo Hatch and Majken Schultz. They have produced a practitioner-oriented work that should be read by all HR, corporate communication, marketing and strategy professionals. The book is based on an ongoing research programme and ideas that first saw the light of day in an article in the Harvard Business Review in 2001, material which we used in our corporate reputations, branding and managing people book. It is also based on an edited book written mainly for academics on organizational identity.
Using this lens and a theory of organizational identity, they restate their well-known idea that organizations should constantly work towards aligning their vision (for being different and legitimate), their image (or reputations among key stakeholders) and culture (how employees and managers think, feel and act) for corporate branding to work and for organizations to be sustainable in the long run. They cite many examples from their own research and the work of others to demonstrate the validity and usefulness of their model, as well as draw on a considerable body of sound theory that should give some comfort and to practitioners and academics alike. Though they don't use financial services companies as examples, their analysis, especially of organizational narcissism, should be required reading for banks worldwide, a line we took in a case in our corporate reputations and HR book questioning the future fitness of the financial services industry in 2006.
Some of the key messages of this book are as follows. First, the 'most successful corporate brands simultaneously communicate belonging and differentiation...' (p. 21), a simple but powerful message that applies to private and public sector organizations, including our current work on the health service which is faced with major difficulties in attracting talent in the longer term, in enaging its current employees and in having a lack of image among employees for being a patient-centred service. They argue that organizations which are able to manage the tensions between integration and differentiation, one of the key paradoxes in business, do so by conducting continuous identity conversations with employees, customers and other stakeholders to create strong organizational identities. These conversations attempt to reconcile the fundamental and ongoing questions of 'who are we' as an organization with 'what is their image of us'. The attendant identity dynamics often result in two different but related dysfunctional states - hyper adaptation and narcissism. The first of these is where organizations are over-reactive to what customers and the media (and sometimes employees) think of them, so they continuously search for 'coolness' and 'cutting edge' instead of having regard for their unique heritage and core competences. The second is where organizations fail to check their internal beliefs against what stakeholders, including employees, think. This is often associated with narcissistic, charismatic leadership, protected from reality by group think, which attributes past success to their own insightful decision-making rather than the often favourable contexts in which such decisions are made - the so-called fundamental attributional error. The limitations of charismatic leadership and problems of narcissism, the subject of a brilliant book by Rakesh Khurana, was behind Enron and other corporate governance distasters, and in also being used to explain the failure of many of our financial services firms in the UK and USA.
A second lesson concerns the valuation of brands (and by implication employer brands). They make an important point in highlighting the limitations of brand valuation models, which, among other problems, ignore the emotional and symbolic effects of brands. As recent research has shown, these are the two most important factors in making employer brands attractive to outsiders and engaging for insiders. To gain real insights into (employer) brand value they argue that brand equity and consumer research models are more appropriate because the uncover and account for symbolism and meanings through ethnographic research into how people (employees) interact with brands and qualitative research into the meaning that brands hold for them. Which is what we have been doing in the health sector in Scotland as a complement to large-scale quantitative research.
A third lesson that is especially important for HR is the nature of the endgame. Long terms effective and sustainable corporate branding is what most organizations are striving to achieve to remain successful. This requires organizations to go beyond (1) first wave branding, which is based on a marketing mindset and is dominated by marketing/communications departments, and (2) second wave corporate mindsets, which attempts to bringing together multifunctional teams of mainly internal stakeholders, but typically ends up being fragmented by incompatible models and mindsets. Instead they posit a third wave notion of enterprise branding, which is an interfunctional and and integrated way of bringing together internal and external stakeholders in the extended entreprise in constant cycles of identity conversations. They also flag the importance of Web 2.0 tools in conducting such conversations, a key message of our recent CIPD research in the field. This imagery of dynamic enterprise-wide conversation cycles is a particulary powerful one because it extends the notion of the corporation and gets us away from the typical brand 'programmatis', which is premised on the artifical notions of beginnings and ends of change. For HR, it also reminds us that employer brands are not the endgame but are merely an input into a continuous conversation of how organizations can remain successful.
The book is not without its shortcomings. In tantalising us with the notion of enterprise branding, I don't think they go far enough in fleshing out what this may look like - maybe they want us to write what we want into this open space? They also seem to misinterpret employer branding to mean recruitment, when it is usually taken to apply to both the attraction of new employees and engagement (read identity management) of existing employees. However, these are minor points and should not detract from an important book which should be read by for all practitioners, particularly chief executives and HR directors, interested in this field.
