I'm doing a number of presentations on employer branding at academic and practitioner conferences over the next month or so, beginning with a symposium with colleagues on 'Current Controversies in Recruitment and Selection' at the Academy of Management (AOM) in Chicago this coming Friday. At that session I'm going to outline what employer branding is about, how the recession has changed the focus of HR and people management, and thus the need for employer branding, and how employer branding can contribute to a bigger agenda of strategic and business model change (incidentally, I'm also going to participate in a session at the AOM run by C.V Harquail, the creator of Authentic Organizations on blogging for management academics, which I'm really looking forward to).
Three inputs into that session are relevant. The first is our consulting work with some excellent colleagues at Holcim, Getinge and the NHS in Scotland, from whom I've learned so much. This has reinforced my conviction that you never really understand business and management phenomena until you have been involved in changing them, which is one of the compelling reasons for academics becoming involved in clinical work and action research. The second and third are the most recent CIPD statement on Employer Branding: Maintaining momentum in a recession' which Rebecca Clake wrote and to which I contributed to during some roundtable discussions with senior practitioners, and a paper I've just finished with Paul Gollan and Kerry Grigg from Australia, entitled 'A Future for Employer Branding? Dealing with Negative Capabilities in Strategic Human Resource Management', which my colleagues are going to present at a conference in Sydney later this month. Not surprisingly, some of the messages in these two publications coincide'. The CIPD paper makes a case for employer branding becoming a business imperative. At one of the advisory group sessions from which the CIPD report was produced I argued for the need to link employer branding to big ticket items such as leadership and innovation, which has been taken up in the report and is one the themes in our new paper on the future of employer branding in tying it to strategic and business model change.
In this paper, we have tried to deal with the problems that complex organizations, especially but not only, multinationals face in dealing with the integration-responsiveness problem, part of which turns on how to deal with how to be global and local at the same time. In doing so, we've set out a new framework for thinking about what strategic human resource management might mean, highlighting two contradictory logics that drive strategy making in organizations in opposite directions. The first is to be distinctive, which takes them down the route of identifying business unit level strategic capabilities that make organizations truly unique, and the A positions and players that are critical to these strategic capabilities. In turn, this leads these organizations away from one-size fits all HR strategies and best practice and global employer brands towards more of a focus on exclusive talent management policies and segmentation of the workforce and specific employer value propositions/ branding messages for these groups, especially the A players (see earlier blog on linking employer branding to strategic HRM)
The other logic drives organizations to be legitimate in the eyes of others and society at large. This logic sees strategic decisions as influenced by a need or drive to be similar to others. Sometimes decisions are driven by the need for legitimacy, sometimes they are driven by an historically shaped 'industry recipe' for success that managers use as a model against which to judge their decision-making in uncertain conditions. The result is that there are strong pressures to imitate others’ strategies and values, supported by intensive networking among managers (and HR specialists), recruitment of business leaders from a relatively small cadre or talent pool that lead to bandwagon effects, coercive comparisons in the form of benchmarking best practice against other firms, and national legal standards or codes of conduct in accounting, governance and CSR drive companies to achieve legitimacy by becoming similar. This logic ensures that firms develop a strong corporate value system, often for investor s’ consumption, and to control potentially rogue subsidiaries that might damage hard won corporate reputations and brand equity through opportunistic but ultimately self-defeating behaviour for the corporation as a whole.
The SHRM implications of this drive towards corporateness are of firms becoming similar in their branding, thus seeking to become employers of choice with a global employer brand and ‘best practice’ high performance HR architectures (high performance work systems +the Ulrich model). The audience for many of these best practice messages are largely external – to sell a message to investors, governments, customers and potential employees that they are engaging with a well run, legitimate company that is as least as good as others. It also helps existing employees identify and engage even more with the organization because identity and engagement are formed by what these employees think significant outsiders feel about their organization - their so-called construed image.
The obvious point to make on the legitimacy logic is to ask the question that Michael Porter might ask: where is the differentiation in doing things the same as everyone else?
Three further sets of tensions of negative capabilities result from these contradictory logics:
1. The tension between corporate and local identities. Global companies seek to exercise control over identities because of the need to have business units and their workforce ‘on message’ with the corporate logic, global cost leadership and corporate stakeholder management. However, philosophers and management scholars have argued identity is essentially a local phenomenon and has to resonate or be authentic with employees and other local stakeholders because both are a product of local cultures. So localisation of identity requires organizations to be in tune with local employees and other stakeholders and to encourage constant expressions of employee voice and speaking truth to power, an argument recently receiving UK government backing from the MacLeod Report on engagement.
2. The tensions between exclusive and inclusive HR strategies. The exclusive approach to talent management that focuses on the few at the expense of the many has its critics for ethical, economic and rational reasons. Especially in European economies, including Britain, that have a heritage of integration among firms and employees and different values from the USA as a recent Economist poll on Anglos-Saxon attitudes has so vividly illustrated, the liberal market philosophy on which this exclusive talent management approach is based is a difficult pill to swallow for many organizations, managers and employees outside of the US.
Even within the USA, however, there is strong evidence that the exclusive version of talent management hasn’t worked well and, given the unpredictability of economic environments, can’t work well. Groysberg and his colleagues have produced a number of series of articles showing the negative side of the ‘star’ system which the exclusive version of talent management has helped fuel. And, has Anthony Hesketh has argued, the metaphor or a talent pipeline with the implication that talent management can be planned might be more realistically replaced by a metaphor of the talent sieve, with leaks appearing at many junctures because of the failure of organizations to manage careers through the pipeline and because of declining levels of loyalty among talented employees who have got the message delivered by acquisitive organizations that job change is the fastest route to salary increases.
3. Tensions between human and social capital and innovation. Arising from the previous discussion, HR initiatives and other management techniques and functions are increasingly being judged against how they impact the innovation agenda in these organizations. Research has shown that the 'collective IQ' of an organization, the latter of which is the basis for innovation, depends at least as much and probably more on social capital investment than individual human capital investment, which is what talent management and employer branding have traditionally focused on. So as well as investing time and effort in recruiting talented individuals, the role of human capital investment, organizations also need to focus on social capital by strengthening internal bonds among employees and by creating strong organizational identities (addressing the ‘who are we’ question as well as the ‘who am I’ question).
Implications of the Future of Employer Branding. So what are the implications for the futures of employer branding and how can it be used to resolve these dilemmas of SHRM and identity management? We suggest there are three changes in direction needed: a focus on authenticity, privileging the local, and a focus on social capital.
Focus on authenticity. It needs to rid itself of its image of being something that is designed by HR, marketing or corporate communications departments for others, especially among buisness unit managers and employees of large corporates, towards being locally responsive and authentic. Authenticity has become an important concept in recent management literature in fields such as leadership and marketing and needs to be at the heart of employer branding for it to help resolve the dual logics of SHRM.
