CareerCurve™

More than ever companies are concerned with how to keep their top talent.  Among the reasons employees leave are lack of career progress, poor work/life balance, not feeling valued by the company, and bad bosses. 

One retention strategy is to promote from within.  This is a great idea as it addresses a number of retention goals in one shot.  Promoting from within shows loyalty to your employees.  It demonstrates the value an employee has to your organization.  It also provides a path for career progress and creates great bosses. 

Or does it?  Are you actually setting your employees up for failure?

Anyone who has done any research on retention is familiar with the adage “Employees don’t leave bad jobs, they leave bad bosses.”  So if your company promotes from within, how could you have bad bosses?  After all, you are careful in your promotion process.  You evaluate and assess and only advance your highest performers.  

But what do you do after that?  How do you develop and train your managers once they get that promotion?  What are you doing that could be preventing your promoted managers from being successful?

Just because an employee was a high performer in his/her area doesn’t automatically mean he/she will make a great manager.  The abilities required to be an effective leader often differ greatly from those needed in the role the employee just left.  Yes, knowing the previous role inside and out and having excelled there is important, but often, soft skills that haven’t been required before are integral to doing a good job as a manager.  Some of these new necessary skills include:

Objectivity – the new manager is now in a role where being objective is mandatory.

Diplomacy – managers often have to deliver difficult messages. 

Delegation – high performers tend to take on a lot of responsibility.  This is usually why they are high performers.  Delegating means relinquishing control and this can prove to be a difficult adjustment.

Managing Conflict – conflicts will arise and the manager is now responsible for resolving them.  This is probably not something the manager did on a regular basis.  He/she may have even been part of the conflict in the past as opposed to being the one who fixes it.

Business Acumen – managers have to understand the company’s long term goals and realize how the short term objectives fit into these goals.  Then they have to get their team to understand this.

Understanding of Corporate Culture – As an employee, the manager probably didn’t spend a lot of time analyzing the culture but rather adapted to it.  As a manager, the responsibility shifts to understanding it in order to get the team to buy into it and perform accordingly.

Communication – Not only does the manager need to understand the corporate culture and goals but he/she needs to effectively relay them to the team in order to achieve not only the objectives, but alignment with corporate philosophy.

Consider that previously the manager was responsible for his/her part in a project and although most of these skills were undoubtedly required on occasion, the actual work produced was the most important focus.  Even if there were stumbles with these soft skills, the work produced trumped these issues.  Now consider the change for the manager when the work he/she needs to produce IS these soft skills.

If your organization doesn’t pay attention to the magnitude of this promotion, everyone loses.  The company no longer has the high performer in the previous role, the new manager may feel lost and unsure, the team could feel as if they have no leader, and ultimately, everyone is disengaged and starts seeking greener pastures.  Your “Promote from Within” retention strategy just became an anti-retention strategy.

What does your company do after promoting high performers?  Is enough emphasis placed on the difference in skills required to do the job well?  What could the organization do differently?

Recently, I was discussing HR positions and the different duties that go with that title and it occurred to me how many areas of the business this department manages.  This led to the following train of thought and many questions.  I would love to know your thoughts on this topic and any feedback or answers you could provide in the comments.

I’m sure I’m missing some, but a list of objectives of human resources off the top of my head are benefits, recruiting, interviewing, hiring, employee concerns and complaints, downsizing, retention, talent management, on-boarding, policy, law, employee paperwork, and possibly payroll.  Then within some of these areas, whole departments can exist.  For example, within the benefits department there could be a need for an HR Generalist to manage health & wellness, 401k, disability, FMLA, workers compensation and a host of other areas.

How in the world does a business determine how many employees it needs in Human Resources?  It seems like it would make sense that a set ratio exists, kind of like when my kids started school and we were looking into student/teacher ratios.  But what would that ratio be and how is it determined when there are things like applicant tracking systems and human resource management software that would affect that number?  And then we all know the age-old argument about having a seat at the table and being strategic – how does that tie in?  Does all this depend on what role the owners, board or executives expect HR to play within the organization?

When someone decides to pursue a career in human resources, what does that mean?  Does everyone have their own definition?  Did you know what you wanted to specialize in when you started or did you end up in a certain area because of experience?  I posted previously about HR using a lot of buzzwords and the confusion that results, but the term human resources sure seems awfully broad.

As I was researching the different areas and seeking a flow chart that would explain all this (I didn’t find one), I came across this article about the responsibility of HR employees.  This made me think even more about the challenge of working in HR.  If you read this article, you can see an example of how the author, an HR Director, was held accountable for things she had little to no control over.  Doesn’t operating in this manner ultimately hurt the business?  