Using this lens and a theory of organizational identity, they restate their well-known idea that organizations should constantly work towards aligning their vision (for being different and legitimate), their image (or reputations among key stakeholders) and culture (how employees and managers think, feel and act) for corporate branding to work and for organizations to be sustainable in the long run. They cite many examples from their own research and the work of others to demonstrate the validity and usefulness of their model, as well as draw on a considerable body of sound theory that should give some comfort and to practitioners and academics alike. Though they don't use financial services companies as examples, their analysis, especially of organizational narcissism, should be required reading for banks worldwide, a line we took in a case in our corporate reputations and HR book questioning the future fitness of the financial services industry in 2006.
Some of the key messages of this book are as follows. First, the 'most successful corporate brands simultaneously communicate belonging and differentiation...' (p. 21), a simple but powerful message that applies to private and public sector organizations, including our current work on the health service which is faced with major difficulties in attracting talent in the longer term, in enaging its current employees and in having a lack of image among employees for being a patient-centred service. They argue that organizations which are able to manage the tensions between integration and differentiation, one of the key paradoxes in business, do so by conducting continuous identity conversations with employees, customers and other stakeholders to create strong organizational identities. These conversations attempt to reconcile the fundamental and ongoing questions of 'who are we' as an organization with 'what is their image of us'. The attendant identity dynamics often result in two different but related dysfunctional states - hyper adaptation and narcissism. The first of these is where organizations are over-reactive to what customers and the media (and sometimes employees) think of them, so they continuously search for 'coolness' and 'cutting edge' instead of having regard for their unique heritage and core competences. The second is where organizations fail to check their internal beliefs against what stakeholders, including employees, think. This is often associated with narcissistic, charismatic leadership, protected from reality by group think, which attributes past success to their own insightful decision-making rather than the often favourable contexts in which such decisions are made - the so-called fundamental attributional error. The limitations of charismatic leadership and problems of narcissism, the subject of a brilliant book by Rakesh Khurana, was behind Enron and other corporate governance distasters, and in also being used to explain the failure of many of our financial services firms in the UK and USA.
A second lesson concerns the valuation of brands (and by implication employer brands). They make an important point in highlighting the limitations of brand valuation models, which, among other problems, ignore the emotional and symbolic effects of brands. As recent research has shown, these are the two most important factors in making employer brands attractive to outsiders and engaging for insiders. To gain real insights into (employer) brand value they argue that brand equity and consumer research models are more appropriate because the uncover and account for symbolism and meanings through ethnographic research into how people (employees) interact with brands and qualitative research into the meaning that brands hold for them. Which is what we have been doing in the health sector in Scotland as a complement to large-scale quantitative research.
A third lesson that is especially important for HR is the nature of the endgame. Long terms effective and sustainable corporate branding is what most organizations are striving to achieve to remain successful. This requires organizations to go beyond (1) first wave branding, which is based on a marketing mindset and is dominated by marketing/communications departments, and (2) second wave corporate mindsets, which attempts to bringing together multifunctional teams of mainly internal stakeholders, but typically ends up being fragmented by incompatible models and mindsets. Instead they posit a third wave notion of enterprise branding, which is an interfunctional and and integrated way of bringing together internal and external stakeholders in the extended entreprise in constant cycles of identity conversations. They also flag the importance of Web 2.0 tools in conducting such conversations, a key message of our recent CIPD research in the field. This imagery of dynamic enterprise-wide conversation cycles is a particulary powerful one because it extends the notion of the corporation and gets us away from the typical brand 'programmatis', which is premised on the artifical notions of beginnings and ends of change. For HR, it also reminds us that employer brands are not the endgame but are merely an input into a continuous conversation of how organizations can remain successful.
The book is not without its shortcomings. In tantalising us with the notion of enterprise branding, I don't think they go far enough in fleshing out what this may look like - maybe they want us to write what we want into this open space? They also seem to misinterpret employer branding to mean recruitment, when it is usually taken to apply to both the attraction of new employees and engagement (read identity management) of existing employees. However, these are minor points and should not detract from an important book which should be read by for all practitioners, particularly chief executives and HR directors, interested in this field.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Holiday Parties
Two thoughts on Holiday Parties:
One from the lawyers and one from HR.
I hate work holiday parties. Unless they are during lunch and involve good food. (Good food can be pizza, as long as it's not ordered from the company cafeteria.)
One from the lawyers and one from HR.
I hate work holiday parties. Unless they are during lunch and involve good food. (Good food can be pizza, as long as it's not ordered from the company cafeteria.)