In our Sydney paper, we have written about an HR strategy-as-practice approach that attempts to reconcile the tensions between the two logics of distinctiveness and similarity/ legitimacy. This requires that we understand who all parties to the strategy-making process are (a much wider group of people in organizations than senior managers and officially designated strategists), how they act and what resources they draw on they participate in helping create and implement strategies and, by extension, business models. Thus effective employer branding should begin by learning about the authentic voice of different groups of employees and managers at all levels and locations inside and outside of the organization. On this point, we have made the case in our CIPD report for new, free-form, open access Web 2.0 tools such as blogging, on-line discussion forums and social networking to enable authentic employee voice. We regard these new tools as more effective, or at least complementary, media for enabling employee voice than traditional organizational surveys.
Privileging the Local. Our argument for greater authenticity in employer branding compels us to focus on the local and on the logic of difference. This is not only because identity is an essentially local phenomenon, but, as we have noted, so are strategic capabilities, transformative business models and the HR architecture that supports them. In practical terms, this means privileging the local at the expense of the global in terms of creating authentically meaningful employer branding and employee value propositions. The outcomes may look no different from those that might result from a traditional top down exercise infused by the logic of similarity, especially since the process may be loosely framed in terms of broad aspirations of values or a corporate identity that organizations would like to be known for. However, an HR strategy-as-practice approach suggests the outcome is less important than the means by which it is arrived at.
As we have argued elsewhere, however, ‘the weight of evidence…suggests that the top-down, corporate global message continues to be the dominant one, which often represents considerable previous investment in ideas and programs, and, hence, an inbuilt reluctance to change course or experiment’. And, as we have noted in this paper, top down employer branding reflects the compelling logic of similarity, the benefits of integration and strong institutional and rational pressures to remain top down, including the desire to build global customer facing brands, pressures to meet international governance standards, investor demands, global performance standards and HR business processes. As the similarity logic requires, it is not only local responsiveness and authenticity which needs to be taken into account; there also needs to be a balance between the needs for and benefits of integration . A key element of HR architectures is employee engagement, which rests on defining the kinds of beliefs, values, attitudes and actions that employees are expected to hold and display, both at local and corporate level. This is part of the corporate function of employer branding, to ensure that it moves lockstep with business model and strategic change, not in parallel to it.
So, in privileging the local we are not arguing for a neglect of corporate or global values and branding, but rather that they should be ‘equivocal’ to allow employees at local level considerable latitude in creating local expressions of these values, authentic identities and meaningful strategies for themselves, and in doing so benefit the corporation as a whole.
A focus on social capital. Finally, we stake a claim for employer branding’s potential contribution to building bonds, bridges and trust, the key elements of social capital, and not just focusing on the creation of human capital. Social capital as a complementary asset and enabler of human capital and as a precursor of intellectual capital and innovation has become amongst the ‘biggest games in town’. And innovative business model change and product-market innovation needs a clear explanatory framework of how HR integrates with such changes, which provides an essential justification for employer branding role in learning about and communicating a strategic discourse that binds individual, team and organizational identities – the glue that holds organizations together - during periods of change.
Since social capital is also dependent on building bridges among employees and business partners, employer branding can help innovation, business model and strategic change by extending its traditional focus from those employed on a ‘contract of service’, the traditional employment contract, to those ‘contracted for services’, often pejoratively described as the contingent workforce. Employer branding can also contribute directly to the innovation agenda by encouraging authentic voice in organizations as I've argued above.
To conclude this rather long blog, if you find any of these arguments appealing or contentious, please - all comments on our views are welcome. Andif readers of this blog are keen on seeing the full paper, please contact myself, Paul or Kerry.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
When Your Dream Job is a Nightmare
What do you do when your new dream job turns into 14 hours a day of nightmare? Head on over to US News and see what I recommend and make your own comments.
Should you go exempt?
I am happily employed at a nonprofit as a non-exempt employee. Unfortunately, as is true at many NPO’s I do not get any sick pay, holiday pay or vacation pay. The option of becoming an exempt employee is now on the table, but I’m not sure it’s beneficial. Last year I grossed $20,000 working an erratic but flexible schedule at an hourly rate of $20 and an average of 20 hours weekly. If I become exempt without a pay increase, 20 hours a week at $20 hour gets me $20,800, so what is the benefit. Yes, technically I would get paid holidays and vacation, but I already didn’t work those days, and made the same amount of money. What are the pros and cons of becoming an exempt or salaried (are these even the same thing) employee? Is it standard to get a pay raise when becoming exempt?
Nothing is standard. You can ask if a pay raise comes along with the exempt status. Who knows? But, financially, the benefits are only there if you're going to be working fewer hours than you have (unless a pay raise is in the offering).
Exempt/non-exempt status is determined by the type of job you do--your responsibilities. I'll assume you meet the requirements for exempt status. There's nothing wrong with an employer taking someone who would qualify for an FLSA exempt status and paying you hourly. However, if the employer chooses to do this, he must treat you as an hourly employee, in that if you work more than 40 hours a week, you are eligible for overtime pay.
This doesn't seem like an issue in your case.
Lots of people want to be exempt because of the prestige of the whole thing. For some reason we've determined that having that exempt label makes you cooler, or something. In your case, it does have the added benefit of paid sick and vacation days. However, since you are working a flexible, part time schedule anyway, there isn't a lot to be said for that.
My advice in the end? Find out the details. Be wary that they are "offering" you this because they want you to work more hours, but not have to pay you. (Perfectly legal--an exempt employee is paid by the job, not the hour, so you get the same paycheck whether you put in 5 hours in a week, or 60.) Ask yourself where you want to go. In many organizations, exempt staff are treated differently than hourly staff. You may be taken more seriously. (Honest!) You may have doors opened up to you that would otherwise be closed.
But, that is dependent on your organization's culture. Don't disregard the importance of culture.
If none of that matters, stay paid hourly. That way if you work more, you get paid more. Assuming, of course, that you will get enough hours to meet your needs.
Nothing is standard. You can ask if a pay raise comes along with the exempt status. Who knows? But, financially, the benefits are only there if you're going to be working fewer hours than you have (unless a pay raise is in the offering).
Exempt/non-exempt status is determined by the type of job you do--your responsibilities. I'll assume you meet the requirements for exempt status. There's nothing wrong with an employer taking someone who would qualify for an FLSA exempt status and paying you hourly. However, if the employer chooses to do this, he must treat you as an hourly employee, in that if you work more than 40 hours a week, you are eligible for overtime pay.
This doesn't seem like an issue in your case.
Lots of people want to be exempt because of the prestige of the whole thing. For some reason we've determined that having that exempt label makes you cooler, or something. In your case, it does have the added benefit of paid sick and vacation days. However, since you are working a flexible, part time schedule anyway, there isn't a lot to be said for that.
My advice in the end? Find out the details. Be wary that they are "offering" you this because they want you to work more hours, but not have to pay you. (Perfectly legal--an exempt employee is paid by the job, not the hour, so you get the same paycheck whether you put in 5 hours in a week, or 60.) Ask yourself where you want to go. In many organizations, exempt staff are treated differently than hourly staff. You may be taken more seriously. (Honest!) You may have doors opened up to you that would otherwise be closed.
But, that is dependent on your organization's culture. Don't disregard the importance of culture.
If none of that matters, stay paid hourly. That way if you work more, you get paid more. Assuming, of course, that you will get enough hours to meet your needs.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Medical Problems with no FMLA
My mother is working part time for benefits until she retires. She has hated this job for many valid reasons. They have reprimanded employees hatefully in front of customers and refused employees time off for medical reasons.
