Timothy Williams' H.R. Insights

Challenge and Growth: The Keys to Life-Long Satisfaction

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:00:00 +0000

This is the last of the series of e-zines that are written on what I consider to be the four foundational elements for building a positive workplace. In the prior three e-zines I looked at the topics of building a positive culture, productivity and quality relationships. In this one, I want to look at the relationship between continual learning and viewing the workplace as a positive experience. My hypothesis is that work is more attractive when an employee experiences challenge and growth on a regular basis. As is true of all the e-zines, the following reflects some of my thoughts on the topic as compiled from my reading and experiences.

I feel the need, however, to begin with a disclaimer. I do not believe that all employees desire challenge and growth. This fact is not necessarily bad for the organization so long as work is effectively being done. In any regard, for a variety of reasons there are employees who, at various times in their lives, are content to come to work, do their job and go home. Being challenged to grow is not seen as a positive to them as it requires effort and focus that these employees would rather not provide. But, I believe that this group of employees is usually in the minority, that they can change and that the learning organization, as it has been called by Peter Senge, is the desirable place for most employees.

Additionally, I believe there is a common view that growing means moving up and/or out in the organization. But in my view, while that would frequently be true, it seems to me possible that one can experience a lifetime of growth while remaining in the same position throughout the entire span of employment. A patrol officer in a police department, for example, can do the same job for 30 years and still find plenty of opportunity for personal and professional growth. I think we do individuals in the organization a disservice when we automatically conclude that someone who has been in their position for a long period of time is stuck. People do get stuck, but staying in the same position for a long period of time is not necessarily the measure of that fact and people can be stuck even when they move from position to position.

Similarly, if an individual is not doing well in a position, learning something new or acquiring new skills may not be the answer to the problem. The individual may be a poor fit for the position. If a position, for example, needs a gregarious person who meets new people easily and the organization has promoted an individual into the position whose personality is reclusive, it may not be wise to conclude that the person simply needs to "meet the challenge and grow."

Also, I do want to emphasize that this article is not about a performance improvement plan where an employee has been found wanting and is being directed to "grow." The issues and problems that surround informal and formal disciplinary acts have their own unique dynamics. That is not to say that growth which occurs through a performance improvement plan is not valuable, but rather to simply recognize that there are unique elements to corrective action that lay outside the scope of this short essay.

Having laid out the above points, I want to return to my hypothesis that meeting challenges, learning new skills and concepts – growing is invigorating. The following are four suggestions on how the organization can help create an environment where employees find plenty of opportunity to grow and where accepting new challenges becomes part of the enjoyment of work.

First, the social psychologist Anselm Strauss in his excellent book Mirrors and Masks discusses the two conditions that create growth and change in an adult. The first is the desire to change and the second involves receiving the type of feedback that will allow someone to know how or what to change. The bottom line of the first point is that when someone does not want to change you will receive resistance not growth. The solution to this problem is not to focus on the resistance but to focus on the absence of any desire to change. By looking for a method to help build desire, resistance should simply disappear.

As a person who has conducted a great many training programs, I have on many occasions encountered a situation where an individual in the session talks a great game but is identified to me as the chief violator of effectiveness protocols. This is where Strauss' second point fits in, I believe that individuals often see themselves as doing the right thing but need a coach to help them see where they are making mistakes.

A personal example I frequently use in presentations involves my experience on the golf course. Years of frustration at my inability to improve finally led me to a coach. His first comment to me was that "if you practice the wrong thing you will simply get better at being bad." Work with a video camera and his expert observations has substantially improved my golf game and enormously increased the enjoyment of playing golf.

Strauss' two points are clearly demonstrated here. I very much wanted to grow and I got the coaching I needed in order to know what I needed to change if I wanted to improve. As a side note, this is one of the reasons why I believe that a lot of corporate training is a waste of time. It does not help people to recognize where they specifically need to change. The one size fits all simply does not facilitate personal growth.

Second, psychologist Carl Rogers is famous for saying that "we all grow best in an environment of positive social regard." The difficulty many organizations have is that growth is often the byproduct of mistakes. Mistakes or incidents create what I have heard called the "teachable moment." These become wonderful opportunities for lessons to be learned but so often there is a tension and defensiveness to the environment that it makes growing in the positive sense extremely difficult. My experience has been that when there is a big boo-boo, there is not a lot of positive social regard running around.

It seems to me that there are two parts to dealing with this problem. First, the supervisor or person using the incident for learning purposes has to avoid finger-pointing behavior. The focus has to be on the lesson that is to be learned as opposed to the mistake that was made.

Second, I want to draw from my experience playing baseball (first golf then baseball, good grief). In baseball when you make an error all your teammates turn to you and say, "shake it off, shake it off." They all know that if the negative affect lingers in the players mind, the player is more likely to make another error. Similarly, for a situation to be turned into a positive learning experience, the person who has made the mistake in a corporate setting has to "shake off" the internal negative affect created by making the mistake. Unfortunately, supervisors are not necessarily skilled in using the shake it off, shake it off mantra.

Third, I am convinced that the most productive kind of learning comes from genuine dialog. Being talked to by your supervisor or going to a training program where you're talked at may have some value, but I do not believe it reaches the deeper levels for change and growth. That is not to deny that some supervisors are extremely good at engaging subordinates in meaningful interaction. Additionally, as a member of the National Speakers Association, I am aware that one measure of a truly effective speaker (trainer) is the ability to create a sense of dialogue between speaker and each individual member of an audience. Still, there is something truly unique about dialog. Perhaps most important it can create synergy around problems and solutions.

This is one of the reasons that I have worked with some of my colleagues to create what we call a dialog deck. Our dialogue decks looked like a regular playing cards on each of which is a question for discussion. Supervisors or trainers can use the deck to stimulate interaction – dialog. Typically the decks are written around touchy subjects that people often find difficult to discuss. My experience has been very good in being able to use the deck to create a non defensive dialogue around these topics.

Fourth and finally, I am a believer that learning energizes the individual. I am also a believer that daily routine can dull our mental capacities. I am sharply critical of many training programs that are offered by organizations. Some of this negativity will undoubtedly be explained in future e-zines for the purpose improving what is offered. Paradoxically I am a strong believer in a well designed facilitated learning experience. This is an opportunity for people to dialogue about important issues, to consider different points of view, to expand their knowledge on a subject, to be renewed and refreshed. One important measure of good training ought to be the amount of energy that is created by the program.

It is absolutely clear in my mind that dynamic learning makes work a better place to be.

Next Month: Last quarter I taught a new course in the MPA program titled Managing the Performance of Public Sector Employees. I plan on sharing some of the ideas with you that came out of that class.

Answer to question

I recently applied for a transfer within my organization. I received an e-mail message back from the HR Director in which she indicated that in her perception I was over qualified for the position and therefore was not being considered. Isn't this a decision for me to make and do I have any legal protections?

Years ago I was arbitrating a dispute between teachers and a school district in a rural western state. The teachers introduced into evidence a decision by a local judge involving a similar type of dispute that had led to a legal action by the teachers against the district. I treasure part of the judge's decision in which he wrote in a manner that only a rural judge can that, "unfortunately there is nothing in statute that protects teachers against the stupidity of management."

The simple fact is, and the judge is obviously correct, that the law affords management substantial freedom to act as it perceives best. Therefore, management can act with great brilliance or substantial stupidity; freedom allows choice. I frequently in my discussions with my graduate students and other individuals find that there is a mistaken belief that somehow the law protects the employee against a bad decision. It does not unless that decision violates some specific prohibition such as the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of race or the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of a disability.

