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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Research shows that one very important factor in why older workers leave their jobs is because they don’t feel like they are needed anymore. Older employees will get discouraged when they feel their purpose is in doubt, anyone else in the company can do what they do – and more effectively, and if they start to feel like they are simply taking up space.

I previously posted about attracting and engaging Generation Y employees. That certainly needs to be addressed but another fact is that mature workers have a lot of experience, knowledge, and wisdom that can help your company be more successful. And this means that you need retention strategies for all the generations in your workforce. So what can you do to retain your older employees?

Start a mentoring program. This will help engage your younger employees while at the same time giving purpose and value to the older employees.

Encourage career development. Nothing sends the message that there isn’t any potential left than assuming older employees are uninterested in honing their skills or learning new ones. In addition, you can really benefit from the fact that years of working mean older employees are pretty quick learners.

Consider offering retirement preparation counseling. Just because someone can retire doesn’t mean they will. Older employees just want more control over their future. Providing assistance in this way may produce some interesting results, like someone moving into a different role within the organization or suggesting a consulting or telecommuting role where they continue to help your company on terms that appeal to the employee.

Be open to horizontal career moves. Many mature employees get bored and changing it up a bit may be all that is needed to relight the fire they’ve had in the past.

Provide a specialized wellness program. Incentivize mature employees to participate and offer programs that share dietary and exercise advice. Many older employees are beginning to think of these things in their personal lives. Providing expertise for them at work gives them another reason to stay and to feel valued.

Older employees are more loyal and tend to want to work at one place for the rest of their careers. They also have a strong work ethic, a deep knowledge base and are not as interested in climbing the corporate ladder. All of these can be of huge benefit to you in terms of lower turnover, which is expensive and great experience that can be passed onto your younger employees.  Because they are not fighting for the next promotion they also tend to stay in their jobs longer. 

Understand that retention programs can’t be exactly the same for everyone. Take a look at the percentage of mature workers your company employs and then realize that implementing strategies to retain this group is not only going to reduce costs, but can make your organization more successful.

Recruiting is an important piece of HR and hiring inexperienced recruiters could be having a big impact on your business.  A good recruiter does a lot more than ask a few generic interview questions, match up key words between a resume and a job description, and comment on whether the candidate presented well in the interview. 

Employees are the most valuable asset in any organization so doesn’t it make sense that your most highly qualified and expert talent is in the recruiting area? 

If you are a company that values creativity with employees who think outside the box, bring a different perspective to the table, and are problem solvers you should assess your recruiters.  Do your recruiters have a lot of experience?  Do they have solid business acumen?  Have they been well trained and do they use statistics and science or do they rely on instinct and operate on the surface level of filling jobs, such as matching key words?

Many times, companies say one thing and do another.  If you want to attract top talent and give your organization a competitive advantage you must be sure the people doing your hiring are of the highest level of talent themselves.   

Do your recruiters sit down with the hiring managers to understand in depth what the position entails?  Do they make recommendations that encompass not only technical expertise and previous experience but also the more difficult to identify soft skills? Do they consider strategic corporate goals when interviewing and discuss business objective such as performance management and succession planning? 

Good recruiters may be more important than you realize.  The more talented they are the more talented your staff will be and ultimately, the more productive and profitable your company will be overall.

I came across an interesting quote the other day from David Fairhurst, chief people officer at McDonald’s.  He said, “The more you give your people transferable skills, the less they want to transfer.”

Have you ever approached Career Training and Development in this way?  Now these things are more important than ever.  Many organizations have had to reallocate job responsibilities due to cutbacks so providing training is crucial just to get the job done productively.  But beyond that, this is a great engagement tool!  This is more important than ever as one of the biggest HR concerns is losing top talent.

In this day and age, there is as definite lack of loyalty both on the part of employers as well as employees.  It is incredibly rare to find employees who believe they will work for an organization for decades or have found their home, but ironically, offering employees options to move on tends to increase the likelihood that they will stay.  Why?