She had cataract surgery on one eye and was required to work that next day. She did not complain. She made the managers aware at the time of scheduling the first surgery that she would need to have the other eye done in two weeks. They are refusing to give her the time off even though she is asking for 1 day and the next morning only.
She is a few hours shy of being qualified for FMLA. She is scared to go to HR about this because of retaliation. The Bank has a non-retaliation policy, but she doesn't find comfort in this because she is not sure how she could prove something like what she expects if she complains. This branch is known for its high turnover by other branches. She has great attendance, has come in to help on her days off, and has stayed over when they needed her. She fears if she loses this job, she will not be able to find another at her age.
This is where I like to play the game, "What is the worst that can happen." I find this is fun to play with myself when I'm nervous about something. Like, for instance, ordering cheese at the deli. Granted, you all say, that is easy to do. Well, you try doing it in a language your barely speak. Add into the mix that you will be doing it in bad High German, when the person behind the counter speaks Swiss German. And you can't really take Swiss German lessons because it's not really taught anywhere. But, I have to say, "the worst thing that could happen to me is that I'll get the wrong cheese." And since all cheese is good cheese, it's not that bad.
But enough about me. The worst thing that can happen to your mother if she goes to HR: She can be fired, which is against policy. (And just a reminder, I am not a lawyer, but since she's not eligible for FMLA, they don't have to grant her time off for medical reasons, but the courts generally consider company policies as binding, so blah, blah, blah a competent HR person would not allow her to be fired.) But, now we ask the next question: What is the worst that can happen if she doesn't go to HR?
Well, then, she can be fired for skipping work because they didn't approve a day off. Either way, the worst thing that can happen is the same thing. Since it's a lose-lose situation, you have to ask, "what is the best thing that can happen?"
Well, the best thing that can happen if she doesn't go to HR, is that her manager will just yell at her for taking the day off, unapproved. But, the best thing that can happen if she goes to HR is that the time off will be approved and there will be a crack down on nonsense by her management.
The latter is unlikely, by the way. If it's gotten this bad, it's not going to change easily. But, my point is, I think she should try. Don't be accusatory. Just ask, "I need to take the day off for surgery. This surgery will help me to do my job better because I'll be able to actually see. What do I need to do to get this done?"
By asking for help this way, rather than "My stupid manager won't let me have a day off, even though it's for surgery!" you get HR on your side, instead of in defensive mode. If she shows willingness to re-schedule her surgery, that might help as well.
I normally advise trying to work out problems without involving HR, but sometimes we can actually be helpful. (Really!)
I also suggest she ask her manager for a solution as well. Perhaps she's unknowingly scheduled her surgery on a day that 14 other people are going to be out of the office and the manager is to harried to explain that. Perhaps the manager is so used to dealing with liars that saying no is just a knee-jerk reaction. Try to not be adversarial and see if it helps. Really. After all, what is the worst that can happen?
She had cataract surgery on one eye and was required to work that next day. She did not complain. She made the managers aware at the time of scheduling the first surgery that she would need to have the other eye done in two weeks. They are refusing to give her the time off even though she is asking for 1 day and the next morning only.
She is a few hours shy of being qualified for FMLA. She is scared to go to HR about this because of retaliation. The Bank has a non-retaliation policy, but she doesn't find comfort in this because she is not sure how she could prove something like what she expects if she complains. This branch is known for its high turnover by other branches. She has great attendance, has come in to help on her days off, and has stayed over when they needed her. She fears if she loses this job, she will not be able to find another at her age.
This is where I like to play the game, "What is the worst that can happen." I find this is fun to play with myself when I'm nervous about something. Like, for instance, ordering cheese at the deli. Granted, you all say, that is easy to do. Well, you try doing it in a language your barely speak. Add into the mix that you will be doing it in bad High German, when the person behind the counter speaks Swiss German. And you can't really take Swiss German lessons because it's not really taught anywhere. But, I have to say, "the worst thing that could happen to me is that I'll get the wrong cheese." And since all cheese is good cheese, it's not that bad.
But enough about me. The worst thing that can happen to your mother if she goes to HR: She can be fired, which is against policy. (And just a reminder, I am not a lawyer, but since she's not eligible for FMLA, they don't have to grant her time off for medical reasons, but the courts generally consider company policies as binding, so blah, blah, blah a competent HR person would not allow her to be fired.) But, now we ask the next question: What is the worst that can happen if she doesn't go to HR?
Well, then, she can be fired for skipping work because they didn't approve a day off. Either way, the worst thing that can happen is the same thing. Since it's a lose-lose situation, you have to ask, "what is the best thing that can happen?"
Well, the best thing that can happen if she doesn't go to HR, is that her manager will just yell at her for taking the day off, unapproved. But, the best thing that can happen if she goes to HR is that the time off will be approved and there will be a crack down on nonsense by her management.
The latter is unlikely, by the way. If it's gotten this bad, it's not going to change easily. But, my point is, I think she should try. Don't be accusatory. Just ask, "I need to take the day off for surgery. This surgery will help me to do my job better because I'll be able to actually see. What do I need to do to get this done?"
By asking for help this way, rather than "My stupid manager won't let me have a day off, even though it's for surgery!" you get HR on your side, instead of in defensive mode. If she shows willingness to re-schedule her surgery, that might help as well.
I normally advise trying to work out problems without involving HR, but sometimes we can actually be helpful. (Really!)
I also suggest she ask her manager for a solution as well. Perhaps she's unknowingly scheduled her surgery on a day that 14 other people are going to be out of the office and the manager is to harried to explain that. Perhaps the manager is so used to dealing with liars that saying no is just a knee-jerk reaction. Try to not be adversarial and see if it helps. Really. After all, what is the worst that can happen?
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Being (un)Helpful
I hope you can give me some direction. My husband works for a commercial electric company that has several locations across the US. The company has been suffering financially and in March 2009 a memo was sent to employees offering possible transfer opportunities. He continued employed out of Florida with travel to other states in order to continue working. He is a field foreman, and his last work site came to completion one week ago with no more work in our region. He was terminated with a rehire status for 60 days.
His HR manager is someone he has worked with closely in the past when he held an in-house position. They have never seen eye to eye. When my husband reached out to him inquiring about transfer opportunities to the west coast, it came as no surprise not to receive an answer. He left several messages for him for one week. We are a single income family, with 3 young children. Having spent the last year apart has drained us financially and more importantly emotionally.
As my husband continued to search for employment, I took out the March memo regarding transfer opportunities and began to call the HR managers listed, starting with his direct hr manager-no answer. The letter explained that any of the managers could be contacted and they would be happy to help all being privy to the same information. I was successful in reaching 2 out of 9, I explained why I was calling and not my husband and they were very helpful and understanding. They both stated the need for foreman in their areas and we should expect a call back after the weekend. At that point I told my husband what I had done and he put another call into his hr manager, leaving a message that I had called and he should expect a call from them possibly asking for recommendations.