A Friendly Warning from the Grim Reaper
I may have hinted a few times that I know a thing or two about layoffs. This would be true. I do. In fact, if you see me coming, it's best to start packing up your things right now because it will save us all hassle later on. (This, actually, is not true. Your manager would be terminating you, not me, so feel free to chat with me and share your Christmas candy.)
So, here's the deal. You may get laid off. Yes, I know, you are a stellar performer and your boss loves you and blah, blah, blah. Humor me. You may get laid off. And here's the kicker: You will still have bills to pay.
My company offers severance. Yeah! Severance checks come in the mail, not direct deposit. (Yes, I've tried to change that. No, payroll wasn't interested. They said it was a systems thing. I like to get paid, so I said I believed them and now we're all happy together.)
Two pay days in a row I've gotten a tearful phone call from a woman. It seems that the US mail did not deliver her check on the day expected. How could she pay her bills? Her car was going to be repossessed if she did not have that check TODAY.
I can't control the US post office. (Wouldn't that be cool if I could, though? That would be some serious super powers if I could do that.) I also can't guarentee you'll have a job. I can't guarantee that your company will give you severance. (I can't even guarantee that my company will give you severance, largely because you don't work for my company.)
If a check being one day late will be the death of you financially, you need to get control over your financial life. Nobody should be living this close to the edge. I know now is not the best financial time, but please, think about the very real possibility that your check may be worse than one day late--it may not come at all if your job goes away.
I really feel for the woman who is having post office problems. I do. And that's why I'm writing this. Please, put aside some money. Stop spending as if you'll always have tons of cash. If you say, "But I can't put anything aside!" Stop and think about what you'll do if you do get laid off. You are better off now then you will be then, so do something to put a little aside. A little can grow into a lot if you just leave it alone and add a little each pay day.
It'll make it a lot easier on all of us when your manager calls you into his office.
So, here's the deal. You may get laid off. Yes, I know, you are a stellar performer and your boss loves you and blah, blah, blah. Humor me. You may get laid off. And here's the kicker: You will still have bills to pay.
My company offers severance. Yeah! Severance checks come in the mail, not direct deposit. (Yes, I've tried to change that. No, payroll wasn't interested. They said it was a systems thing. I like to get paid, so I said I believed them and now we're all happy together.)
Two pay days in a row I've gotten a tearful phone call from a woman. It seems that the US mail did not deliver her check on the day expected. How could she pay her bills? Her car was going to be repossessed if she did not have that check TODAY.
I can't control the US post office. (Wouldn't that be cool if I could, though? That would be some serious super powers if I could do that.) I also can't guarentee you'll have a job. I can't guarantee that your company will give you severance. (I can't even guarantee that my company will give you severance, largely because you don't work for my company.)
If a check being one day late will be the death of you financially, you need to get control over your financial life. Nobody should be living this close to the edge. I know now is not the best financial time, but please, think about the very real possibility that your check may be worse than one day late--it may not come at all if your job goes away.
I really feel for the woman who is having post office problems. I do. And that's why I'm writing this. Please, put aside some money. Stop spending as if you'll always have tons of cash. If you say, "But I can't put anything aside!" Stop and think about what you'll do if you do get laid off. You are better off now then you will be then, so do something to put a little aside. A little can grow into a lot if you just leave it alone and add a little each pay day.
It'll make it a lot easier on all of us when your manager calls you into his office.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Leave Policy Missing In Action
A long-time employee went out on sick leave a couple of months ago, and has recently expressed the intention of remaining on leave for the next six months. The person is genuinely unable to work and has indicated informally that a return to the workforce is unlikely even though the health condition involved does not reduce life-span. I have received mixed messages from HR about what options are available to this employee and/or to me as the supervisor. For example: Can this individual remain on the payroll collecting sick leave until the leave runs out? When the paid leave runs out, can unpaid leave be continued for another three months under FMLA? Under what circumstances can an employee with sick leave available but no intention of returning to work remain on the payroll?
I don't really have any answers for you, so I'll just use your question as a jumping off point for a good rant.
Mixed messages? Are you kidding me? I mean, seriously people, this is HR 101. You must have a leave policy in place. It should contain, at minimum, the following information:
Number of days an employee can take as sick leave before going on short term disability
Number of company paid sick days (or if unlimited, then number of days before disability is required)
FMLA policy (make sure this is compliant with both Federal and State laws--some states are more generous)
At what point an employee is terminated (after FMLA expires? At 6 months? At one year?)
