CareerCurve™

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.

I was following a discussion recently on LinkedIn regarding whether or not a hiring manager can and/or should disclose to an interviewee why he/she wasn’t hired, if asked.  Initially, I was surprised that there would be so much discussion around this.  When I understood why, it quickly became evident that there are two main groups of participants – those that are most concerned about risk and potential discrimination suits and those that are more focused on transparency and doing the right thing.  This is not to say that those who strongly consider risk are unconcerned about doing the right thing or that those who want to be transparent don’t care about lawsuits.  But those participating in the conversation are passionate about one of these two positions and this weighs in heavily when  choosing whether or not it is a good idea to explain to candidates why they didn’t get the job.

As I read through the many comments, it became fairly obvious that there are far fewer reasons NOT to give specifics than there are reasons to provide honest feedback.  The main reasons not to include:

• The fear of legal ramifications.  This is by far the most commonly cited reason for not giving specific explanations on why someone didn’t get the job.

• There are just so many candidates for each position it is unrealistic to think that detail can be provided to them all.

• Arguing or further “selling” of qualifications to the interviewer delivering feedback that results in time wasted for both parties.

• In many cases, particularly for high level positions, there are multiple candidates that are equally qualified and the decision comes down to chemistry.  It is not possible to relay that to a candidate in a way that mitigates risk.

Now let me list some reasons to give feedback to an interviewee:

• The candidate receives useful information that can help them with the job search and in future interviews.

• It is good manners and common courtesy and HR is supposed to be about people.  Also, it is about respect.  The candidate has spent time completing applications and preparing for interviews and this should be acknowledged with feedback.

• The company improves its reputation by being honest.  Candidates learn that there is a transparent culture and will spread the word.  Current employees will learn about this behavior as well and these facts results in an employer brand and corporate culture based around trust.  Trust increases engagement and retention, which boosts productivity.  It also helps attract high quality candidates.

• Giving specific feedback shows your organization has nothing to hide.  And those that feel discriminated against and intend to take legal action are going to move forward no matter what you say them.

• Well-trained hiring managers can effectively word these points in a way that mitigates risk of lawsuits.  It is possible to provide feedback specific to the interview that is based on fact and supported by documentation, but your employees need to be trained to do it properly.

• No feedback on why a candidate was not hired allows the candidate to presume it was based on some discriminatory reason such as age, race, gender, etc.  If you provide specific examples of what went wrong, a candidate can no longer assume discrimination is responsible for he/she not getting the job.

• In the future, the interviewee may be highly qualified for a different role within your company.  The way you treat the candidate now has everything to do with how a conversation will go later.

My take on all this is that the rewards for giving specific explanations to an interviewee far outweigh the risks.  Maybe I am too idealistic, but are there really that many people out there interviewing who are looking to position themselves to win a lawsuit?  Is it really that time-consuming if you are only providing detailed information to those who not only interviewed, but also asked for it?  Can’t the hiring manager control the conversation to ensure this doesn’t turn into another interview when the candidate tries to resell his/her qualifications?  Aren’t there ways to explain chemistry without discriminating, such as letting the candidate know he/she lacked excitement or energy in the interview or that another candidate was more proactive in offering solutions during the interview?  Doesn’t this just come down to properly training your managers?

What are your thoughts as HR professionals?  Do you mitigate risk at all costs or do you lean toward openness and honestly?  Is this working or can you name a time when it turned out to be the wrong move?

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.

HR deals with many employee issues but one that is particularly challenging is administering FMLA.  This law protects employees’ positions and benefits while giving them the ability to manage some of life’s biggest challenges, including health issues of their own or of family members (increasingly common as baby boomers care for aging parents), pregnancy, adoption and other family obligations that arise.  This law can be tricky and can also be abused.

Many times the perception exists that this law protects employees to the extent that they can take leave for any reason under any circumstances.  Even though it may feel as if employees have a free pass, there are things you can do to control abuse and reduce disruption to company operations while still following the law.  Because one of the most difficult aspects of FMLA to manage is intermittent leave.

Intermittent leave is when time off is taken in chunks rather than all at once.  For example, an employee who requires medical treatment three times a week may take four hour blocks of time three times a week for six weeks.  How do you mange this with as little disruption to the rest of the workforce as possible?

• Work with the employee to schedule intermittent leave.  FMLA obligates the employee requesting it to work with the employer to schedule treatments so they are the least disruptive to company operations.  In addition, if the option exists to schedule treatment on days off or after hours, the employee must do so.

• Ask for information on your medical certification request form regarding the employee’s projected number of treatments, dates of treatments, and how much time will be needed for recovery following each treatment. With the employee’s consent, you may also use your designated health care provider to ask the employee’s health care provider whether the treatments might be scheduled at alternative times that would not require the employee to miss work.

• Request recertification.  Generally you’re allowed to request this every 30 days and you should.  Things change and this will cut down on abuse by insuring the leave is still necessary.

• To reduce distraction to the rest of the workforce, you can also move the employee into a different role if their current position requires coverage at all times and it will interfere with the business’s operations for the employee to be absent.  This can also be done if it will assist in the recovery of the employee.  The same pay and benefits must be maintained even if the job changes.

FMLA can be confusing and sometimes feel like it leaves you with few rights and little control.  With a little bit of research and some well thought out policies you can regain some control, diminish abuse, and reduce negative abuse on the company.