Monday morning rolled in and he finally got the call back from his hr manager: "how unprofessional of you having your wife call....west coast has no work....maybe one of the areas has a need but not for a foreman rather a journeyman...." said his hr manager. What can we do--it seems to us that he is not being forthright. We were told that there is a need for him in those areas. I want to call back his hr manager and try to appeal to him on a human factor, we met several times and he seemed like a nice man when he was with his wife. I would like for him to know why I took it upon myself to call. I do not know if I should call back the other hr managers that had said they would call me back. We do not want to lose his tenure, pension, and job. Thank you in advance for your attention.
The first thing you can do is put down the phone. There are only a few times when a spouse should call their beloved’s boss/hr and this isn’t one of them. (Incidentally, the times spouses should call are when your husband/wife is in the hospital and unable to pick up a phone and call, and to inform the company that your spouse has died. There may be one or two other situations where it is appropriate, but really, this is something that should be used with extreme caution.)
You wanted to help. I totally get that. It is frustrating to have an out of work spouse. It’s even more frustrating when you know that there aren’t 12 other jobs just waiting for him. But, this is his battle and you have to let him fight it.
The HR managers were nice and helpful, because that’s what we are. (See, nice and evil!) But, all of them were thinking, “uggh, I hate it when the wife calls.” Incidentally, while I’ve received a ton of calls from wives over the years, I’ve never received a single call from a husband. The question I always have running in the back of my mind is, “Why isn’t your husband calling me? Does he not want the job? Does he not care? Does he know you are doing this? Did he ask you to do this?” All of these make him look worse, not better.
Appealing to the “human” side by emphasizing the single income family doesn’t necessarily work either. Everybody needs the money. That’s why we have jobs. (Okay, I did have one employee ask if his entire salary could be deferred because he was so phenomenally wealthy that getting money was just a pain. But that’s rare.) I’m not going to make decisions based on who “needs” the job more. I’m not saying that such things aren’t ever taken into consideration, but they shouldn’t be.
So what can you do? Well, you be supportive of your husband. Polish up your own resume and start looking for work.
What can he do? It may be time to realize that he is going to have to leave this company. If there has been a massive work slowdown, he’s not the only foreman looking for a new job. Absolutely pursue whatever is out there, but start looking outside the company as well.
If possible, leave HR out of internal search. (I say if possible, because I don’t know the company’s policies or practices and I don’t want him getting in trouble.) Have him send his resume directly to the hiring manager. Express his desire to relocate (perhaps even at his own expense—depends on the situation).
Times are tough for a lot of people right now. Granted, that isn’t comforting, but it is reality.
His HR manager is someone he has worked with closely in the past when he held an in-house position. They have never seen eye to eye. When my husband reached out to him inquiring about transfer opportunities to the west coast, it came as no surprise not to receive an answer. He left several messages for him for one week. We are a single income family, with 3 young children. Having spent the last year apart has drained us financially and more importantly emotionally.
As my husband continued to search for employment, I took out the March memo regarding transfer opportunities and began to call the HR managers listed, starting with his direct hr manager-no answer. The letter explained that any of the managers could be contacted and they would be happy to help all being privy to the same information. I was successful in reaching 2 out of 9, I explained why I was calling and not my husband and they were very helpful and understanding. They both stated the need for foreman in their areas and we should expect a call back after the weekend. At that point I told my husband what I had done and he put another call into his hr manager, leaving a message that I had called and he should expect a call from them possibly asking for recommendations.
Monday morning rolled in and he finally got the call back from his hr manager: "how unprofessional of you having your wife call....west coast has no work....maybe one of the areas has a need but not for a foreman rather a journeyman...." said his hr manager. What can we do--it seems to us that he is not being forthright. We were told that there is a need for him in those areas. I want to call back his hr manager and try to appeal to him on a human factor, we met several times and he seemed like a nice man when he was with his wife. I would like for him to know why I took it upon myself to call. I do not know if I should call back the other hr managers that had said they would call me back. We do not want to lose his tenure, pension, and job. Thank you in advance for your attention.
The first thing you can do is put down the phone. There are only a few times when a spouse should call their beloved’s boss/hr and this isn’t one of them. (Incidentally, the times spouses should call are when your husband/wife is in the hospital and unable to pick up a phone and call, and to inform the company that your spouse has died. There may be one or two other situations where it is appropriate, but really, this is something that should be used with extreme caution.)
You wanted to help. I totally get that. It is frustrating to have an out of work spouse. It’s even more frustrating when you know that there aren’t 12 other jobs just waiting for him. But, this is his battle and you have to let him fight it.
The HR managers were nice and helpful, because that’s what we are. (See, nice and evil!) But, all of them were thinking, “uggh, I hate it when the wife calls.” Incidentally, while I’ve received a ton of calls from wives over the years, I’ve never received a single call from a husband. The question I always have running in the back of my mind is, “Why isn’t your husband calling me? Does he not want the job? Does he not care? Does he know you are doing this? Did he ask you to do this?” All of these make him look worse, not better.
Appealing to the “human” side by emphasizing the single income family doesn’t necessarily work either. Everybody needs the money. That’s why we have jobs. (Okay, I did have one employee ask if his entire salary could be deferred because he was so phenomenally wealthy that getting money was just a pain. But that’s rare.) I’m not going to make decisions based on who “needs” the job more. I’m not saying that such things aren’t ever taken into consideration, but they shouldn’t be.
So what can you do? Well, you be supportive of your husband. Polish up your own resume and start looking for work.
What can he do? It may be time to realize that he is going to have to leave this company. If there has been a massive work slowdown, he’s not the only foreman looking for a new job. Absolutely pursue whatever is out there, but start looking outside the company as well.
If possible, leave HR out of internal search. (I say if possible, because I don’t know the company’s policies or practices and I don’t want him getting in trouble.) Have him send his resume directly to the hiring manager. Express his desire to relocate (perhaps even at his own expense—depends on the situation).
Times are tough for a lot of people right now. Granted, that isn’t comforting, but it is reality.
Friday, July 24, 2009
No Experience
First I just wanted to say that I really enjoy reading your blog. I like your straight forward answers and sense of humor! My question to you is what should a new graduate like me do to get into the HR world?
A little bit about me: I’ve graduated with my BA in psych in 07 and will receive my MBA in Sept 09. I’ve also gotten a HR Certificate. I’ve worked as a recruiter for about a year at a staffing agency and found that sale was not something I enjoy. I am now working as a HR administrator for a local company. The problem is at this position, I am working under a payroll person who doesn’t know much about anything else but payroll. I want to look for a place where I can really learn from someone who’s experienced and foster my career.
I’ve been applying to numerous positions but have not gotten any luck. Every job I look requires experience! How can I gain experience if no one is giving me the chance? I know that networking is important so that’s why I’ve joined SHRM and my local HR Chapter, but even so, that hasn’t really help. Please help!
First of all, you are doing something right. Not just in writing to me (I used to say that showed superior intellect, but after some of the questions I've received, I've had to realize that that ain't true in all situations), but in how you've written to me. You started out by complimenting me and describing what I do here. This shows you are a better letter writer than our friend, the Public Relations guy, and he got a job.