As to the matter of being over qualified, the HR Director shares a perspective common to a lot of organizations. Over qualified employees usually don't last very long in a position and are often unhappy during the time that they perform the duties of the position. It is not unreasonable for an organization to want to find an employee that is a good fit for the position. While it can be frustrating to a person who has applied for a position to see someone less qualified, from an experience and education perspective, receive the transfer, less qualified may actually be better qualified. This is one of the reasons that organizations speak about upward mobility and why they rarely consider downward mobility.

Books

Professional Growth: We know what to do, but we don't do it, why not? How would you like to have three keys that will significantly help you move from the knowing of how to proceed to the actual implementation?

Change Or Die: The Three Keys To Change At Work And In Life
Alan Deutschman

Personal Growth: Marti Seligman has done it again. This is another of his books that has great practical application when it comes to the work we are all doing on improving our life; becoming more of what we want to be.

What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide To Successful Self-Improvement Learning To Accept Who You Are
Martin E. Seligman

Quotation

The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.

Alvin Toffler

Relationships: Quality is Not a Luxury

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:48:00 +0000

I am sure you have heard the phrase, “I am professional; I do not have to like you to be able to work with you.” While there is obviously some level of truth to this saying, it clearly does not describe an ideal situation. The simple fact is that business is much easier to conduct when relationships amongst the players are positive. I believe that all of us find it easier to work when our professional relationships are marked with respect, trust and a positive affect.

This is the third in a series of four e-zines which are looking at what I call the foundational elements for creating a great workplace. The first of the four looked at the organizational culture, the second at the concept of productivity and the last will look at growth and advancement. This e-zine focuses on the quality of relationships under the belief that attractive workplaces are marked with great relationships. While it may be simplistic, I believe it is fundamentally true to say that all great things, at least in a business sense, flow from the quality of relationships. So what constitutes “quality?” Read on.

The Speed of Trust is a new book by Stephen M. R. Covey. The basic premise of this book is that business transactions and business activity all work more efficiently when there is a high level of trust in the relationship of the players. He makes a very compelling argument. In the absence of trust, everything slows down while the parties go to great lengths to do their “due diligence.” I have always believed that trust, in the context of business activities, is a reflection of reliability. Or, how about this from Confucius: If language is not in accordance with the truth of things, then affairs cannot be carried on to success. Double speak will destroy trust very quickly.

In 2005 Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman released their book First Break All the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers do Differently. Based on a massive amount of data collected by the Gallup organization, this book explores what organizations successfully do to keep their top performers. Not surprisingly, having a great relationship with one’s supervisor and having a close friend at work are two of the top five reasons why top performers stay.

One of the series of courses in the MBA program that I teach at Portland State University is in the area of labor relations. Does it surprise you at all for me to say that the quality of the relationship between the labor organization and the management is a critical component in how quickly and effectively they are able to resolve problems? If their relationship is strained, marked with distrust and full of animus, problem solving is often a tortured event. On the other hand, even when disagreement is substantial, where the parties respect each other they are far more likely to successfully work through the problem and find a solution acceptable to both.

Enough talk about why quality relationships are an essential part of a great workplace. The important question focuses on what can be done to create positive relationships. I have a thought or two to share with you in response.

To begin, I read somewhere in the distant past that many of the effective approaches to improving the quality of relationships are counter-intuitive. That is, these approaches involve doing the exact opposite of what we feel like doing. One of my favorite Abraham Lincoln quotes is his statement, “I find when I do not like a man that I need to get to know him better.” This is what I believe is meant by counter-intuitive. I usually find that when I do not like a man, the last thing in the world I want to do is to get to know him better (think of your favorite political whipping person). Yet most of us, when we study the matter, probably agree with the sentiment expressed by Lincoln.

Also, what I have found about building relationships is that the Robert Sutton book, The Knowing-Doing Gap definitely applies – knowing what to do is easy; it is the doing that is hard. Don Miguel Ruiz, in his marvelous book The Four Agreements, repeats on a number of occasions that each of the “agreements” are simple, very powerful and hard to do; with the first (be impeccable with your word) being the hardest.

I agree and, therefore, put before you three simple, powerful, counter-intuitive and hard to do suggestions.

First, Roger Fisher and Scott Brown, in their book Getting Together: Building a Relationship that Gets to Yes provides two key thoughts. They argue that a quality relationship should be pursued separately from the business issues that are being dealt with. Trying to build a relationship at the same time that one is dealing with a sticky business problem is difficult at best. Moreover, it is possible to build and maintain a good relationship even where the parties disagree on an issue. Respectful disagreement is possible and in almost every case will lead to better solutions and outcomes than disrespectful disagreement.

Additionally, Fisher and Brown are great proponents of what they call “unconditionally constructive behavior.” This is what I consider to be the counter-intuitive aspect of what they are proposing. Typically, we condition our constructive behavior upon the positive behavior of the other party. If they are less than honest, we are less than honest with them. If they fail to consult with us, we choose not to consult with them. According to Fisher and Brown, everyone loses when you participate in this game. One engages in unconditionally constructive behavior because it is in your best interest to do so. There is no benevolence or altruism involved. For example, one acts reliably even if the other acts unreliably because to act reliably is in your best interest. There are no positive payoffs from acting unreliably regardless of what the other party is doing.

Second, dealing with grumpy, grouchy, demanding people is frustrating and usually produces personal fantasies filled with revenge themes – how can I best get even with this person. Here is a counter-intuitive idea from the book and training film titled Fish! One of the most popular training films ever and based on a fish market at the famous Pike Place Street Market in Seattle, Washington, Fish! encourages us to “make the day” of the contentious person. Instead of “getting even” strategies, why not pursue the goal of making the individual’s interaction with yourself the best part of that person’s day? Two amazing things happen when you pursue this goal. One is that you may find an astonishing transformation in the person you are dealing with. The other is that you will feel much better personally when pursuing a positive strategy as opposed to being consumed by negative thoughts and actions.

Remember what I said earlier: these are simple, powerful concepts that are difficult to implement. It is hard to want to “make the day” of a person standing in front of you who is doing everything possible to make your day miserable.

Finally, I want to set forth Robert Greenleaf’s thoroughly discussed topic of servant leadership. Greenleaf’s work emphasizes that leadership is most effective when it is not viewed as power over subordinates, but rather is seen as being in service to those around you. Since Greenleaf’s original work in the nineteen eighties, there have been a multitude of other books written on the same subject. The point is always the same: being in service is far more effective than lording it over.

Applying the same reasoning to relationships, I would like to promote servant relationships. Tim Sanders' book Love is the Killer App provides excellent ideas on how one can properly express love in the workplace by being in service. Sanders believes that love is the killer app because it ultimately is the most powerful business tool.

A closing thought; Robert Heinlein is one of my favorite science fiction writers. Before his death he wrote almost 100 books. His best known character is a man by the name of Lazarus Long (still living at the age of 3,000). Lazarus Long is an interstellar warrior along the lines of Hans Solo. There is a little book called The Famous Quotations of Lazarus Long and in it you will find:

Always remember this; your enemy is not wrong in his own eyes. If you keep this in mind you may be able to make him your friend. If not kill him, but not with hate.

Whenever I use this quote I always remind the audience that on a planet far, far away killing may not be a problem. On earth it is a different matter. So, go easy on the killing part. There are two aspects of the quote, however, which I am very fond of. First, there is the counter-intuitive concept of turning your enemy into your friend. Second, and a good place to end this column, hate is a sure destroyer of relationships and it has no positive outcomes. Even when an organization is confronted with the necessity to take decisive action against an employee, a negative affect does not have to be a part of that process.

Next Month: Growth and Advancement as a component of the great workplace.

Reader Question

We are downsizing our agency by eliminating some programs. Most of the employees in those programs will be laid off. A substantial majority of the employees that will be laid off are over 40, while a significant majority of those retained are under 40. Are we in trouble?