Attracting and retaining top talent has been a key conversation in HR for a while now and it is not going away.  Our economy is improving and unemployment is dropping, but the rate at which this recovery is happening depends a lot on who you ask.  One thing that can’t be denied though is that it is happening slowly. 

Businesses are finding themselves in a situation where they want to staff up so they can support recovery but they don’t want to be overstaffed if the recovery slows down even more.  Ultimately, this means that talent optimization is not only a cost effective solution to this conundrum but it is also the safest solution.  And caution seems to be the word of the times.

Talent optimization is a concept that in its broadest definition means making the most of the talent you have.  But what does that mean in a practical sense?   And how do you not only achieve it, but know you’ve achieved it when you do?

Effective talent optimization requires a well thought out and deliverable strategy.  This concept cannot be some pie in the sky theory that is discussed ad nauseum with no executable game plan.  Talent optimization can easily fall into the category of when is a strategy not a strategy?  (Great article, by the way!)

Here are some key components to creating a Talent Optimization Strategy:

Strategic Alignment – Leadership, culture and business goals must be in alignment.  Without this, there is no hope that any strategy will succeed, especially one involving human capital.

Talent Assessment – There must be metrics in place to accurately assess performance in your people.  And high-level measurements and data analytic tools with which to do that.  You can’t optimize talent if you don’t know what that talent is.

Programs – Learning, development, and succession planning programs that take the defined talent and move it to the next level.

More Metrics – As important as it is to measure talent, you also have to be able to asses the results of any programs you do implement.  How else can you tell if your talent optimization strategy is having any effect?

These are obviously high level suggestions for what needs to be a very detailed and cohesive strategy.  But you do need a strategy.  Companies that are aware of the importance of this are creating organizational development roles internally and/or working with firms such as ours, or other consultants to achieve these goals. 

What are you doing to optimize your talent?  Do you have a set strategy?  Do you see the need for one?

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.

Given the economic conditions, it is highly likely that you have employees currently experiencing the stress of an unemployed spouse.  Unemployment ranks near the top of the list when it comes to most stress-inducing life experiences, along with divorce and death.  If an employee is living with someone who is going through this doesn’t it stand to reason that this is affecting your employee as well? And does this stress decrease your employee’s productivity?  According to a recent study, yes it does.

Associate Professor Maw-Der Foo and lead author Professor Zhaoli Song of the National University of Singapore co-authored a paper called “Unraveling the Stress Crossover Between the Unemployed and Their Spouses”.  To summarize part of what they discovered, an unemployed spouse can mean a less productive employee.  According to Foo, “our findings call for more attention on the family as an integrated system in responding to the unemployment situation.”

Can and should your organization do anything to assist?  I can think of a few reasons that you should: 

• A calmer and happier employee will be more productive.
• Engagement and retention rates will be higher for those who feel supported by their organization.
• Demonstrating that you care for your employees will positively influence your corporate culture and brand, making you attractive to top performers when you are hiring.

Learning how to support an unemployed spouse in a healthy way could really make a difference to an employee who not only has the added burden of being the sole bread winner, but also has to navigate the emotional terrain of their partner.   But what can your company actually do?

Offer stress management information.  This could be in the form of newsletters, literature, webinars or a counseling session on site.  This could also be as simple as sending a mass email with a link to a relevant article every Friday.

Provide coaching for the employee.  These employees may find themselves stuck between being so compassionate they end up enabling and pushing so hard they seem uncaring.  A healthy balance makes all the difference in successfully supporting their spouse.

Schedule financial management workshops focused on suggestions of how to save money.  Most people have experienced the fear of instability in one way or another over the last couple of years.  As a result, more people are thinking of the future.  This means that practical suggestions on how to live on less money would be very useful, not only to employees with an unemployed spouse but to all employees.

Create a support group within the organization.  This could be done using social media or your intranet.  You could also provide resources to external support groups that already exist.

Taking a little initiative to understand and assist this employee challenge can mean a big payoff for your company.

I am fascinated by ROWE, which stands for Results Only Work Environment and is exactly that - an environment where how, when and where work is accomplished is completely irrelevant. 

Most managers say they evaluate employee performance on the results produced, but is this true?  Don’t things like showing up for work, being available for and attending meetings, and managing corporate politics play a large part in how an employee is evaluated?  With ROWE all of these things are thrown out the window and employees are  evaluated strictly on the quality of work produced. 

ROWE, quite simply, revolves around trusting your employees.  And trusting employees increases engagement and motivation which increases productivity for the company as a whole.  As you know, I am all about instilling trust and the benefits of it, but is it realistic?

This article does a nice job of summarizing the components of creating this type of work environment as well as the types of businesses where it could be successful and the industries where it could not.  I personally find the whole concept very appealing and can see how it could create the type of corporate culture that would not only attract the best and the brightest, but would be a great retention tool as well.  Then, when I stop to think about the details involved in actually running a company this way it’s hard to wrap my head around the fact that anything could actually be accomplished in a timely manner.

Doesn’t a successful company revolve around commitments and deadlines managed by numerous people to accomplish the business objectives?  How do you manage that without meetings, set availability of team members and mandatory updates on progress?  And legally, are the complications it presents worth the rewards?

Have any of you encountered this type of management philosophy?  Was it difficult to implement and do you see better results than a traditionally run organization?  Are your employees happier and more productive and is the quality of their work higher?  Please share real-life experiences 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.