Second, you do have experience. Recruiting and fulfilling administrative duties does give you experience. Stop thinking it doesn't. It, at a minimum, teaches you the language of HR. Use that langauge
Third, every job description every entry level job description says, "5 years of experience or similar." Bah. They know this job doesn't take 5 years of experience, so why write it? But they do and I don't know why. (Yes I do. Because they don't want to write, "this job requires you to have half a clue.")
So, what are you doing wrong? Well, for starters you're applying for jobs in a tight job market. And, unfortunately, this means you are competing against people who DO have five years of experience. Nothing you can do about that, just keep trying.
The other thing, which we can't fix now, is you have too much eduction in relation to your experience. Some people disagree with me, but I'm generally of the opinion that you should work for several years (5 or so) before getting an MBA. How can you be a master at business when you haven't even been a beginner at business?
Personalize your resume and cover letter. Don't discount your own experience. And keep on, keeping on.
A little bit about me: I’ve graduated with my BA in psych in 07 and will receive my MBA in Sept 09. I’ve also gotten a HR Certificate. I’ve worked as a recruiter for about a year at a staffing agency and found that sale was not something I enjoy. I am now working as a HR administrator for a local company. The problem is at this position, I am working under a payroll person who doesn’t know much about anything else but payroll. I want to look for a place where I can really learn from someone who’s experienced and foster my career.
I’ve been applying to numerous positions but have not gotten any luck. Every job I look requires experience! How can I gain experience if no one is giving me the chance? I know that networking is important so that’s why I’ve joined SHRM and my local HR Chapter, but even so, that hasn’t really help. Please help!
First of all, you are doing something right. Not just in writing to me (I used to say that showed superior intellect, but after some of the questions I've received, I've had to realize that that ain't true in all situations), but in how you've written to me. You started out by complimenting me and describing what I do here. This shows you are a better letter writer than our friend, the Public Relations guy, and he got a job.
Second, you do have experience. Recruiting and fulfilling administrative duties does give you experience. Stop thinking it doesn't. It, at a minimum, teaches you the language of HR. Use that langauge
Third, every job description every entry level job description says, "5 years of experience or similar." Bah. They know this job doesn't take 5 years of experience, so why write it? But they do and I don't know why. (Yes I do. Because they don't want to write, "this job requires you to have half a clue.")
So, what are you doing wrong? Well, for starters you're applying for jobs in a tight job market. And, unfortunately, this means you are competing against people who DO have five years of experience. Nothing you can do about that, just keep trying.
The other thing, which we can't fix now, is you have too much eduction in relation to your experience. Some people disagree with me, but I'm generally of the opinion that you should work for several years (5 or so) before getting an MBA. How can you be a master at business when you haven't even been a beginner at business?
Personalize your resume and cover letter. Don't discount your own experience. And keep on, keeping on.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Another DUI questions
I have a question about dui and job prospects. I know people really do look at your criminal records. Well, my friend is still an undergrad in college right now. He was hoping to get into engineering for the city (so a government job). But just recently he was charged with a DUI. He was wondering if this recent DUI will affect him very badly? I.e: would employers just throw the resume and application away?
what impact can a DUI make on job prospects? how do you guys view that?
Yes, it will affect him. Your friend is an idiot. I have no sympathy for people who drink and drive. You know before you pick up that glass of alcohol that you have car keys in your pocket.
However, that being said, he's just been charged, not convicted. But we'll assume a conviction will happen shortly.
Technically, an employer can't hold a conviction against someone unless it relates to the job at hand. As I said, DUI proves you're an idiot, so that pretty much applies to every job, although I realize that I couldn't actually argue that in court. (At least I think I couldn't win with that argument. I'm not a lawyer.) But, there are million and one reasons not to hire anyone, and this black mark will not help.
Employers will not just throw his resume away though. In the professional world, resumes are usually reviewed and phone interviews conducted prior to filling out an official appliaction. You wouldn't list your DUI on your resume; You would have to list it on an application if they ask about convictions. (Although, more and more, companies are having you apply through their websites, which means filling out applications from the get go.)
A smart recruiter knows that it is illegal to consider information such as that (in most cases), and won't inform a potential hiring manager. Applying for a government job may actually be a better idea than the private sector because they tend to have stricter rules in place regarding such things.
Still, the most important thing is to tell your friend not to do it again, and work his tail end off in school to get super good grades. Take whatever internships you can get (unpaid if necessary) because in a poor job market, with a DUI in tow, it's going to be difficult to get a good job.
what impact can a DUI make on job prospects? how do you guys view that?
Yes, it will affect him. Your friend is an idiot. I have no sympathy for people who drink and drive. You know before you pick up that glass of alcohol that you have car keys in your pocket.
However, that being said, he's just been charged, not convicted. But we'll assume a conviction will happen shortly.
Technically, an employer can't hold a conviction against someone unless it relates to the job at hand. As I said, DUI proves you're an idiot, so that pretty much applies to every job, although I realize that I couldn't actually argue that in court. (At least I think I couldn't win with that argument. I'm not a lawyer.) But, there are million and one reasons not to hire anyone, and this black mark will not help.
Employers will not just throw his resume away though. In the professional world, resumes are usually reviewed and phone interviews conducted prior to filling out an official appliaction. You wouldn't list your DUI on your resume; You would have to list it on an application if they ask about convictions. (Although, more and more, companies are having you apply through their websites, which means filling out applications from the get go.)
A smart recruiter knows that it is illegal to consider information such as that (in most cases), and won't inform a potential hiring manager. Applying for a government job may actually be a better idea than the private sector because they tend to have stricter rules in place regarding such things.
Still, the most important thing is to tell your friend not to do it again, and work his tail end off in school to get super good grades. Take whatever internships you can get (unpaid if necessary) because in a poor job market, with a DUI in tow, it's going to be difficult to get a good job.
Monday, July 20, 2009
HR, Learning and Performance
Not sure how I've managed to miss this, but there's an excellent report in the Harvard Business School's Working Knowledge Series by Amy Edmondson, someone whose work is always worth listening to and I've often cited her publications in the past. In this Q and A session, she decribes her research journey into organizational learning and learning organizations over a fifteen year period following an earlier career as an OD practitioner. One of the key messages she has taken from it is the tension between the need for organizations to learn in order to survive in the long run and the short term problems learning creates for performance because such learning frequently involves making errors and, more importantly, acknowledging in public the errors you have made. This tension is a difficult one for managers to handle in most arenas so the tendency is to go for the short term performance gains at the expense of learning because of the typical basis on which their performance is managed and rewarded. Nowhere is this more evident than in the frequently reported and experienced clashes between short term target achievement in the NHS and long term organizational success. Edmonson's work is particularly appropriate in this context because her early research was set in a clinical context.
Edmonson describes the challenge for managers as two-fold:
Edmonson describes the challenge for managers as two-fold:
'One is to become team leaders who promote open discussion, trial and error and the pursuit of new possibilities in the groups they directly influence. The other is to work hard to build organizations to produce extraordinary teamwork and learning behaviours'.
These challenges are part of the message of the papers and reports I've been discussing on engagement in the last few blogs. It is also a message we are delivering in a new paper we're (myself, Paul Gollan and Kerry Grigg) writing on how employer branding can and should contribute to the innovation agenda. Talent management, employer branding and engagement have traditionally been aimed at building human capital in organizations, focusing on the beliefs, values, attitudes, competences and behaviours of individuals. However, as much of the research on innovation has shown, it is the creation of social capital (building bridges, bonds and trust in teams and organizations) that is the necessary condition for organizational learning and innovation. Edmondson's work over the last decade and a half begins to show how this can be achieved.