How all this fits with your disability (short and long term) policies
Under what conditions a manager is allowed to hire a temp or contractor to fill the duties
See, that's not so hard, right?
I mean, geesh, does HR think that no one is going to get sick? (Because that NEVER happens, right?) They should have a policy and every HR person in the company should be able to spout it out to you, consistently and clearly. (Okay, not every HR person. I don't think the HRIS people should have to know--strike that, of course they should, as they control the system that indicates whether someone is active or on leave. ALL HR PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THIS. Well, maybe compensation...)
If you don't have a policy, managers are left not knowing what to do. Then managers have to wing it. Then Manager A wings it differently than Manager B and Bob gets great leave at full pay and Maria gets terminated as soon as FMLA expires and she didn't get paid during that time frame either. What happens when Bob and Maria (I'm feeling reminiscent of Sesame Street right now) run into each other in the grocery store? (Oh Bob is a person in your neighborhood, in your neighborhood, in your neigh-bor-hood!)
Bob: Oh, Maria, I heard you were sick. Me too. I've had these persistent migraines. I'm so thankful that I'm still getting paid.
Maria: What?!?!!??! (then a few chosen expletives, which I won't write because I don't say such words.)
Bob: What are you so upset about?
Maria: I haven't gotten a check in 4 months and they terminated me 4 weeks ago.
Bob: That's strange, I've been out longer than you have.
Maria: Excuse me, I have to go call my attorney.
Is this what you want happening? No. No, you don't.
Now, my real guess is that there is a policy, it's just that your HR department is unorganized and inconsistent. Escalate this issue. Get your boss involved. There should be clear guidance. This should not be an area for manager discretion.
I don't really have any answers for you, so I'll just use your question as a jumping off point for a good rant.
Mixed messages? Are you kidding me? I mean, seriously people, this is HR 101. You must have a leave policy in place. It should contain, at minimum, the following information:
See, that's not so hard, right?
I mean, geesh, does HR think that no one is going to get sick? (Because that NEVER happens, right?) They should have a policy and every HR person in the company should be able to spout it out to you, consistently and clearly. (Okay, not every HR person. I don't think the HRIS people should have to know--strike that, of course they should, as they control the system that indicates whether someone is active or on leave. ALL HR PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THIS. Well, maybe compensation...)
If you don't have a policy, managers are left not knowing what to do. Then managers have to wing it. Then Manager A wings it differently than Manager B and Bob gets great leave at full pay and Maria gets terminated as soon as FMLA expires and she didn't get paid during that time frame either. What happens when Bob and Maria (I'm feeling reminiscent of Sesame Street right now) run into each other in the grocery store? (Oh Bob is a person in your neighborhood, in your neighborhood, in your neigh-bor-hood!)
Bob: Oh, Maria, I heard you were sick. Me too. I've had these persistent migraines. I'm so thankful that I'm still getting paid.
Maria: What?!?!!??! (then a few chosen expletives, which I won't write because I don't say such words.)
Bob: What are you so upset about?
Maria: I haven't gotten a check in 4 months and they terminated me 4 weeks ago.
Bob: That's strange, I've been out longer than you have.
Maria: Excuse me, I have to go call my attorney.
Is this what you want happening? No. No, you don't.
Now, my real guess is that there is a policy, it's just that your HR department is unorganized and inconsistent. Escalate this issue. Get your boss involved. There should be clear guidance. This should not be an area for manager discretion.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The Dangers of Branding Leaders (and Roy Keane)
Julie Hodges and myself are in the middle of writing an article on leadership branding, so I was intrigued by a recent post on the Australian HR online magazine (5th December, 2008, HR Daily), which appeared with the headline ‘Strong CEO brand improves candidate attraction and retention’
Citing a study by Minolta in Australia, ' Richard Branson (Virgin), Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steve Jobs (Apple) are the business leaders Australian workers are most inspired by. Westpac CEO Gail Kelly was the only Australian CEO to make the top five list. Workers were also asked to identify which of the world's biggest companies they would most like to work for. Google topped the list, followed by Microsoft, Virgin, IBM and Apple. Locally based banks Macquarie ANZ, Westpac, followed by BHP Billiton, a mining company, ranked sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth respectively.