How does a company figure out not only that it has the right number of HR professionals, but that they are responsible for the things they should be?

Please share thoughts and experiences in the comments.

Who would have thought that commuting costs would figure into a person’s decision to stay or leave a company?  Unfortunately, this is a fact now.  In my area of the country, I’ve seen gas prices of $4.35/gallon.  Most of the country has hit $4.00 and prices are expected to go up higher still.    Workplace studies show that the average commute for an employee is about 30 miles. Depending on the car the employee owns, this will really add up for some of your employees.  It reminds me of the question stay at home moms consider when deciding whether or not to reenter the workforce – does the cost of child care outweigh the salary and benefits?  Is it worth it?  HR departments need to explore ways to assist employees with these costs in an effort to retain and attract top talent. 

If you have employees who travel a significant distance to come to work, you can bet they will be considering a position closer to home.  They almost have to.  However, there are things your company can do to try to help your employees.

Change the schedule.– One example of this would be to lengthen each day and take Fridays or Mondays off the schedule.  Many employees would jump at the chance to work four, 10 hour days and have a three day weekend.  This also removes a roundtrip, saving a whole day’s worth of gas. 

Coordinate car-pooling. – You can do this yourself internally with carpool boards or on your intranet, or you can recommend employees go to a site that will do it for them, such as erideshare.com.  Encouraging your employees to get involved shows you are aware that gas prices are affecting them.  If differing schedules are an issue, be open to considering assisting multiple employees to get on the same schedule in order to make it work.

Offer on-site lunches.– Explore ways to feed your staff and keep them at work during lunch.  You may be able to negotiate special pricing with restaurants and catering businesses to make it more cost effective for employees to remain on-site.  This is also a great engagement tool, especially if once a month or so the company springs for the lunch.  Your employees get to socialize with other people in the company.  As with many of the other suggestions, this doesn’t have to be an every day event.  Offering the ability o order and buy lunch once or twice a week still helps.

Consider telecommuting where possible.- How many of your employees could work from home?  If you don’t want to make it permanent, be non-committal about the timeframe and relay to them that this is a program you will try temporarily, in order to help them get through this.  It doesn’t have to be all or nothing either.  Maybe some employees could work from home 1 or 2 days a week and be in the office the others.

Look into subsidizing public transportation.-  Are you familiar with public transportation in your city?  Can you offer incentives for employees to use it?  Or can you offer to pay for it?  This may prove to be a minimal cost compared to the cost of turnover and hiring and on-boarding.  Many times there are incentives offered by the public transportation authorities themselves such as group discounts or pre-tax savings for those who purchase passes through your company.  If your company is large, your organization may actually be able to negotiate an incentive program with the public transportation authority.

Work these solutions into your “green” program, too. – Many employees, particularly Gen Y, are interested in working for companies who care for the environment.  Going green is where it’s at, so you can use some of these solutions to demonstrate how you not only want to help your employees, but do your part to improve the environment as well.  You could roll the programs out as something you want to try to help with gas prices and want to keep in an effort to cut down on pollution. 

My best recommendation on all of these suggestions would be to take a vote.  If you’re not sure which program might be effective, ASK.  This situation provides your company with the ability to be transparent, which builds trust.  You can let them know you’re not sure what will work but you’d like their input and will explain any reservations.   The simple act of asking your employees what would help them demonstrates that you are aware of the impact that gas prices may be having on them and shows them that you want to do what you can to ease the burden.  Proving to them that you care will do wonders for your employer brand, engaging your employees, increasing retention, and attracting top talent.  Happy employees are productive employees, so putting in the effort means a win for everyone.  

Is your company currently offering any programs to help your employees deal with rising gas prices?  Do you plan to?  Please share any other examples in the comments.

Because I am a mom of elementary school age kids, I’ve been exposed to all sorts of strange and unusual ideas, concepts, and celebrations.  We have Dr. Seuss night (just a night to eat cake and hear stories to promote a love of reading) and we have the nights where we flush ice cubes down the toilet and sleep with pajamas on backwards and spoons under our pillows in order to get a snow day.  In preschool, my kids also had Opposite Day.  As I’m sure you can surmise, this is a day where everything you say and do is the opposite of what is expected.  (Luckily preschool makes this feasible – it’s only 2 hours and 3 or 4 year olds lack the stamina to really do EVERYTHING opposite.) 