The Importance of Individualizing a Cover Letter
I don't hire people; haven't hired people in years. But, I can still tell you that it's important to make sure what you send to someone who does hire people is tailored to that particular job. I was reminded of this when I received an e-mail from a public relations person who wanted me to promote a book.
I know that this person did not tailor his e-mail to me at all for the following reasons:
1. He just starts out with the text. No salutation including my name. (Dear Evil HR Lady, or Evil HR Lady-- or even, Hi Evil! which always cracks me up. You get extra points if you address me as Suzanne, which I have only occasionally mentioned, unless you follow me at US News, so I know you at least have done some reading.)
2. His second sentence is: "I think you do a great job discussing the significant issues and trends in HR today." If significant trends include answering people's questions and posting pictures warning against the evils of nose picking then he's right. Otherwise, he's never actually read my blog. I will admit, that once in a while I do comment on an HR trend, but it's certainly not my focus. Any regular reader would know that.
3. He asks me to participate in a blog tour. I haven't done any sort of book review or author interview in a long time. Asking is fine. If I really think your book is interesting, I might do just that. But, make some reference that you realize this is out of the oridinary for me
As an end result of this, I'm not going to even consider this "candidate." I know I was just a person on a list and he hit "send" on a mass e-mail.
When your cover letter has these flaws, you also find your resume in that big delete file in the sky. Sending a resume is asking for something from somebody. If you are going to ask, at least take the time to get to know who you are asking.
I know that this person did not tailor his e-mail to me at all for the following reasons:
1. He just starts out with the text. No salutation including my name. (Dear Evil HR Lady, or Evil HR Lady-- or even, Hi Evil! which always cracks me up. You get extra points if you address me as Suzanne, which I have only occasionally mentioned, unless you follow me at US News, so I know you at least have done some reading.)
2. His second sentence is: "I think you do a great job discussing the significant issues and trends in HR today." If significant trends include answering people's questions and posting pictures warning against the evils of nose picking then he's right. Otherwise, he's never actually read my blog. I will admit, that once in a while I do comment on an HR trend, but it's certainly not my focus. Any regular reader would know that.
3. He asks me to participate in a blog tour. I haven't done any sort of book review or author interview in a long time. Asking is fine. If I really think your book is interesting, I might do just that. But, make some reference that you realize this is out of the oridinary for me
As an end result of this, I'm not going to even consider this "candidate." I know I was just a person on a list and he hit "send" on a mass e-mail.
When your cover letter has these flaws, you also find your resume in that big delete file in the sky. Sending a resume is asking for something from somebody. If you are going to ask, at least take the time to get to know who you are asking.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Even Newer (but Mildly Disappointing) Perspectives on Engagement
Having just reviewed an excellent academic paper on engagement in the previous blog, I was interested to see what would be the outcome of the UK government sponsored McLeod Review of employee engagement. This review is the outcome of almost a year long study by two Government appointed practitioners who have taken evidence from a range of senior executives, some academics and leaders of professional organizations with an interest in the topic. The outcome is a 150 page report on what engagement means, why it matters, barriers to an engaged workforce, how engagement might be made to work and a series of recommendations for making it work in all sectors of the economy.
While there is much to commend this report, and I'm sure it will get lots of press coverage, I have to say I'm mildly disappointed with the outcome. For the novice manager (and chief executive who still 'doesn't get it' -I can't believe it), it will serve as a useful introduction to the topic and provide some pointers on how to get it, but for the experienced HR professional it tells us little that is new. Nor, paradoxically, is it likely to have much impact on practice. By going for breadth (i.e.trying to engage as many mainly practitioner views on the subject as possible together with lots of randomly selected case illustrations), it lacks the kind of depth needed to really move the issue forward (i.e the insights that a good critical analysis and theoretically sound treatment that the topic deserves, e.g. the Balain and Sparrow white paper). It also exhibits a number of the failings the previous blog identified as characteristic of the engagement 'industry' - conceptually unclear, lacking in hard, predictive evidence, no clear logic of the antecedents and consequences of engagement, etc.
So, though this report certainly deserves to be read, did we really need a year long study of this kind to tell us what most managers have known for a long time (listen to the video introduction by David McLeod)? Maybe I expected too much for our money?
While there is much to commend this report, and I'm sure it will get lots of press coverage, I have to say I'm mildly disappointed with the outcome. For the novice manager (and chief executive who still 'doesn't get it' -I can't believe it), it will serve as a useful introduction to the topic and provide some pointers on how to get it, but for the experienced HR professional it tells us little that is new. Nor, paradoxically, is it likely to have much impact on practice. By going for breadth (i.e.trying to engage as many mainly practitioner views on the subject as possible together with lots of randomly selected case illustrations), it lacks the kind of depth needed to really move the issue forward (i.e the insights that a good critical analysis and theoretically sound treatment that the topic deserves, e.g. the Balain and Sparrow white paper). It also exhibits a number of the failings the previous blog identified as characteristic of the engagement 'industry' - conceptually unclear, lacking in hard, predictive evidence, no clear logic of the antecedents and consequences of engagement, etc.
So, though this report certainly deserves to be read, did we really need a year long study of this kind to tell us what most managers have known for a long time (listen to the video introduction by David McLeod)? Maybe I expected too much for our money?
Friday, July 17, 2009
Payroll Problems
I am the manager of a department of nine, four of whom (including myself) are exempt employees. The exempt staff has, for years, altered their schedules to cover the vacations, absences, and terminations of other staff, both exempt and non-exempt. This has never been a problem before. Two of the exempt staff work five day, eight hour work-weeks, while the other two work four day, ten hour work-weeks.
A few weeks ago, one of the 5/8 employees covered the shift of the 4/10 staffer who went on vacation. The Friday of the second week of the switched schedule coincided with a federal holiday. The employee had already worked the altered shift for that week, but for some reason payroll said that they were not allowed to do that, and switched it to PTO time. I explained to them that, for years, this was the way we worked, and they replied that it didn't matter. I now have a meeting set with HR next week to discuss this matter and get some long-term guidance, but, somehow, this doesn't seem right to me.
The individual was assigned to (even though s/he volunteered to take the assignment) a different shift. They worked their expected workload (40 hours) and at least another four hours on top of that. I understand that exempt status is intended to ensure that certain professional roles are carried out properly, irregardless of the time needed to complete them, at a basically fixed rate of pay; but to force someone to take PTO time when they have already altered their shift (at personal inconvenience to them and their family) and have met the required forty hours seems to be an abuse of the exempt status.
Am I off base here?
You are not off base. I'm going to tell you the Evil HR Lady's First Rule of managing exempt employee time off: Don't tell anyone what you are doing. Just do it.
I know I've just set some micromanagers into serious twitch mode. Your want to give an exempt employee a comp day? Just do it. Don't tell HR. Don't tell payroll. Just do it.