This headlining of leaders is further testament to the notion of ‘celebrity firms’ being tied up with celebrity leaders. Violina Rindova, and her colleagues in a 2006 article in the Academy of Management Review entitled ‘Celebrity Firms: The Social Construction of Market Popularity’ argued that a celebrity firm is developed from the media’s search for organizations that symbolize important changes in society by taking bold or unusual actions and which attempt to create distinctive identities. These firms are natural targets for ‘dramatized realities’ created by the business press. Google is one such firm that has become one of the most widely discussed success stories in the business press; also Apple whose products define the industry standard.
Most of the business press coverage focuses on the founders. For example, Google is often reported by referring to Larry Page and Sergey Brin. An Economist article of January 2006 portrays Page as the ‘visionary geek-in-chief', pronouncing at software conferences on the range of new products that will help Google achieve its ambition to ‘organize all the world’s information’. The storyline portrays the firm’s celebrity through Page’s missionary fanaticism, claiming that visitors to Google feel they are in the company of religious zealots rather than ordinary employees. Much the same story could have been written for Apple in the 1980s and, to a lesser extent, for Virgin over the last decade or so.
Though employees and the business press may feel the need to put leaders on a pedestal because of their requirements to find simple solutions to the complex problems of explaining why firms (and football teams!) are successful, are there dangers in doing so, and in having a corporate brand so closely linked to celebrity leaders?
My answer is yes. Much of the academic evidence points out that senior leaders don’t have a major impact on organizational performance. For example, Jeff Pfeffer and Robert Sutton claim that the hard evidence shows the impact of leadership on performance are modest under most conditions, strong under a few conditions, and absent in others. ‘Studies from leaders from large samples of CEOs…, university presidents to managers of colleges and professional sports teams show that organizational performance is determined largely by factors that no individual - including a leader - can control’ (‘Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense’ p.192) Like a number of writers in this field, they also point to the dark side of leadership – narcissism, ruthlessness, group think and risky decision-making by people believing themselves to be all powerful. So, is it better to have leadership brands that are less reliant on powerful individuals and more on distributed leadership throughout the organization, i.e. build organization systems and brands where the actions of powerful and skilled individuals matter least. And should leaders act more wisely by knowing when to get out of the way so others can make contributions?
My own football team, Sunderland, provides a dramatic recent example of the problems of celebrity and wise leadership. Roy Keane, its talismanic manager, was over-loaded expectations by success-starved supporters seeking ‘instant pudding’ and a sports press always on the lookout for celebrity stories. Keane acted wisely by resigning when there were no calls for him to do so. He rightly expressed his self-doubt that no sane person could live up to such expectations (and implicit leadership theory –see earlier post) and resigned in as low key a manner as he could. Good for him and a lesson to other leaders (and firms seeking to brand themselves on the basis of individual leaders).
Citing a study by Minolta in Australia, ' Richard Branson (Virgin), Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steve Jobs (Apple) are the business leaders Australian workers are most inspired by. Westpac CEO Gail Kelly was the only Australian CEO to make the top five list. Workers were also asked to identify which of the world's biggest companies they would most like to work for. Google topped the list, followed by Microsoft, Virgin, IBM and Apple. Locally based banks Macquarie ANZ, Westpac, followed by BHP Billiton, a mining company, ranked sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth respectively.
This headlining of leaders is further testament to the notion of ‘celebrity firms’ being tied up with celebrity leaders. Violina Rindova, and her colleagues in a 2006 article in the Academy of Management Review entitled ‘Celebrity Firms: The Social Construction of Market Popularity’ argued that a celebrity firm is developed from the media’s search for organizations that symbolize important changes in society by taking bold or unusual actions and which attempt to create distinctive identities. These firms are natural targets for ‘dramatized realities’ created by the business press. Google is one such firm that has become one of the most widely discussed success stories in the business press; also Apple whose products define the industry standard.
Most of the business press coverage focuses on the founders. For example, Google is often reported by referring to Larry Page and Sergey Brin. An Economist article of January 2006 portrays Page as the ‘visionary geek-in-chief', pronouncing at software conferences on the range of new products that will help Google achieve its ambition to ‘organize all the world’s information’. The storyline portrays the firm’s celebrity through Page’s missionary fanaticism, claiming that visitors to Google feel they are in the company of religious zealots rather than ordinary employees. Much the same story could have been written for Apple in the 1980s and, to a lesser extent, for Virgin over the last decade or so.
Though employees and the business press may feel the need to put leaders on a pedestal because of their requirements to find simple solutions to the complex problems of explaining why firms (and football teams!) are successful, are there dangers in doing so, and in having a corporate brand so closely linked to celebrity leaders?