As a parent, you learn to pick your battles, negotiate, and yes, use all sorts of psychology to achieve the goal of getting your toddler to eat, clean up, get in the car, or whatever it is you need him/her to do.  Early on, opposite day became one of my short-lived, but effective tools.  Simply declaring it Opposite Day (or Opposite Hour if need be) was usually enough to accomplish what I wanted.  But I never considered it a potential business tool until I read this.    

In this really interesting article, Peter Bregman suggests ways to change a corporate culture.  This explores a highly successful company with one major problem – people don’t want to work there.  His recommendation is to start by changing the stories your employees tell about the company they work for.  This is where Opposite Day comes into play.  You don’t announce Opposite Day, but instead you adopt an opposite mindset when making decisions and managing your people.  He suggests:

“To start a culture change all we need to do is two simple things:

1. Do dramatic story-worthy things that represent the culture we want to create. Then let other people tell stories about it.

1. Find other people who do story-worthy things that represent the culture we want to create. Then tell stories about them.

For example, if you want to create a faster moving, less perfectionist culture, instead of berating someone for sending an email without proper capitalization, send out a memo with typos in it.

Or if you want managers and employees to communicate more effectively, stop checking your computer in the middle of a conversation every time the new message sound beeps. Instead, put your computer to sleep when they walk in your office.

Or if you’re trying to create a more employee-focused culture, instead of making the bride work on her wedding day, give her the week off. “

In essence, think of it as opposite day.  If you don’t like your corporate culture and want to change it, consider what your company would typically do, then do the opposite and see what happens.  This could be the springboard for a new corporate culture.

What are your thoughts?  Have you ever worked to change a culture?  Is this a valid idea?

I was talking with someone recently about their company’s take on hiring from within. Although the organization was all for it, there were definite challenges in actually making it happen. These challenges sounded to me like they all revolve around Human Capital Management.

There are a number of benefits to hiring this from within such as:

• Already evaluated work performance as well as an employee’s ability to fit into company culture.
• It is much more cost effective to re-invest in an employee, even if you just consider recruiting cost alone.
• The employee already has knowledge of the culture, corporate policies, and your business goals.
• Advancement opportunities do wonders to increase engagement, instill loyalty, and lower turnover.

But this may not be so easy to implement, especially for very large organizations. I saw this video and it made me realize how many things you need to know to make hiring internally a valid and productive choice. It uses a funny comparison between the role a chair plays and the role an employee plays in the company to demonstrate these things. And of course, it ultimately winds up being a commercial for Human Capital Management systems, but the video raises some valid points nonetheless.

• Do you have a solid understanding of each employee’s strengths and weaknesses?
• Do you have knowledge of your employees’ career aspirations and focus on training and career development?
• Do you know what your company has already invested in each employee?
• Are you aware of the specific contributions made by your employees?

All of these things have to be there in order for you to successfully tap into a pool of potential candidates. 

What’s your takeon it? Does your organization take steps to hire from within and is it successful? Do many of your employees lose opportunities and do you lose out on this resource because of poor human capital management?  Do you have processes in place to make this a viable option?  Do you see the relationship between hiring from within and Human Capital Management?

We’ve all heard the saying, “one bad apple spoils the bunch”.  In some cases this refers to guilt by association.   What I am referring to is that one bad attitude can bring down the rest of the team.  This is particularly relevant now, when employee engagement is low and one of HR’s biggest challenges is attracting and retaining top talent.

I read an interesting article about leaders being disengaged that makes the claim that “leaders are the unrecognized victims of the recession.”  Immediately, red flags waved in front of my eyes.  Corporate culture plays an important role in engagement levels within organizations and if the leaders aren’t engaged?  Well, that is not good.  How can the culture be positive and full of energy if the leaders aren’t feeling it?  And how can each person’s attitude affect the company, leader or not?

This article is written by Theresa M. Welbourne, Ph.D, founder, President, and CEO of eePulse Inc. and EEPulse.com.  They use surveys about energy levels combined with different topics to draw correlations between energy and productivity.  The goal is to engage leaders in interactive dialogues about what’s happening to them and their companies for the purpose of learning, in closer to real time rather than waiting for studies and papers to be published when the topic may no longer be relevant.    (It’s pretty neat stuff). 

In this article she lists some sample comments of respondents explaining the reasons for their different energy levels such as, “working with people that are not passionate about their work is sapping the energy out of me” in the negative range and citing “working with superb – knowledgeable, committed and responsible colleagues” as a reason in the positive range. 