But, this doesn't help you now. Here is what payroll is thinking: Bob is scheduled to work Mon-Friday. He did not work Friday. We did not receive any official paperwork changing Bob's schedule. Therefore, he must use a PTO day.
Now, why you have to use a PTO day for a Federal holiday is beyond me. It seems like either the company is open (in which case you don't mention to payroll that Bob didn't work), or the company is closed (in which case everyone gets it off). But, apparently your company doesn't work like that.
I'm also going to go out on a limb here and bet that your company requires time cards for exempt employees. I both like and dislike this policy. On the like side, it makes tracking vacation easier and you can also see how many hours your exempt staff is putting in, which can help you evaluate necessary changes to the job. On the other hand, they are exempt for a reason. Let them do their jobs and leave them alone. When it comes down to it, I dislike time tracking for exempt employees more than I like it.
Now, hopefully your HR person will have a clue and she'll work it out with payroll and Bob will get his PTO day restored. If he doesn't, this is where you follow the rule I listed above: Just don't tell anyone.
The next time Bob takes a week off (or a day off, or whatever) just report to payroll that he took one less day then he really did.
Oh dear, I'm encouraging lying, which I say never to do. I think I'm having an ethical problem here. What I'm really saying is that sometimes policy is so stupid that there is only one logical way around it.
To give payroll credit, though. How were they supposed to know that Bob had an arrangement with you? And they have to follow zillions of government imposed rules and no one ever thanks them--they only get yelled at when something goes wrong. And a lot of times, the thing that went "wrong" is actually legally correct, but they get blamed for it. (Like it's payroll's fault that the government requires them to garnish your wages for alimony for your soon to be ex-husband who quit his job and ran off with the biker girl that lived next door.)
But, I think HR will be able to straighten it out. I hope. For the record, I would have been able to straighten it out. But, I've always worked with rational pay roll people.
A few weeks ago, one of the 5/8 employees covered the shift of the 4/10 staffer who went on vacation. The Friday of the second week of the switched schedule coincided with a federal holiday. The employee had already worked the altered shift for that week, but for some reason payroll said that they were not allowed to do that, and switched it to PTO time. I explained to them that, for years, this was the way we worked, and they replied that it didn't matter. I now have a meeting set with HR next week to discuss this matter and get some long-term guidance, but, somehow, this doesn't seem right to me.
The individual was assigned to (even though s/he volunteered to take the assignment) a different shift. They worked their expected workload (40 hours) and at least another four hours on top of that. I understand that exempt status is intended to ensure that certain professional roles are carried out properly, irregardless of the time needed to complete them, at a basically fixed rate of pay; but to force someone to take PTO time when they have already altered their shift (at personal inconvenience to them and their family) and have met the required forty hours seems to be an abuse of the exempt status.
Am I off base here?
You are not off base. I'm going to tell you the Evil HR Lady's First Rule of managing exempt employee time off: Don't tell anyone what you are doing. Just do it.
I know I've just set some micromanagers into serious twitch mode. Your want to give an exempt employee a comp day? Just do it. Don't tell HR. Don't tell payroll. Just do it.
But, this doesn't help you now. Here is what payroll is thinking: Bob is scheduled to work Mon-Friday. He did not work Friday. We did not receive any official paperwork changing Bob's schedule. Therefore, he must use a PTO day.
Now, why you have to use a PTO day for a Federal holiday is beyond me. It seems like either the company is open (in which case you don't mention to payroll that Bob didn't work), or the company is closed (in which case everyone gets it off). But, apparently your company doesn't work like that.
I'm also going to go out on a limb here and bet that your company requires time cards for exempt employees. I both like and dislike this policy. On the like side, it makes tracking vacation easier and you can also see how many hours your exempt staff is putting in, which can help you evaluate necessary changes to the job. On the other hand, they are exempt for a reason. Let them do their jobs and leave them alone. When it comes down to it, I dislike time tracking for exempt employees more than I like it.
Now, hopefully your HR person will have a clue and she'll work it out with payroll and Bob will get his PTO day restored. If he doesn't, this is where you follow the rule I listed above: Just don't tell anyone.
The next time Bob takes a week off (or a day off, or whatever) just report to payroll that he took one less day then he really did.
Oh dear, I'm encouraging lying, which I say never to do. I think I'm having an ethical problem here. What I'm really saying is that sometimes policy is so stupid that there is only one logical way around it.
To give payroll credit, though. How were they supposed to know that Bob had an arrangement with you? And they have to follow zillions of government imposed rules and no one ever thanks them--they only get yelled at when something goes wrong. And a lot of times, the thing that went "wrong" is actually legally correct, but they get blamed for it. (Like it's payroll's fault that the government requires them to garnish your wages for alimony for your soon to be ex-husband who quit his job and ran off with the biker girl that lived next door.)
But, I think HR will be able to straighten it out. I hope. For the record, I would have been able to straighten it out. But, I've always worked with rational pay roll people.
New Policy
When I'm put in charge of employee policy, I'm definitely adding this poster to the handbook. And posting it next to the cafeteria.
Edited to add that my brilliant German speaking readers have translated the poster for me (I'm still learning "Das Auto ist Blau.") and it is an anti women's suffrage poster, not an anti nose picking poster. I still want to use the poster, I'll just remove the political language. Although incidentally women's suffrage is very recent on Switzerland.
Definitely no nose picking at work.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
New Perspectives on Engagement
Last week I had a very productive time doing some work with a large multinational company based in Zurich which is doing some really interesting work on employer branding and HR strategy – hello Saskia, Paulo and team. Like all organizations operating in a multinational context, they are struggling with the integration-responsiveness problem discussed in the last blog, which, in part, turns on the need to have employees identify and ‘engage’ with the organization globally and locally. Engagement has become one of the hot topics among HR practitioners, driven mostly by the management consulting industry’s desire to re-invent, re-package and re-fresh tired old ideas that have been around for many years in the academic community such as satisfaction, commitment, organizational citizenship and identity, and psychological contracting, and link them statistically to appealing notions such as share price increases, financial performance and a range of other outcomes.
In a chapter of a book we wrote on corporate reputations and HR in 2006, we criticised this arguably naive and perhaps even cynical attempt by consulting firms to re-invent the wheel and to do so in a with a lack of rigour that hardly justified the huge amounts of money being spent on this new ‘industry’. We examined a number of such approaches and found little or no agreement on what the meant by engagement, a significant problem in its own right; nor was the evidence particularly compelling since it was based on a lack of identifiable and sound logic connecting the precursors of engagement to engagement itself and onwards to the outcomes claimed for it. Our argument in the form of a question in that chapter was: why not use some of the more rigorous work on psychological contracting, citizenship etc., that has been around for a number of years and build in some of the newer ideas of the engagement industry to improve their utility? In part, we were basing our arguments on a book produced by Paul Sparrow and Cary Cooper in 2003, so it is with great interest we read a new working paper by Paul and one of his colleagues, Shashi Balain to be found on the website of Lancaster University’s Centre for Performance-led HR.