My answer is yes. Much of the academic evidence points out that senior leaders don’t have a major impact on organizational performance. For example, Jeff Pfeffer and Robert Sutton claim that the hard evidence shows the impact of leadership on performance are modest under most conditions, strong under a few conditions, and absent in others. ‘Studies from leaders from large samples of CEOs…, university presidents to managers of colleges and professional sports teams show that organizational performance is determined largely by factors that no individual - including a leader - can control’ (‘Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense’ p.192) Like a number of writers in this field, they also point to the dark side of leadership – narcissism, ruthlessness, group think and risky decision-making by people believing themselves to be all powerful. So, is it better to have leadership brands that are less reliant on powerful individuals and more on distributed leadership throughout the organization, i.e. build organization systems and brands where the actions of powerful and skilled individuals matter least. And should leaders act more wisely by knowing when to get out of the way so others can make contributions?
My own football team, Sunderland, provides a dramatic recent example of the problems of celebrity and wise leadership. Roy Keane, its talismanic manager, was over-loaded expectations by success-starved supporters seeking ‘instant pudding’ and a sports press always on the lookout for celebrity stories. Keane acted wisely by resigning when there were no calls for him to do so. He rightly expressed his self-doubt that no sane person could live up to such expectations (and implicit leadership theory –see earlier post) and resigned in as low key a manner as he could. Good for him and a lesson to other leaders (and firms seeking to brand themselves on the basis of individual leaders).
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Some Good E-mail Advice
There are somethings you should never put in an e-mail. Death by Email gives us a list. Some samples:
All of us HR types need to be aware of these things.
Is this actually legal?
We're going to do this differently than normal.
All of us HR types need to be aware of these things.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Relocated and Laid Off
I was recently relocated across the country for a position at a better company (leaving behind a good paying, secure job that my heart was no longer in). I was worried about the immediate future of the company (lots of merger/buyout talks) and said I didn't know if I could take the position because I was upside down on my house and would take a big hit selling. The HR person told me that my contract spelled out the severance package if the company was bought out and that there would be no layoffs for at least the next 6 months. I figured that 6 months would allow me to cover the hit on my house if I got laid off and give me enough time to prove my skill set. However, after 3 months, they announced layoffs and I was let go. Is there recourse that I can do other than accept the severance package (much smaller than if the company got bought) and be upset?
I would not have accepted the job had I known that layoffs would occur this soon and I was even promised that they would not. It was just not written in my contract, just expressed verbally. Also, they paid relocation, and if I left within the first year, I had to pay back a pro-rated amount. Does that impact my at-will status since if I chose to quit willingly I would take a financial hit? They told me it had nothing to do with performance, I just knew the least about the business model itself compared to my teammates, which makes sense, because I was told to expect a 3-6 month learning curve.
Once again, I must point out that I am not a lawyer. And even if I was a lawyer (which I'm not), I don't know what state you are in. But, in my non-lawyerly way, I'd tell you to pick up the phone book (does anybody do that anymore? Okay, go to Google.) and find yourself an employment lawyer.
In some states a verbal promise is as good as a contract. (I believe, remember, not a lawyer!) Even if it's not, it would be worth it to get a lawyer's opinion on this.
I would ask for more severance. I would ask for, at minimum, what you were promised in case of a buy-out. In fact, I would ask for more because of false promises. Talk about a stupidly short-sighted company. (I know, I know, who could have predicted the sub prime mortgage market would collapse and spread into all areas of the economy? Oh, that's right, everyone with half a brain could have predicted it, except for the people who actually dealt in sub prime mortgages. Go figure.) Only in the rarest of circumstances should a company do a position elimination for someone who has only worked there for 3 months. I say, if a position needs to go, it should be the manager who was fool enough to hire someone he wouldn't have work for in 3 months.
Sorry, a bit ranty today. I don't often say this, but I honestly say you should contact a lawyer. Don't look to win the employment law lottery. It's not worth that. But a nicely worded letter or phone call from your attorney to the legal department of your company may be quite effective.
This is one of the times I say don't sign the release that is undoubtedly part of the severance offer until it's been reviewed by an attorney. Make sure that your full relocation costs are covered as well.
Good luck on the job hunt. Don't let this get you discouraged.
I would not have accepted the job had I known that layoffs would occur this soon and I was even promised that they would not. It was just not written in my contract, just expressed verbally. Also, they paid relocation, and if I left within the first year, I had to pay back a pro-rated amount. Does that impact my at-will status since if I chose to quit willingly I would take a financial hit? They told me it had nothing to do with performance, I just knew the least about the business model itself compared to my teammates, which makes sense, because I was told to expect a 3-6 month learning curve.