 Many comments attribute a component of energy level to those around them.  As you can see by those two examples though, the good news is that this can work both ways.  If you can address the negativity in those employees and nurture the positive attitude in others, you will see a difference in the whole corporate culture.  Have you ever been in a great mood and talked to someone who is crabby?  Don’t you walk away a little less happy?    On the flip side, have you ever been cranky and irritated and spoken to someone who is passionate and upbeat?  Don’t you walk away just a little bit more optimistic?

The bottom line is not to underestimate the power of the relationships that exist in the workplace.  Someone who is pessimistic, negative and just a drag to be around is going to affect how others think and feel.  Don’t let one bad apple spoil the bunch.

A few decades ago, Human Resources was mainly centralized around managing personnel, policing corporate policy and keeping records.  As HR has evolved it has come to mean many things with many off-shoots under the Human Resource umbrella, and in some cases, the development of entire departments to manage separate areas.  For example, in some organizations Talent Management is its own entity that focuses on strategic functions such as inventorying the available talent pool, optimizing this individual talent to increase the organization’s ROI, and motivating employees to increase engagement (which increases retention which increases productivity).  In other companies, working in Talent Management means that you coordinate and execute training modules. The title Talent Acquisition may mean implementing tools like specialized testing, emotional intelligence assessment, and succession planning development where in another organization it’s simply a title for an entry level recruiter.

Think about the different organizations you know.  Are the industry buzzwords such as organizational development, performance management, learning and development, workforce optimization, and on boarding used in different ways to mean different things.  Are they sometimes interchangeable from one company to the next?  Many of these have been considered part of HR for awhile now but as more emphasis is being place on human capital, is this still true.

There is a lot of confusion around these buzzwords.  Each may have a different meaning, be a subset of HR or have evolved into a stand alone department.  But is this a negative thing?  Is it preventing Human Resources from showing itself to be a strategic business department that aligns its Human Capital with strategic business objectives? Do some of these functions like I/O psychology and process management have their own place to stand alone and then appear in individual departments such as operations and finance?  Is all this verbiage a good thing for HR only as long as it remain within HR?

Is each organization run differently using various definitions? I would love to hear your experiences and opinions in the comments.

As I was perusing discussions on LinkedIn I came across a conversation about whether or not HR should allow hospitalized employees to work from their sick beds.  Once I started thinking about this and reading opinions, I realized that there are many angles to consider when determining what to do.

Simple Logistics:

Can the job be done effectively away from the office?  Does the company have to provide the equipment to make this possible?  Do you allow others in your organization to work remotely?  How much of a burden will be added to the person managing the sick employee?  How long is the anticipated recovery?

Legal Issues:

Are you obligated by the Americans with Disability Act to offer working from the hospital as an option?  This act states that not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of disabled employees is discrimination.  Is it discriminatory if you don’t provide the option if their doctors have approved this plan?

Financial Considerations:

Does your organization offer short or long term disability and sick pay?  If the employee is only able to work (and get paid for) a few hours a day, would he/she become ineligible for these benefits and ultimately suffer financial hardships at a time where he/she is probably racking up additional expenses?  From the company’s point of view, what about the differences between exempt and non-exempt employees?  If the employee is non-exempt you only pay for hours he/she tracks and submits.  Exempt employees will be paid for a full week even he/she is only able to work a few hours.

Physical and Mental Ramifications:

Will this situation prove stressful for the employee and will that end up affecting recovery?  Is working like this something the employee wants or is it something he/she feels is necessary?  On the flip side, could providing the opportunity to work from the hospital assist in the recovery process?  It could give keep him/her a purpose and inspire the employee to stay hopeful thereby taking his/her mind off of being ill.

Answering this question is a challenge and obviously each situation is unique, but if it makes sense there is a definite upside to working toward a solution that accommodates the sick employee.  You are sending an emphatic message that the people in your organization matter and this should improve employee engagement.

I listed a few reasons in my previous post that help explain why Gen Y has the work ethic and value system that they have.  Using this knowledge can help you get a better understanding of the things they are looking for when choosing an employer. This, in turn, will ultimately help your organization determine what you need to provide to attract the key talent from this generation and then retain it.

If this generation is focused on minimizing some of the “stuff” their parents worked so hard to get, is more money going to be a huge incentive? If they expect to be praised and appreciated can you manage them effectively with the mindset that “they have to put in their time”?  If you have a generation of employees who believe they can and should have it all, does it make sense to ignore career development in your organization?  If you understand their need for work/life balance based on the fact that they’ve witnessed that life can be very, very short, could your company choose its battles when it comes to things like sabbaticals and volunteer opportunities?  Knowing that this generation is extremely adept and comfortable with technology, will it create the right culture to monitor them like crazy rather than encourage them to spread their knowledge?