In this paper they begin with a section on why engagement is becoming so important to practitioners, arguing that it has served three functions: as an internal marketing process to sell complex change to the workforce; as a means of linking employee motivations and committed behaviour to process improvement; and as a predictor of service and organizational performance, usually in the form of a variation on the well known ‘service-profit’ chain. Like our own chapter, they proceed to evaluate the consultancy attempts to develop ‘theories’ of engagement, claiming that the research designs used do not allow them to infer that their own versions of engagement cause performance improvements, that there is little construct validity in what they choose to define and measure as engagement, and that they all use different items to measure what they describe as engagement. Though some promising work in proving useful statistical relationships has been produced by some of the consulting firms, it lacks strong logical basis and argument as why their versions of engagement should be linked to individual and organizational outcomes, and is thus unlikely to be helpful to HR practitioner seeking to manage the process.
Balain and Sparrow suggest an extremely useful way forward to make the concept more useful. They argue that HR directors in specific companies need to reverse engineer the type of performance that an organization is trying to create, in much the same way as the book previously reviewed by Becker et al does. What is it that we are asking employees to engage with at an individual level and organizational level? In answering these questions they produce a model of antecedents of engagements (job characteristics, perceived organizational support, leadership, reward and recognitions, procedural fairness and trust), which leads to strong performance bonds (individual and organizational identification, internalisation of company values, psychological ownership, etc), leading to conditions of engagement (i.e. job engagement and organizational engagement) , which result in important individual and group level outcomes (e.g. motivation, discretionary effort, commitment, improved group and organizational morale, organizational citizenship, etc). One of the key points of this model is that it makes use of well-known and validated scales. Another is that it is necessarily more complicated than most of the overly-simplified consulting models.
A further, extremely important point they make is that there is no single organizational performance recipe. The potential contribution that employee engagement makes in different organizations is likely to differ, so why should engagement have the same performance impact across different service models? To reinforce this point, they identify four different service models from the marketing literature - personal v non personal service, encounter v relationships, collaborative v single service relationship and B2B and B2C interactions – all of which are likely to make different demands on what and who employees need to be engaged with . Their claim is that HR directors have a ‘fantastic opportunity’ to really get under the skin of engagement in their own organizations by developing more complex understandings and models of engagement that apply to their specific circumstances. Two key questions they need to address is: what are they asking their employees to engage with, and what beliefs, attitudes, intentions and behaviours do we require of them to engage. To make the construct more useful to practitioners, HRDs need to identify the performance belief – ‘a shared belief of a team that it has the required ability, resources, goal clarity and leadership attributes to achieve the desired performance outcomes’ (p 38). The performance belief is the cause, while being engaged to perform is the effect. Answering these questions allows HRDs to manage engagement more effectively, but this requires them to measure different things from the standard attitude or engagement survey, which Balain and Sparrow begin to describe. Here they need to do a little more work. Overall, however, the general arguments in the paper are excellent and take us a lot further in understanding engagement than anything else I’ve read so far. There is still a need to do some tight editing and crisping up of the arguments to make them more accessible to most practitioners, but this paper is certainly the best place to begin for serious work in this burgeoning field.
In visiting this excellent site you will find other papers of interest and also a survey on HR in tough times that Paul would like you to help him out with.
In a chapter of a book we wrote on corporate reputations and HR in 2006, we criticised this arguably naive and perhaps even cynical attempt by consulting firms to re-invent the wheel and to do so in a with a lack of rigour that hardly justified the huge amounts of money being spent on this new ‘industry’. We examined a number of such approaches and found little or no agreement on what the meant by engagement, a significant problem in its own right; nor was the evidence particularly compelling since it was based on a lack of identifiable and sound logic connecting the precursors of engagement to engagement itself and onwards to the outcomes claimed for it. Our argument in the form of a question in that chapter was: why not use some of the more rigorous work on psychological contracting, citizenship etc., that has been around for a number of years and build in some of the newer ideas of the engagement industry to improve their utility? In part, we were basing our arguments on a book produced by Paul Sparrow and Cary Cooper in 2003, so it is with great interest we read a new working paper by Paul and one of his colleagues, Shashi Balain to be found on the website of Lancaster University’s Centre for Performance-led HR.
In this paper they begin with a section on why engagement is becoming so important to practitioners, arguing that it has served three functions: as an internal marketing process to sell complex change to the workforce; as a means of linking employee motivations and committed behaviour to process improvement; and as a predictor of service and organizational performance, usually in the form of a variation on the well known ‘service-profit’ chain. Like our own chapter, they proceed to evaluate the consultancy attempts to develop ‘theories’ of engagement, claiming that the research designs used do not allow them to infer that their own versions of engagement cause performance improvements, that there is little construct validity in what they choose to define and measure as engagement, and that they all use different items to measure what they describe as engagement. Though some promising work in proving useful statistical relationships has been produced by some of the consulting firms, it lacks strong logical basis and argument as why their versions of engagement should be linked to individual and organizational outcomes, and is thus unlikely to be helpful to HR practitioner seeking to manage the process.
Balain and Sparrow suggest an extremely useful way forward to make the concept more useful. They argue that HR directors in specific companies need to reverse engineer the type of performance that an organization is trying to create, in much the same way as the book previously reviewed by Becker et al does. What is it that we are asking employees to engage with at an individual level and organizational level? In answering these questions they produce a model of antecedents of engagements (job characteristics, perceived organizational support, leadership, reward and recognitions, procedural fairness and trust), which leads to strong performance bonds (individual and organizational identification, internalisation of company values, psychological ownership, etc), leading to conditions of engagement (i.e. job engagement and organizational engagement) , which result in important individual and group level outcomes (e.g. motivation, discretionary effort, commitment, improved group and organizational morale, organizational citizenship, etc). One of the key points of this model is that it makes use of well-known and validated scales. Another is that it is necessarily more complicated than most of the overly-simplified consulting models.
A further, extremely important point they make is that there is no single organizational performance recipe. The potential contribution that employee engagement makes in different organizations is likely to differ, so why should engagement have the same performance impact across different service models? To reinforce this point, they identify four different service models from the marketing literature - personal v non personal service, encounter v relationships, collaborative v single service relationship and B2B and B2C interactions – all of which are likely to make different demands on what and who employees need to be engaged with . Their claim is that HR directors have a ‘fantastic opportunity’ to really get under the skin of engagement in their own organizations by developing more complex understandings and models of engagement that apply to their specific circumstances. Two key questions they need to address is: what are they asking their employees to engage with, and what beliefs, attitudes, intentions and behaviours do we require of them to engage. To make the construct more useful to practitioners, HRDs need to identify the performance belief – ‘a shared belief of a team that it has the required ability, resources, goal clarity and leadership attributes to achieve the desired performance outcomes’ (p 38). The performance belief is the cause, while being engaged to perform is the effect. Answering these questions allows HRDs to manage engagement more effectively, but this requires them to measure different things from the standard attitude or engagement survey, which Balain and Sparrow begin to describe. Here they need to do a little more work. Overall, however, the general arguments in the paper are excellent and take us a lot further in understanding engagement than anything else I’ve read so far. There is still a need to do some tight editing and crisping up of the arguments to make them more accessible to most practitioners, but this paper is certainly the best place to begin for serious work in this burgeoning field.
In visiting this excellent site you will find other papers of interest and also a survey on HR in tough times that Paul would like you to help him out with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)