Obviously you are concerned with what we call age discrimination. The ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) is the Federal statute of interest, and there may very well be state statutes that would apply. You should definitely assess your situation to determine whether there is a potential problem of sufficient risk that it warrants seeking specific legal advice. For example, you use the words “substantial majority.” What is the total number that you are laying off and what is the actual percentage of senior employees being laid off, as compared to the percentage of senior employees being retained? Is there a significant wage gap between the two groups? The arithmetic itself may make you vulnerable. If so, I would definitely want to check with a knowledgeable attorney as to how the law relates to your particular situation and as to whether there are court decisions that may give guidance on the matter.

While I will leave it to the attorneys to give specific council, there are some general comments that may be helpful with regard to employment and age discrimination. First, with regard to the concept of employment discrimination, there is both the issue of disparate treatment and disparate impact, both of which are prohibited by the ADEA. Disparate treatment involves singling out a protected group for adverse action. Disparate impact concerns what appears to be a neutral action, but one that disproportionately, adversely impinges on a protected class (senior employees being a protected class). Depending on the specific facts of the situation, either one of these two could be present in the situation described in the question. Most likely, however, the situation involves a question of disparate impact.

The antidote for a claim of disparate impact is a valid argument by the employer that actions were taken for a bona fide business reason. Be careful, what may appear on its face to be a neutral action (not favoring one group over another) may be seen quite differently by the courts. Here are some questions you might want to ask yourself:

Why are we closing these programs while keeping others?

Will we be reopening, in the near future, the same programs and hiring younger employees?
How is it that the programs we are closing have the senior employees while the programs we are keeping have the junior?
Are we denying bumping rights to our senior employees while in the past we have been open to finding positions for the senior employees in the programs we are retaining?

Answering these questions is important to fully understand the implications of what you are doing and to fully explore your vulnerabilities.

Books of the Month

Professional Growth: Marketing departments specialize in writing powerful, sticky messages. Regardless of your position, however, getting your messages to stick can have a substantial payoff. I found the following book very useful even though I have little to do with marketing.

Made to Stick - Chip Heath and Dan Heath

Personal Growth: Are you intrigued by the debate between science and theology? A Joyful Theology is a simple book with a powerful and deep message. I like books that expand your thinking and leave you feeling joyful.

A Joyful Theology – Sara Maitland

Quote of the Month

Instead of loving your enemy, treat your friend a little bit better.

Edgar Watson Howe

Productivity: the Art of Accomplishment

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Timothy Williams) — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:35:00 +0000

One can easily view the workplace as a sweatshop where poor employees toil on endlessly under unbearably harsh conditions. While there may be an element of truth to that perspective in some parts of the world, it is hardly an accurate characterization of work in the USA. When I ask my graduate students, as I do every year, to describe a workplace that is desirable to them, inevitably work is viewed as a place to accomplish something. They find that it is not enough to simply get paid for the time you spend at work. Satisfaction is directly related to a sense of achievement.

Many of the graduate students are working on advanced degrees because they view public service as a personal value. In other words, work becomes a better place to be when I leave each day feeling that my efforts have resulted in measurable, positive outcomes. On the other hand, it is discouraging to leave work with the gnawing sense that my time has been wasted. This is one of the reasons why so many of us dislike group meetings: these meetings are often poorly run and highly wasteful of participants time.

Now, before I go on, I must set forth a disclaimer. There are obviously those employees who are not particularity concerned about accomplishment. If an individual is exhausted because he or she is working two low paying jobs in order to survive financially, personal satisfaction from high accomplishment is probably not on the top of the list. On the other hand, if a person is beset with personal problems, getting by and getting a paycheck may be more than sufficient to that person. While there are constructive strategies for managing employees who are not accomplishment-oriented, that is a topic for a different e-zine and not a concern of this one.

Ultimately, however, I believe that the vast majority of employees like to work in a situation where they believe their time is well spent and for a boss who is good at helping employees get the job done. The remainder of this e-zine focuses on concepts and actions related to creating a productive workplace.

About fifteen years ago there was a wildcat strike at a GM plant in Flint, Michigan. A wildcat strike occurs during the term of a labor contract and is both unusual and illegal. It most often occurs when employees are very angry about something. Ironically, one of the issues at the factory involved a new provision in the labor contract that permitted a piecework approach to certain jobs. Instead, however, of being paid by the piece, employees assigned to a job that was designated piecework were permitted to leave work when they completed the designated number of pieces for that position.

The example set forth in the article that I read involved employees who operated a muffler assembly station. Under the old labor agreement, each employee in this position was producing on average 38 mufflers for each eight hour shift. Under the new piecework system, when an employee finished 40 mufflers they would be allowed to leave work and receive pay for the whole eight hour shift.

Under this approach both the employer and employee benefited. In almost every case, the employer got two more mufflers for each eight hours of pay and a diligent employee could work fewer hours while receiving pay for a full shift. Here is the rub: under the new piecework system employees were completing 40 mufflers in just over four hours. This created tremendous internal dissension because employees who were not in a piecework job did not have the opportunity to receive full pay for less than eight hours of work. Ultimately, the employer went back to the old system to get rid of the internal strife.

There are two points from this example that I want to emphasize. First, in most cases employees are capable of producing far more than what they are currently producing. Further, I believe that employees are happier when producing at a higher level - they have a greater sense of accomplishment. In other words, better performance does not have to occur at the expense of job satisfaction, but rather can be an enhancer. Most importantly, it is the task of management to find constructive ways to bring out the best performance in each employee.

Second, it is not true that if an employee can produce 40 mufflers in four hours, he or she can produce 80 mufflers in eight hours. There is no reason to believe that the pace of work undertaken by the employees during the four hours could be maintained over eight hours. In the book The Power of Full Engagement, the authors focus on the importance of managing employee energy. They point out the significant difference between managing a steady flow of energy and managing short outbursts of high energy. They take the position that short outburst of high energy will generally achieve an increase in outcome. In other words, there can be a regular rate of work, which is not taxing, punctuated by periods of intense effort to achieve a clearly defined outcome.

The critical question involves the methods by which employees can be encouraged to provide the periods of intense effort. Going home early is obviously one reward, and there are many others that can be used. In the construction industry I have observed contractors very skillfully using a "celebration of accomplishment" as a reward at certain milestones in a project. In these cases, the employees were very well aware of the milestone and the push that was necessary to accomplish the work within the scheduled period of time.

I leave you with this thought as we move on to the next point: you really need to be thinking about how to manage for bursts of energy, as opposed to simply maintaining a steady state. A burst can be exhilarating to employees and, if properly managed, will provide a higher level of performance and greater job satisfaction.

Turning to another point, you will find under the recommended reading section of this e-zine my endorsement of the book Execution: the Discipline of Getting Things Done. One of the basic premises of the book is that organizations often spend a substantial amount of time creating business plans and determining action steps only to find that very little happens - there is a failure to execute. Execution is the carry-through of the action steps. The book states:

Execution is a specific set of behaviors and techniques that companies need to master in order to have competitive advantage. It is a discipline of its own. In big companies and small ones, it is the critical discipline for success now. (Page 7)

I see execution as the difference between working hard and getting the job done. I often feel that I work very hard and get nothing done. I would guess that many of you feel exactly the same way. Part of the discipline of execution is having an awareness that we need to be getting things done. Be clear as to what those things are and do not confuse hard work with execution.

One of the ways that I evaluate the effectiveness of my own work efforts is to determine what percentage of time spent was value added. Value added work is work which directly supports a desired outcome. I have found that being conscious of the fact that a significant portion of my effort needs to be value added helps me keep on task and assures that things will get done.