Career development and training keep employees focuses on internal opportunities.  It also makes them feel heard and valued as an individual with needs, one of the top job motivators.  It develops trust that there are growth opportunities and their potential to advance is recognized.  Investing in employees’ futures can remove the mindset that an employee would prefer to get a new job rather than deal with issues or concerns in their present role.  In short, it builds a sense of loyalty – if you do for them, they want to do for you.  It also increases their interest in going to work each day.  Being excited about the job equals engagement and engaged people want to stay.  They are also far more productive and will be a genuine benefit to your organization.

Think about this quote by Walter Chrysler.  ““I feel sorry for the person who can’t get genuinely excited about his work. Not only will he never be satisfied, but he will never achieve anything worthwhile.”  Don’t you want your employees achieving worthwhile things for your business?

How do approach training and career development?  Do you have the mindset that you need your employees to learn things just to help the company or do you approach it as a way to view your top talent as people with needs?  Do these things fall under the category of retention tools in your organization?

I posted a while ago about letting your employees teach you how to re-recruit them.  Then I read a really great blog post by a fellow blogger, Terry Seamon in October, about listening.  I’ve suggested in the past that listening is a great retention tool and and he is offering that it is an act of leadership.  Dwane Lay, another fellow HR blogger, explains in November how listening to your team will also develop trust.  I brought up a number of questions to ask and Terry developed a strategy for how to listen and then what to do with the answers.   Dwane suggests numerous reasons why listening to your people means you are listening to the right people and how this will ultimately assist you in making sound business decisions. 

Retaining top talent is one of the largest concerns HR has right now and that is not going to change anytime soon.   Because there are multiple reasons for this problem, there are multiple solutions as well.  But a common denominator to the success of these solutions comes from listening.  

What does listening cost the company?  Nothing.

Yes, I and others strongly recommend that once you hear, you take action.  But even if you can’t make sweeping change to your organization right now, the benefits of sincerely listening will still be felt.  Employees want to feel validated and work in an environment where their opinions and ideas matter.  If you don’t listen sincerely, trust that your employees will know it and you’ll end up with the attitude I discuss here.

Changing the organization’s style will pay off in increased trust, higher engagement, better retention, and ultimately greater production.  As these things occur, you can then invest more and more into implementing changes your employees recommend.  Start small and start with developing your listening skills.

Think about it this way.  How much time do you spend pretending to listen to comments and concerns in order to show employees you care?   What does that cost you?  Are you actually just letting them vent or are you honestly considering what they have to say?  Have you ever tried to make listening to your employees a top business priority?

I posted last week about a dilemma that stemmed from organizations who will not consider hiring the unemployed.  In the past I could understand to a  certain degree why companies would’ve shied away from those who were laid off simply because traditionally, the majority of employees reduced in a layoff were let go because they were not as productive as the workforce that remained. 

But is it fair to assume that this is still true in this economy, where employees may have made it through the first 3 rounds of layoffs, but have now been let go?  We are talking ROUNDS of layoffs and I can’t imagine THAT many unproductive employees would’ve stayed on the payroll through multiple layoffs.  The world has changed and I don’t think you can safely assume that the unemployed were all a part of a reduction in force due to their own actions. 

That being said, here are some other reasons it makes sense to consider hiring the unemployed.

Better retention – Those without a job are not going to be eager to risk one once they get one.  They may even help retain your current employees by sharing the struggles they endured while they were out of work.

Strong employer brand – Now that it is common knowledge that many companies won’t even consider hiring the unemployed, think about what it will do to your employer brand that you do.  You are open-minded, non-discriminatory, and have a heart – all things that attract talent and inspire loyalty.

Updated skills and a different perspective – Many of the unemployed are using this time to brush up on their abilities, learn about trends and build up industry knowledge.  They just may be able to provide valuable insight simply because they invested time in learning while they were off.

New networks – Candidates looking for work spend a considerable amount of time networking.  These relationships could prove very beneficial to your business in the form of customers, industry experts, and additional highly qualified hires.  A lot of success comes from who you know.

The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act  – Many organizations can take advantage of tax breaks by hiring the unemployed.  This can help your company recover financially as well as help the entire economy move forward.  There isn’t much time left though, unless it is extended.

What do you think about hiring the unemployed?