Once again, I must point out that I am not a lawyer. And even if I was a lawyer (which I'm not), I don't know what state you are in. But, in my non-lawyerly way, I'd tell you to pick up the phone book (does anybody do that anymore? Okay, go to Google.) and find yourself an employment lawyer.
In some states a verbal promise is as good as a contract. (I believe, remember, not a lawyer!) Even if it's not, it would be worth it to get a lawyer's opinion on this.
I would ask for more severance. I would ask for, at minimum, what you were promised in case of a buy-out. In fact, I would ask for more because of false promises. Talk about a stupidly short-sighted company. (I know, I know, who could have predicted the sub prime mortgage market would collapse and spread into all areas of the economy? Oh, that's right, everyone with half a brain could have predicted it, except for the people who actually dealt in sub prime mortgages. Go figure.) Only in the rarest of circumstances should a company do a position elimination for someone who has only worked there for 3 months. I say, if a position needs to go, it should be the manager who was fool enough to hire someone he wouldn't have work for in 3 months.
Sorry, a bit ranty today. I don't often say this, but I honestly say you should contact a lawyer. Don't look to win the employment law lottery. It's not worth that. But a nicely worded letter or phone call from your attorney to the legal department of your company may be quite effective.
This is one of the times I say don't sign the release that is undoubtedly part of the severance offer until it's been reviewed by an attorney. Make sure that your full relocation costs are covered as well.
Good luck on the job hunt. Don't let this get you discouraged.
Monday, December 1, 2008
You Make More Money???!?!?!?!?
Two managers were socializing outside of work. Yes, alcohol was involved. Manager one said to Manager Two: Hey, I know what you make. Manager one then quoted – to the penny – what Manager Two’s salary was. Manager One said that he had seen the information in an offer letter on the HR Manager’s desk (that’s me). Manager two then said: OK, so now that you know my salary, I want to know your salary. Manager One then disclosed his salary amount.
There are obviously a couple issues here, but the plot thickens. It turns out that Manager One makes quite a bit more than Manager Two, even though their positions are somewhat equal. (There are major wage equity issues here that I am battling). Manager Two is devastated, and has done an amazing job of turning his department around and building his team. This really took the wind out of his sales.
My issue is with Manager One. While I am at fault for leaving something confidential on my desk, I have a huge issue with Manager One disclosing this. Managers are exposed to confidential, sensitive information all the time, so the expectation is that he keeps his mouth shut. This is also covered very clearly in our policies. If he disclosed this after a couple drinks, what else is he saying?
When Manager Two disclosed this to me, he stated that he was asking for advice and simply wanted to vent. As an HR professional, I am well aware that there are some topics that employees CAN NOT ask me to keep confidential, and I believe this is potentially one of them. However, since it took place outside of work, are we in a position to talk with and potentially discipline Manager One?
I'll start my reprimanding with you--bad of you to keep confidential info in a place where others could see it. But, you know that.
Then I'll reprimand the company for having pay inequities. Now, I'm somewhat of a radical when it comes to pay. Hold on to your horses, but I don't think pay should be confidential.
Let the ranting begin. Let me state my case. I've been in HR a long time and in every HR position I've ever held--including when I was a temp admin--I've had access to everyone's salary. And I mean everyone's salary. CEOs and co-workers included. It's always been part of my job. At first it's fascinating. Now? Not so much.
And that's part of why I'm opposed to secrecy. None of this would have mattered if your company was open about such things. (I know of no companies (government jobs excepted) that are open about such things--I am, as I said, an HR extremist. I wonder if that's like extreme sports: Up Next, Evil HR Lady in the Extreme Compensation Policy competition!)
But the real reason I'm opposed to secrecy is because secrecy allows pay inequities like the one you are dealing with now. Just think--if everyone's salaries were open managers would never hire people at unfair levels or offer big bumps to people they *like* but who hadn't earned the increase.
I realize there are whining problems with this and it takes a lot of guts to have people know that their co-worker with the same title makes more money than they do, but that just means that the company truly needs to pay for performance. Rational people understand that. Irrational people, you don't want working for you.
But, now to your situation (clearly, I just hijacked my own blog!). Can you "punish" manager one for something he did outside of work? Sure! Do you want to go there? No. I don't. But, what I would recommend is this:
HR: So, Manager 1, I understand you had a talk with Manager 2 about salaries. Just couldn't keep quiet about how yours is so much better, right?