One other point about execution. I once heard a wonderful presentation titled Elephants Don't Bite, Fleas Do. The point of the presentation is that big mistakes aren't the problem with execution. Sure, they can happen and they can create a mess. But, in most cases the real problem is all of the small mistakes that constantly disrupt the flow of work. Thus, one of the critical components of execution is timely attention to the details; get it right the first time. The constant redoing of a task is not value added and it obviously detracts from getting things done.

Finally, I'd like to point to the work by Robert Mager in the classic piece titled Analyzing Performance Problems, or You Really Oughta Wanna. This book would have been my second choice for recommended reading based on the topic of this e-zine. It is an old classic published many years ago and recently completely revised into a third edition. It is full of good ideas on how to analyze and correct employee performance issues.

I want to conclude this portion of the e-zine by focusing on just one of the concepts from the book. Mager gives an example of a dental school that felt its students were performing poorly in fitting dentures to patients. In studying the problem, Mager noticed that the fitting room was on one floor and the lab where work was done on the dentures was down a long hallway and up a flight of stairs to the next floor. Significant improvement occurred in student performance when the lab was moved next to the fitting room.

Conclusion: make it easy for your employees to do the right thing. In my view this is the logical first step in looking for ways to improve the performance of employees. Are there ways to remove barriers from effective performance? Are there ways to make it easier for employees to do what we need them to be doing?

Reader Question

I manage a residential care facility that provides services to the developmentally disabled. Recently I was asked by the parents of a young man (early 20s) if I could move a male employee to another location. The parents thought that their son had developed an inappropriate crush on the employee. They are not accusing the employee of inappropriate behavior, but were worried about the feelings and actions of their son. The problem is compounded by the fact that the employee has openly acknowledged that he is gay. Do you have any thoughts?

There are days when I very much believe that it is much easier to be a college professor, seminarist and labor arbitrator then to manage anything, let alone a residential care facility. Your question potentially involves issues related to involuntary transfer, discrimination based on sexual orientation, good customer service and other less troubling matters. You ask if I have any thoughts, and I do.

First, since I believe in the concept of open management, the initial step should be to involve the employee. I have two reservations, however, about the involvement process. To begin, it is difficult to have open interaction on a touchy subject with an employee if the relationship does not have a history of friendly discourse. If the relationship with the employee is touchy or strained, then I think the communication will have to be more formal and guarded. Hopefully this is not the case and you will have an opportunity to determine whether the employee will positively accept a transfer. After all, the employee may be feeling a certain amount of personal stress over the situation and would welcome a new environment. Even if that is not true, the employee will be involved in a problem solving process.

My other reservation concerns the nature of the interaction itself. Management needs to retain control over the problem and not cede authority to the employee. Yes, you want the employee to be a part of finding a good solution, but the ultimate authority needs to remain with management.

Second, it has become almost trite to refer someone to an attorney. This is one of those situations, however, where you may need to consult an attorney before acting, as the laws in each state with regard to nondiscrimination and sexual orientation differ substantially. This is an area where the law has been changing and you will need the latest information.

Third, having acknowledged the above reality, there are two points that need to be considered. One has to do with the concept of equal treatment. What if the nature of the problem did not involve an employee that was openly gay? What if the individual in question had a crush on a female employee and the parents were concerned about this relationship? The general rule of thumb requires equal treatment of employees unless there is a clear business reason why they should be treated differently. In either case the Employer may see a good reason to transfer the employee or not to transfer. My guess is that the reasoning would be essentially the same for both situations.

The other point deserving of consideration involves the protocols you have in place for responding to a parental complaint or concern. Do you have a process by which to ensure that the parents are fully listened to? On the other hand, my experience is that an organization needs to be careful as to how it responds to complaints. At times, simply listening with a little reassurance will be sufficient to resolve the problem. Or, have the parents actually met the employee? That meeting may be sufficient to set aside any concerns. Ultimately, and this I believe is the important point, the agency must act in the best interest of the organization, even if the action is not to the parents' liking. At minimum, however, the action of the agency needs to be provided to the parents along with an appropriate explanation.

Note: Do you have a perplexing HR question? Send us the question by clicking on thehawthornegroup@msn.com and let us take a shot at answering it. We will select one question each month and research it. Please indicate whether we have permission to publish your name and organization when identifying the question.

Books of the Month

Professional Growth: This e-zine is all about getting things done. What better book then one that focuses on why some organizations accomplish a great deal while others accomplish very little.

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done - Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan.

Personal Growth: How often do we do things without knowing that we are doing them even though whatever we are doing has a profound impact on our lives? While the central theme of this book is about our eating habits, the message is far deeper.

Mindless Eating - Brian Wansink

Quote of the Month

The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago; the second best time is right now.

Confucius

Building a Positive Workplace Culture

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Timothy Williams) — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:07:00 +0000

I want to introduce you to a new web site that I have created (www.makingworkabetterplacetobe.com) that is dedicated to promoting concepts related to building a positive workplace. Positive, of course, in the context of how employees feel about the place. A great workplace has four foundational elements: 1) a great culture, 2) high levels of productivity, 3) quality relationships, 4) opportunity for growth. I'm dedicating the next four posts to further exploring each of the foundational elements. We start, therefore, with looking at what it takes to build a great organizational culture.

When I think of organizational culture, my mind immediately goes to two constructs. The first involves what can be called the informal rules of behavior -- the way we do things around here. Another way to express this point is the concept of a boundary between what is acceptable activity and what is not acceptable. By the word activity I am referencing actions related to work and relationship - how we do our work and how we relate to each other.

The second construct I like to call the organizational affect - the feeling of the place. There are times when you walk into an organization and you have an immediate impression of good spirits and good will. At other times, the sense of the place may be tense and irritable.

When activity is combined with affect, the desirable end state is a positive, productive culture. Or, from an opposite point of view, the organization seeks to avoid a negative, unproductive culture.

It seems to me that much of what I have just written is somewhat obvious and, perhaps, common sense. The challenge, of course, is to focus on what will bring about a positive productive culture. How does an organization set boundaries on work and relationship behavior that brings about a positive, productive culture? I have a few thoughts for you.

First, Marty Seligman wrote a wonderful book titled Authentic Happiness. In that book he argues that true happiness emanates from behavior that is consistent with our core values. In my view, organizations have values. These values are frequently written out. The values that are written out are not necessarily the actual values of the organization. The organizational culture reflects the actual or working values. The employees within the organization also have their individual core values.

It is the connection between outcomes and values that I most want to draw your attention to. I do not believe it is possible to have a positive workplace culture if the stated values of the organization, the actual values of the organization and the individual values of the employees are out of alignment. This is true whether we are talking about the relationship between our values and how we treat our fellow employees or whether we are talking about values and how we are asked to perform our work. In his new book Measure of a Leader, Behavioral Psychologist Aubrey Daniels and his co-author write, "Competence comes when successful outcomes are produced by values-driven purposeful behaviors" [emphasis added]. The feeling of competence is obviously a dimension of a positive workplace affect, and that feeling, in my view, is buttressed when the outcomes are a reflection of our values.

I recently had a client who told me that she had devised a half-day training program around a series of hypothetical incidents. Participants were asked to identify possible courses of action in response to each incident. The second part of this activity was a discussion related to each and how the action reflected the expressed values of the organization. It was, she stated, a most thought provoking activity and one that drew an enthusiastic response from the participants. Most important, I believe that such an exercise will help build a positive culture in that it encourages participants to connect action with values.

Simply put, you cannot have a positive, productive culture if employees are pressured into acting contrary to their personal values. Moreover, when an organization expresses a positive set of values, but asks employees to act inconsistently with those values, it undermines any effort to establish a positive culture. A great culture cannot be built on unethical behavior.