In the next five years, we will experience the largest turnover in human capital history. Generation Y has a confidence in their talents and their own self-worth that is unusual in previous generations.  To some companies, it feels like they are being held hostage by these young employees.  In reality, it is just a different approach to work.  Is it impossible to embrace this approach while keeping your mature workforce satisfied?  I don’t know the answer to that but it seems to me that if everyone gets the same choices, why not?  New choices should help everyone.  Here are some examples:

Flexible work schedules.  Gen Y prefers to be measured on the quality of work they do, not the hours they spend doing it.  Other generations may appreciate this new way of working, particularly if they are caring for young children or elderly parents.

Volunteer programs with time off to participate.  Gen Y wants to feel appreciated and that what they do is meaningful.  While they work their way up from entry level work, this could fulfill that need.  Other generations may appreciate the time to give back too, as they juggle their families and responsibilities. 

Focus on Career Development.  Gen Y wants to learn and grow.  If you want to keep them, you may have to provide work and training that will help them move on.  Ironically enough, this will help them stay.  Older generations should respond well, too.  This is one of the perks that engages most employees anyway.

Provide team spaces versus traditional conference rooms.  Gen Y is all about collaboration and mobility.  They don’t want to be stuck behind a desk.  The rest of your workforce might appreciate a more social atmosphere as well.

Develop a mentoring program for technology.  Gen Y doesn’t even think when it comes to using technology – it is the way they’ve always done things.  Enlist their help in updating your company’s technological goals.  They want to feel they are doing something meaningful and implementing programs like this will provide that for them.  Plus you get to tap into their knowledge to educate and inspire your mature workforce so your organization can be on the cutting edge.

Like it or not, the power in the workforce is shifting from the executives to the younger professionals.  This change doesn’t have to be bad.  With some understanding and a little creativity, these changes could end up positively impacting your entire corporate culture.

We are all familiar with the ongoing debate about whether Human Resources is strategic, whether it should be, and what role HR plays in the business goals of an organization.  I was trolling Amazon and ended up reading one of their “Look Inside” sections of Stephen Covey’s The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness.  Suddenly, the importance of Human Resources jumped off the page and I can’t even see how it’s really debatable.  Now I know this is a book from the middle of the last decade with research from that time, but I don’t think the relevance has changed.

Human Resources has been defined as “the name of the function within an organization charged with the overall responsibility for implementing strategies and policies relating to the management of individuals.”   So, in the broadest terms, if your role is to manage your workforce, take a look at the following for examples of how pivotal HR is to an organization.

Covey, citing data from a Harris Questionnaire of 23,000 U.S. residents employed full time in key industries and in key functional areas, summarizes the research that explains what employees are thinking.  As you read these, think engagement, talent optimization, retention, culture, relaying strategic business goals, and all the other HR buzzwords and functions that make up the things you need to worry about as an HR professional.

• Only 37 percent said they have a clear understanding of what their organization is trying to achieve and why.
• Only 1 in 5 was enthusiastic about their team’s and organization’s goals.
• Only 1 in 5 workers said they have a clear “line of sight” between their tasks and their team’s and organization’s goals.
• Only half were satisfied with the work they have accomplished at the end of the week.
• Only 15 percent felt that they organization fully enables them to execute key goals.
• Only 15 percent felt they worked in a high-trust environment.
• Only 17 percent felt their organization fosters open communication that is respectful of differing opinions and that results in new and better ideas.
• Only 10 percent felt that their organization holds people accountable for results.
• Only 20 percent fully trusted the organization they worked for.
• Only 13 percent have high-trust, highly cooperative working relationships with other groups or departments.

I think anyone would agree that these are problems.  When it comes to fixing them, how could anyone BUT Human Resources be effective?   Managing the above IS managing individuals.    

And if skeptics don’t see the importance of addressing these misperceptions (remember, perception matters more than what is real here), give them Covey’s example:

“If, say, a soccer team had these same scores, only four of the eleven players on the field would know which goal is theirs. Only two of the eleven would care. Only two of the eleven would know what position they play and know exactly what they are supposed to do. And all but two players would, in some way, be competing against their own team members rather than the opponent.”

Do you think this team’s going to win many games?  Do any of the other issues that plague an organization matter as much if this is the mindset of its employees?  By managing the individuals, HR is laying the groundwork for the company’s success.