Manager 1: So what? (If he's defensive, that is. If he realizes he was a drunk idiot, he'll hang his head and apologize.)
HR: Yeah, so it was a pretty stupid thing to do. I'm not sure this company can trust people who make stupid decisions, inside or outside of work.
And then I'd end the conversation. If you are respected and valued enough it will freak him out just a little bit.
As for confidentiality, you're neither a priest nor a lawyer. Some things you are required by law to act on, but stupid managers who reveal salary information is not one of them. (In my non-lawyer, non-legal advice way. Entertainment, people, this blog is pure entertainment. In fact, did I tell you my favorite joke. It goes like this: There was a snake named Nate...)
I would also bust my buns to deal with the salary inequities, starting with Manager 2. You say he's turned his group around. You better make sure he's rewarded for it, or you are going to lose him. You may already lose him. I can guarantee if I was manager 2, I would have come home and started working on my resume. I've just been told that my company doesn't value me. I'd expect the burden is on the company to prove otherwise.
There are obviously a couple issues here, but the plot thickens. It turns out that Manager One makes quite a bit more than Manager Two, even though their positions are somewhat equal. (There are major wage equity issues here that I am battling). Manager Two is devastated, and has done an amazing job of turning his department around and building his team. This really took the wind out of his sales.
My issue is with Manager One. While I am at fault for leaving something confidential on my desk, I have a huge issue with Manager One disclosing this. Managers are exposed to confidential, sensitive information all the time, so the expectation is that he keeps his mouth shut. This is also covered very clearly in our policies. If he disclosed this after a couple drinks, what else is he saying?
When Manager Two disclosed this to me, he stated that he was asking for advice and simply wanted to vent. As an HR professional, I am well aware that there are some topics that employees CAN NOT ask me to keep confidential, and I believe this is potentially one of them. However, since it took place outside of work, are we in a position to talk with and potentially discipline Manager One?
I'll start my reprimanding with you--bad of you to keep confidential info in a place where others could see it. But, you know that.
Then I'll reprimand the company for having pay inequities. Now, I'm somewhat of a radical when it comes to pay. Hold on to your horses, but I don't think pay should be confidential.
Let the ranting begin. Let me state my case. I've been in HR a long time and in every HR position I've ever held--including when I was a temp admin--I've had access to everyone's salary. And I mean everyone's salary. CEOs and co-workers included. It's always been part of my job. At first it's fascinating. Now? Not so much.
And that's part of why I'm opposed to secrecy. None of this would have mattered if your company was open about such things. (I know of no companies (government jobs excepted) that are open about such things--I am, as I said, an HR extremist. I wonder if that's like extreme sports: Up Next, Evil HR Lady in the Extreme Compensation Policy competition!)
But the real reason I'm opposed to secrecy is because secrecy allows pay inequities like the one you are dealing with now. Just think--if everyone's salaries were open managers would never hire people at unfair levels or offer big bumps to people they *like* but who hadn't earned the increase.
I realize there are whining problems with this and it takes a lot of guts to have people know that their co-worker with the same title makes more money than they do, but that just means that the company truly needs to pay for performance. Rational people understand that. Irrational people, you don't want working for you.
But, now to your situation (clearly, I just hijacked my own blog!). Can you "punish" manager one for something he did outside of work? Sure! Do you want to go there? No. I don't. But, what I would recommend is this:
HR: So, Manager 1, I understand you had a talk with Manager 2 about salaries. Just couldn't keep quiet about how yours is so much better, right?
Manager 1: So what? (If he's defensive, that is. If he realizes he was a drunk idiot, he'll hang his head and apologize.)
HR: Yeah, so it was a pretty stupid thing to do. I'm not sure this company can trust people who make stupid decisions, inside or outside of work.
And then I'd end the conversation. If you are respected and valued enough it will freak him out just a little bit.
As for confidentiality, you're neither a priest nor a lawyer. Some things you are required by law to act on, but stupid managers who reveal salary information is not one of them. (In my non-lawyer, non-legal advice way. Entertainment, people, this blog is pure entertainment. In fact, did I tell you my favorite joke. It goes like this: There was a snake named Nate...)
I would also bust my buns to deal with the salary inequities, starting with Manager 2. You say he's turned his group around. You better make sure he's rewarded for it, or you are going to lose him. You may already lose him. I can guarantee if I was manager 2, I would have come home and started working on my resume. I've just been told that my company doesn't value me. I'd expect the burden is on the company to prove otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)