Second, organizational culture is little influenced by memos, lectures and other formal edicts. Rather, culture is created primarily by everyday informal interaction and the example set by leadership. Extolling the virtues of a strong work ethic, for example, in a written memo will typically have little impact on the culture. Modeling a strong work ethic by being the first to arrive, the last to leave and by industrious activity will have a much greater impact. You cannot expect your subordinates to act civilly when you act like a jerk. You cannot expect your employees to act with integrity if you fail to act with integrity. You must walk the talk or, more importantly, simply let the walking speak for itself.

Gandhi's often used statement that "you must be the change that you want to see in the world" has become, perhaps, almost trite. What I believe is often missing, however, is the simple truth that modeling behavior by leadership impacts the organizational culture only if there is a strong bond of trust between subordinate and superior. If the superior is disliked and not trusted, employees are not very likely to follow the example that has been set. When employees believe in your leadership they will follow the behavior that is modeled. Question, what do you do that makes you believable and that permits your subordinates to respect you?

Third, I am a strong believer in the importance of affection in the workplace. Do we like each other? Do we enjoy working with each other? The difficulty so often is finding a way to make affection for your fellow employees part of the organizational culture. Recently I ran across the top level executive for a premier country club. In our discussions he shared with me that it was his practice constantly emphasize with his 140 employees that "the most important thing we do here is take care of each other. Our patrons are the benefactors."

What is intriguing to me is that many organizations have a strong emphasis on providing quality customer service. Obviously this is important for the survival of those organizations. However, I wonder if my executive friend is not correct. Is it not difficult to give good customer service if we don't like and take care of our fellow employees? Moreover, if we take good care of each other, are we not creating a positive environment (culture) that can be easily seen and appreciated by our customers?

Desmond Tutu is quoted as saying that "love is more demanding than the law." I view the word "law" as including everything from federal/state statutes to an employee handbook - the formal rules. To the extent that leadership can work with employees to create a culture that truly values taking care of each other, I believe that you will have surpassed the requirements of law and built a workplace that employees will truly appreciate.

Clearly, there is much more that can be presented with regard to the above three points. My intention is to continue to do so, but primarily through material placed on the making work a better place to be website. For now, I want to simply emphasize the point that with some focused effort it is clearly possible to build a strong, productive, positive workplace culture.

Next Month: Obviously, this month focused on the first of the four foundational elements to building a great workplace, next month I will look at the second - the productive workplace. The workplace does not feel, to most employees, like a great place to be when they see that their work efforts are either wasted or short-changed. We all want to feel that our life counts for something.

Reader Question

I was recently conducting a job interview along with my boss who is the owner of our small company. To my surprise, the owner asked the candidate whether or not he was a smoker.
I did not think it was appropriate to ask this question and wondered if it violated some statue. Can you clarify this for me?

I can understand the owner's interest in this question. Over the years I have run across a number of different statistics on the negative impact of the smokers in our work force. This includes higher medical premiums, more sick days, lower productivity, etc.

But, you are right to be concerned at least in a number of different states. Our research indicates that 29 of the 50 states have specific provisions protecting the right of employment for smokers. The state of Oregon statute, for example, puts the matter as follows:

ORS Chapter 14, Title 51, 659A.315 Restricting use of tobacco in nonworking hours prohibited; exceptions.

(1) It is an unlawful employment practice for any employer to require, as a condition of employment, that any employee or prospective employee refrain from using lawful tobacco products during nonworking hours, except when the restriction relates to a bona fide occupational requirement.

I have two general thoughts about your question and the state of employment law. First, as a general rule, it is not advisable to predicate employment practices on off duty conduct that is legal. If the off-duty conduct has a negative impact on the workplace, then focus on controlling the negative impact. For example, the employer can focus on the attendance problem, not the smoking behavior.

Second, even in those states that do not have a specific provision against discrimination for lawful outside of work behavior, I would be careful about using it as the basis of an employment action. I would definitely want to check with a knowledgeable attorney as to the specific state of the law and as to whether there were court decisions in your state that give guidance on the matter.

Books of the Month

Professional Growth I was recently talking to an association executive about a speaking engagement. He made a telling comment, "my constituents are tired of hearing the same old stuff about leadership." If you are tired of the "same old stuff," then I strongly recommend you read:

Measure of a Leader - Aubrey Daniels and James Daniels.

Personal Growth I have always been fascinated by authors who can make profound statements with very simple words. Don Miguel Ruiz has that ability and one of his newest books addresses a key issue, one that is mentioned above.

The Mastery of Love - Don Miguel Ruiz

Quote of the Month

The real act that leadership should fear is indifference - indifference to the vision and values that make the organization unique.

Daniels and Daniels, Measure of a Leader

Making Work a Better Place to Be, Revisited

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 03:14:00 +0000

In April of 2006, I wrote an e-zine titled Making Work a Better Place To Be. That e-zine marked a transition into both a new format and a specific focus. My goal was to develop each topic with the underlying purpose of making the information helpful in creating a more dynamic, constructive workplace. I have decided that, for a couple of reasons, it is time to revisit that topic.

The workplace, of course, is defined by the people in your employee. Obviously, therefore, the concept of making work a better place is specifically focused on how employees experience the workplace. From a leadership or HR perspective, it is very easy to focus on specific factors such as compensation, benefits, employee orientation, performance management and other such concerns. What about the bigger picture, however?

My father was a minister and, like most preachers, loved a good story. One of his favorites, that I heard many times, involved the building of a great cathedral – think Notre Dame of Paris.

In the story, a “reporter” decided to write an article on the building of the cathedral. In order to do so he determined to interview some of the workers on the project. Talking to masons, glazers, carpenters and other craftspeople, he asked them to explain what they were doing. Each, in greater or lesser detail, described the duties of their craft. This went on until he interviewed a common laborer whose job it was to dig trenches in which to lay drainage tile. Without hesitation, when he was asked the question, the man responded, “Why sir, I am building a great cathedral.”

For all of us, it is easy to get caught up in the daily grind of activities, losing sight of the bigger picture. Are we simply performing the functions of our craft with little awareness of a larger goal? Or, are we consciously aware that our efforts are contributing towards building a great workplace? I am one who believes that being able to see a bigger picture, at least some of the time, will have a significant impact on organizational effectiveness.

Several years ago I listen to a presentation by a highly respected consultant. He provided some insights which I found very useful. One point he made is that there is an endless buffet of tips for leaders. A difficulty is that we often do not distinguish between strategy and tactics. Strategy is the overall plan for creating the desired end (in our case, building a great workplace).

Tactics are individual steps needed to implement the strategy. Tactics are useful, therefore, only to the extent that they support the chosen strategy. Thus, tactics should support a strategy designed to achieve an end goal. I am often dismayed when I see tactics chosen that actually sabotage the strategy. Anger, frustration and ego appear to be some of the motivators for these tactics.

So, are we just doing our craft? Or, are we building a great workplace? Check out my new web site: www.makingworkabetterplacetobe.com. I have committed to maintaining this site as a noncommercial venue to provide articles and ideas related to the creation of a great workplace. The site is new and will be constantly upgraded as we develop material. Most importantly, I am encouraging you to contribute to the website. I welcome your suggestions, articles and other submissions. Obviously, I will retain editorial control but want to make the information as broadly based as possible.

One of the first things you’ll notice when you go to the site is that I have subdivided the larger topic of a great workplace into four primary concerns. In my view, a desirable workplace is dependent on building a great culture, high levels of productivity, quality relationships and the opportunity to grow. There is nothing original in this group of four; I call them the fundamentals. Like any variable that can be called a fundamental, the important issue is not originality but rather effective implementation. In other words, the best workplaces are good at the fundamentals. This is not to say that creativity in implementation cannot be helpful. Rather, the point is that there are basics that must serve as the foundation for a great workplace. I am providing a quick introduction to each of the four foundational principles with the promise to expand on each in future editions of this e-zine.

Much is known about the relationship between organizational culture and organizational performance. In my work I have run across two different definitions of organizational culture: 1) “the way we do things around here,” 2) the point at which the work group says “no.” One fact for sure in any organization, effective and long lasting change occurs only when the culture buys into the new program. Most importantly, culture is little influenced by edict and policy. Rather, the culture must be built and/or influenced overtime. I will have much more to say on this last point in the next e-zine.

Feeling good about your work is difficult if you believe that most of your effort during the workday is wasted. I absolutely believe that employees want to experience the sense of accomplishment that comes from producing desired outcomes. Work that is value added feels good. Work that appears to produce no useful end result is frustrating and demoralizing. While I will write much more on this topic at a later time and encourage your submissions on this point, for the present I want to emphasize that a great workplace has more to it than a warm supportive environment; employees must feel that their time is well spent.

Love is a topic which once again we can discuss in the context of the workplace. Not in the sense, of course, of a romantic relationship or something illicit but in the context of how employees treat each other. Are you surprised? Tim Sander’s marvelous best seller, Love is the Killer App helped to encourage the reconsideration of the importance of positive affection between employees and the appropriate behaviors that should accompany that affection. In my view, you cannot have a great workplace if your employees do not genuinely care for each other.

General systems theory takes the position that an organization is either growing or dying. The same can be said for employees; they are either growing or stagnating. Much has been written about the learning organization and how to implement those strategies that will move the organization and its people in that direction. Without question, a great workplace energizes its employees by promoting growth and opportunity.

I am looking forward to using both the web site and this e-zine to continuing to develop these four concepts and others related to making work a better place to be.

Next Month: obviously, since I have just finished reviewing what I consider to be the four foundational elements of a constructive workplace and have indicated my intention to expand on each in a separate e-zine, the next e-zine will focus on the first of the four: building a positive culture.

Our company recently bargained its first contract with a union, and I’ve just been given the task of representing our position in a grievance over a discharge. It is my understanding that I, as the employer representative, have to meet the burden of proof. Isn’t this backwards? I thought that the party bringing the grievance had the responsibility of proving its case.

There is an old saying in labor relations, “management acts, the union reacts.” Under this concept, the union has the right to challenge a management action when it believes that the action has violated the labor agreement. Thus, in challenging the action, the union carries the burden of proving the violation. If the matter goes to arbitration, then the union goes first with its presentation.

This approach, however, is not applied in a matter of employee discharge. Rather, a regular status employee is viewed as having a right to his or her job and, if the employer wishes to take it away, then a good case needs to be presented towards that end. As a result, if you are in an arbitration proceeding where the discharge is being contested, the employer will be asked to go first with its presentation and it will need to present “just cause” (a well documented case with solid business related reasons) for the termination.

Even if your employees are not represented by a labor organization, you may still be required to present an affirmative case for a discharge. This could happen, for example, related to an EEOC complaint or regarding an unemployment compensation filing. What is important to recognize is that each venue (labor arbitration, EEOC, unemployment) has a different set of decision-making criteria. Thus a solid case for discharge presented to the labor arbitrator may not be a basis for challenging the employee’s petition for unemployment compensation. Likewise, an employer can prevail in a discrimination complaint before EEOC even when it is not successful before the labor arbitrator. Obviously this leads to the conclusion that if the employer wishes to self-represent in all three arenas, then it needs to develop the knowledge necessary to make an effective presentation, a presentation appropriate to the venue. Otherwise, competent professional assistance needs to be obtained.

Quote of the Month:

To be creditable, we must be truthful.

Edward R. Murrow

Attendance Control Programs: Summarizing My Thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 04:22:00 +0000

Last week a local newspaper ran a front page story about sick leave abuses in the Sheriff’s Department. Overall, sick leave usage was substantially increased over just a few years ago. It seems that the new Sheriff has not been nearly as diligent as the old Sheriff in policing sick leave usage among deputies in the corrections department. When interviewed the Sheriff indicated that he believed his hands were tied by the labor contract and the fact that the deputies were only using sick leave that had been legitimately accrued.

Maybe, but let’s think about that.

As noted in the last e-zine, the main topic for this month is the effectiveness of attendance control programs. As the above article helps illustrate, this is a timely topic and one I frequently receive questions about. Over the years I have reviewed a number of surveys conducted with HR managers on important issues. Tardiness and absenteeism has been, on every single survey, the number one concern. In a prior e-zine I wrote about no fault attendance programs that are based on a rolling twelve month period of time. I am not intending to duplicate that article but rather my intention is to share information, insights and observations related to the attendance issue that have been accumulating over the past 35 years of working with HR problems.

In public sector employment, my experience is that the most common accrual rate is roughly one day of sick leave for each month of work. At one time it was not uncommon to find many of the older employees that had several hundred days of accumulated sick leave. Sick leave was typically viewed as an insurance policy against potential illness. Thus, if you were not ill then sick leave days simply continue to accumulate. If there was a limit on total accrual, potential days of sick leave were simply sacrificed when the limit had been reached. This was viewed no differently than having fire or flood insurance on your house. While one paid for the insurance, the hope is that collection never occurs and the money paid for the insurance simply lost.

Current research indicates that the attitude about sick leave has substantially changed from insurance used to offset an undesired outcome to one of entitlement. Thus many employers, like the above reference Sheriff’s Department, find that a substantial portion of their employees, even those who have been there for many years, have little if any accumulated sick leave. In fact, the last major national survey (2003) contracted by the department of labor added a new statistic covering employees who come to work sick so that they can save their sick leave days for more enjoyable activities. This survey indicated that 7% of sick leave usage was impacted by this new category.

On the other hand, other employment data indicates that there is an offset against the high use of sick leave. This data indicates that today’s employee work on average 200 more hours per year in the U.S. then 30 years ago. Higher levels of sick leave usage may be substantially impacted by the longer hours of work.

Regardless of the causes of sick leave abuse, however, most employers are finding it necessary to implement some type of attendants control program. Hopefully you’ll find the following information helpful in assessing your current program and looking at how it can be modified to become more effective. I believe you should give careful consideration to a number of different factors.

First, how you communicate the importance of regular attendance is going to be very important. Obviously a single message is not going to be sufficient. I recently ran across an employee handbook that dealt with the issue of attendance differently than what I have seen in the past. Typically there is a section in the employee handbook spelling out actions that will bring about discipline. Poor attendance is typically identified in this section of the handbook with varying degrees of emphasis.

Oftentimes there is a separate section of the handbook dealing with the various ways in which employment can end. Quitting, retiring, being laid off and being discharged for cause are usually mentioned. The handbook I am referencing, took pains to identify poor attendance as a basis for separation from service and gave it top billing in this section. Employees were informed that attendance issues would result in discipline and multiple days of absence without notification would be considered job abandonment resulting in separation from service.

What I particularly liked about this approach is attendance was given a specific, separate treatment. This distinctive treatment allowed the employer to put a special emphasis on attendance during employee orientation and to highlight it in the event the disciplinary action became necessary for attendance problems. The bottom line is that you need to find ways to effectively communicate the critical importance of regular attendance.

Second, while modifying existing sick leave programs, particularly if you have a labor contract, will usually raise substantial employee resistance, the “new” attitude toward sick leave usage encourages at least some adaptation. One of the most common is to shift all of the various paid leaves of absences into a single category called paid time off (PTO). If the PTO program is properly administered, it can result in better attendance, less overtime and an easier job for the supervisor. While a detailed discussion of PTO is probably a good topic for a future e-zine, I want to emphasize two elements of a PTO program. The first is that the sum total of vacation time plus sick leave plus other personal leaves should be less than the total days of PTO, but that the employee is fully entitled to use all days of PTO.

The second is that PTO is but one version of an attempt to stop rewarding employees for doing what we don’t want them to do. Sick leave typically can only be used if you’re sick. But, we don’t want people to be sick and therefore to be absent. Employees can use PTO without being sick, just like vacation. Having to use a vacation day (PTO) to cover an illness is not the same as using a day that can only be used to cover an illness.

Most importantly, notice that a PTO program can be fine tuned. One employer I know grants four days of sick leave each year but sick leave is used only on the second day of an illness. The first day is either unpaid or the employee can choose to use a vacation day PTO). This employer informs me that dramatic changes have occurred in employee usage by this simple change. Another employer I am aware of allows sick leave benefits only on the third day of an absence.

Here is a thought: if the standard homeowner was more interested in insurance money as opposed to their home, fire insurance companies would go bankrupt. Employees are no different, if they are more interested in using sick leave as opposing to banking it against future significant illnesses, then you’re sick leave program must be adapted to this attitude otherwise your costs will skyrocket.

Third, as previously noted, I have already written about no-fault attendance programs. There are a couple points, however, that I would like to emphasize about these programs as part of this e-zine. To begin, while they are probably the most difficult type of program to administer, they also have the greatest likelihood of either controlling the unwanted behavior or expediting the discharge of the employee. They are difficult because absences must be carefully monitored over a rolling twelve months. But, on the positive side, the reason for the absence is not important. The no fault program assumes that people become ill. A legitimate absence or two is of no significance in the no-fault program. It is only a repeated pattern that becomes an issue and that pattern can quickly lead to the termination of employment.

Additionally, the no-fault program operates in such a way as to give significant deference to the person who has incurred a substantial illness. This is true because the typical program revolves around an incident not simply an absence. An incident can be a one day absence or it can be a 45 day absence to recover from a heart attack. Since both are given exactly the same weight, the no-fault program does not work to the disadvantage of good employees who have a single, significant illness; hip replacement surgery comes to mind or something similar.

As noted, however, the challenge to a no-fault program is consistent management of the program. Records need to be impeccably kept and the employer needs to have the highest concern for consistency of application.

One final point on no-fault programs, what I particularly like about them is that they can be presented to emphasize that the employee is needed in the workplace. The quantity, timeliness and sometimes the quality of work suffers when employees are not present. It does not make any difference why someone is absent, the absence impacts work product. Thus, for the employer to attempt to distinguish between unexcused and excused absences may make sense as it applies to employee culpability, it makes no sense whatsoever on whether work is being performed. “We hired you because we need you and we need you all the time,” should be the message we send to our employees.

Fourth, now a word of caution. The law protects certain absences from any attendance control program. For example, an absence, covered under the American Family Medical Leave Act (AFMLA) cannot be the basis for disciplinary action under either a no-fault or other attendance program. Also, in many states, Illinois and California as examples, employees who are the victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse have special rights to employment and are entitled to the same protections found in the AFLMA. Likewise absences cause by jury duty cannot be used for discipline or discharge. Additionally, in some states being subpoenaed to testify in a criminal or civil procedure cannot be cause for disciplinary action. I suggest checking with your state department of labor if you are unsure or have questions.

Note: the only protection that the Employer has against abuse for any of the above situations is the right to demand proper documentation. Self diagnosis and/or self serving statements are insufficient to trigger the protections of law. You have the right to require the documents necessary to establish the truthfulness of what the employee is asserting.

Fifth and finally, the above discussion focuses on threats, sanctions, discipline and ultimately employment termination as methods of controlling absenteeism problems. There is another side to addressing attendance problems. Do your employees experience the workplace as a positive, even if the work is not always the most personally gratifying? I have a strong suspicion that when employees enjoy coming to work that the Employer has substantially fewer problems with attendance. As you will note below, the next e-zine addresses the topic of making work a better place to be.

Next Month: so I already let it out, I plan to start a five part e-zine series on the topic of making work a better place to be. The first installment takes on the topic from a global perspective. The next four installments will break the global into specific component parts.

What barriers are there to imposing a ceiling on the accrual of vacation time?

The essence of this question involves the right of the Employer to impose a “use it or lose it” policy with regard to vacation time. Under this policy, for example, if an employee is allowed to accumulate 120 hours of vacation time, then his/her total accrual will never exceed 120 hours regardless of the accrual rate or the amount of vacation time actually taken. Since vacation accrual is typically noted on each paycheck, the amount shown on a paycheck will never exceed 120 hours regardless of whether any vacation time has been taken. Thus it is possible for the employee to receive less of a benefit then he/she is entitled to by not taking any vacation time.

One of my graduate students recently wrote a paper in which she found that in 2004 Americans gave back $22 billion worth of vacation time; obviously a very significant number which makes this a significant issue.

The question asks about barriers to imposing a use it or lose it policy. My first response is to note that it is a subject not covered under Federal wage and hour legislation. Rather it is the subject that is in almost every case covered under state regulations and found as part of administrative code (however that is depicted in each individual state). I have been most successful in finding information from individual states by looking for those provisions covering payment and collection of final wages and compensation.

I have yet to find any state that does not permit a use it or lose it policy, but the right of the employer to implement such a policy is always linked to two conditions. First the employer must clearly communicate its policy to employees. Second, the employee must have had reasonable opportunities to use vacation time. Since I believe there is always some risk to employers when employees receive a reduction in wages and/or benefits, my thought is that annual notification to each employee, perhaps the first week of January, of the use it or lose it policy and the amount of vacation time currently accrued would help fulfill the employers affirmative notice responsibilities. The employer would also, undoubtedly, be wise to have a system by which employees were given notice of potential accrual loss the pay period before any losses occurred.

Quote:

The entire world is a narrow bridge
But the main thing is not to fear.

Likutey Moharan 2:28

Employee Discipline: Rethinking Strategy and Tactics

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:39:00 +0000

A short while ago I attended a social event and one of the other attendees had brought a local police officer as a guest. The two of us ended up in an extended conversation. It seems that he had just been notified that an appearance before the discipline review board was mandated. He was uncertain about what he was being called before the board and was clearly agitated by the fact. Our discussion focused on the way discipline was administered in the department and how the discipline review board was used as a tool of intimidation and fear.

Originally I had intended to write this e-zine on the topic of discharge for absenteeism. The above conversation, however, stimulated my interest in sharing some thoughts about why the discipline process is so often ineffective. My purpose is to focus on some basic principles that are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of your discipline program. I am offering the following seven points as a way to stimulate your thinking about the manner in which discipline is administered in your organization and the effectiveness of the discipline program.

First, the word discipline itself is intriguing because it has both a positive and negative connotation. “That child needs to be disciplined.” “She is a very disciplined employee.” How different these two sentences are. One uses the word discipline as a corrective action with the connotation of punishment in the context of something wrong. The other uses the word as an admirable characteristic related to effective performance. What I believe often gets lost is the fact that we ought be disciplining employees for the purpose of building a well disciplined team. Question, is discipline administered in your organization for the purpose of improving employee discipline? Or, do you simply punish people when they are bad?

Second, employees are disciplined for issues around misconduct and unacceptable performance. Yet when I have reviewed discipline protocols it is frequently obvious that they have been written to deal exclusively with matters of misconduct. The problem is that the two require distinctly different approaches. With matters of misconduct employees are disciplined with the expectation that whatever infraction has occurred will not happen again. Performance problems, on the other hand, are best dealt with by setting performance goals and then working with the employee over time to achieve those goals. Unacceptable performance does not generally involved an on and off switch. Rather it is a matter of growth and development. While an employee can be discharged for misconduct and/or for unacceptable performance, the path by which one arrives at the point of employment termination should be different.

Third, it is important to clearly distinguish between informal disciplinary acts and formal. Formal discipline (oral warnings, written warnings, suspensions) are usually less effective than the informal protocols (training, coaching, counseling and other softer forms of intervention) correcting and shaping employee behavior. For one thing, formal discipline is harder on the relationship between supervisor and subordinate and as such makes it more difficult to positively influence employee activities. But, formal discipline is frequently a legal or contractual necessity. My advice, do all you can informally before you move to the formal. Once you move to the formal it is generally very difficult to effectively utilize the informal.

Fourth, the culture of your organization is usually a stronger determinant of employee behavior then is your work rules and performance goals. Thus, disciplining employees may not be as effective towards changing behavior as the work you do to improve the culture; change the culture, change the behavior (this suggests another topic for an e-zine). At minimum what you need to be asking yourself when you discipline an employee is whether your other employees will support your decision to implement discipline or will they feel that your decision is unfair. While sometimes the perception that something is unfair is based on a lack of knowledge, where employees have the knowledge and your actions are viewed as inappropriate; then you have a much bigger problem than whatever you are attempting to address with the discipline.

Fifth, employee discipline tends to focus on eliminating what is not wanted. Their often seems to be an unstated assumption that if we eliminate what we don’t want, what is left will be what we do want. I doubt that this is true. If what we do want is an energized, enthusiastic and committed workforce does the discipline program help bring wayward employees into alignment with that objective? Or, does it focus on specific problems as opposed to the larger objective? You may find it advisable to benignly overlook certain problem areas while being diligent to pursue the larger goal.

Sixth, while I am a strong believer that informal tools are the best way to intervene into an employee problem, I want to be clearly on the record that you cannot ignore the formal tools if the problem has deteriorated to the point where it is clear that the informal approach will not work. When I ask human resource managers about the successful use of progressive discipline, the answer is almost always negative. They pretty much acknowledge that once they start into formal modes of discipline their goal is no longer to correct the problem but rather to satisfy whatever legal constraints there are on terminating the employment of the individual. My sense is that their reasoning is absolutely correct. If the problem by cannot be dealt with by coaching, counseling, a work plan, a memo of expectation, etc., then why do we think a two day suspension will change the employee’s basic approach to the workplace? From this perspective, therefore, the best approach I have seen to formal discipline is one found in a number of Teamster’s labor contracts. They call for termination of employment if an employee repeats an infraction, within a two year period of time, for which the employee has been previously given a written warning. The progression, then, calls for extensive informal efforts to work with the employee, followed by one written warning and then discharge.

Seventh, there is a quote from a Star Wars figure in a science fiction novel that I have often used when conducting training programs on employee discipline. It goes like this: “Always remember this; your enemy [misbehaving employee] is not wrong in his own eyes. If you keep this in mind you may make him your friend; if not, you can kill him [terminate employment] but without hate.” While recognizing that homicide is illegal in all 50 states, there is a huge amount of wisdom in this quote. I am oftentimes dismayed at the frequency with which the first principle (make the employee your friend) is ignored and instead we move directly to a vindictive action. While this is understandable within the context of the emotions that are sometimes created by serious employee misconduct, an immediate negative response will rarely bring about the desired impact on the employee and/or your work force. You can always move to discharge the employee but why not try something positive first?

I close this short essay on employee discipline by emphasizing the necessity to impose discipline “without hate.” I need say no more.

Next Month: Terminating for Absences

What options does an employer have when a supervisor begins a secret (or not-so-secret) relationship with a subordinate?

Inter-office dating is a fact of the workplace. While not the most optimal of situations, they can be innocuous enough when responsibly managed. A major problem arises when there is a differential in workplace power – when one has authority over the other. An asymmetric balance of power leads to questions of mutual consent. How can a subordinate that enters into a relationship with someone with power over them be argued to have given the same level of consent? Just as troublesome, when the relationship comes to light in the workplace the cries of bias and preferential treatment, whether real or imagined, can have terrible effects on employee morale and productivity.

What, then, can an employer do in the situation of the secret relationship… what are the options? Outright banning will not work, as it raises questions of privacy rights and may just encourage such relationships to stay underground. Remember, employers are just as liable for the fallout from relationships they’re unaware of as those going on under their noses. Keep in mind, firing one member of the relationship has proven to be legally questionable particularly if the supervisor is male and the subordinate female — a standing policy of firing the subordinate would (rightly) open the employer to allegations of sexual discrimination.

The answer, I believe, is in recognizing what an organization has a right to control and what might be considered improper interference. You have the right to control that which can be destructive to the organization. My recommendation is to craft and enforce a carefully written policy on personal relationships in the workplace. The policy needs to have at least two sections:

The first is a statement about the purpose and intent of the policy itself. Emphasize the fact that the policy is not to interfere in the personal lives of employees but rather to protect the employer against situations where there is an obvious and counter productive conflict of interest; guarding against circumstances that can create legal liabilities and reduce employee morale.
The second section needs to carefully describe the actions that are prohibited. The prohibition, however, cannot be against a personal relationship but rather against the hiring and/or supervising of a relative or close personal friend. The policy needs to particularly emphasize that employees are expected to reveal relationships where there is a conflict of interest (supervising a spouse or significant other, for example); secrecy is the big no-no.

Also, I have to confess to a certain reluctance with regard to the recommendation that one should write a policy on this issue. In general I am not a promoter of policy writing as my experience leads me to conclude that more often than not policies can get the employer in trouble. For one thing, it is always difficult to predict all of the different ways that the policy may have to be applied. As a result the policy may rise up and bite you when you are confronted with an unusual set situation. Additionally, employers all too often write the policy and then fail to enforce it. The unequal enforcement of a policy is fertile ground for plaintiff’s attorney. In this case, however, I feel that the policy is absolutely essential. Employees have a right to personal relationships, even in a superior — subordinate situation. It is not the relationship itself that is at issue. Rather it is the impact of that relationship on organizational behavior that must be addressed. This can only be managed through the development of a clear policy related to controlling the potential damage from those personal relationships that are impacting the organization.

Finally, when I consider the question that was asked it occurs to me that the “secret” relationship must have been reported by a member of the team to a higher level manager in the organization. Even without the policy, the employer has the right to confront the supervisor about any actions that compromise his or her effectiveness as a supervisor (notice that it is not the subordinate employee that one should confront). There are a number of actions that the employer can choose to do including moving one of the two parties to a different workgroup, or insisting that the subordinate employee’s performance evaluations and work assignments be under the direction of an outside supervisor. The bottom line is that the problem needs to be directly confronted.

Quote of the Month:

The aim of argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.

Joseph Joubert

Making Work a Better Place to Be

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Timothy Williams) — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 07:48:00 +0000

This is the first e-zine that I have created in the last few months. I have spent the intervening time contemplating how I can better focus the e-zine as a HR tool. There are a number of changes that I have decided to implement. The most obvious of these is the look of the e-zine. A second objective is to make the e-zine more interactive. The addition of a reader question section is my response to this objective.

Perhaps the most significant change in focus, however, is my intention to tailor the e-zine towards my primary research and consulting interest: the creation of workplaces desirable to employees. You’ll notice that I have titled this e-zine Making Work a Better Place to Be. This title comes from a line in a song, It’s Amazing What Praising Can Do. The following are some preliminary thoughts about the steps that an organization can take to help build a desirable workplace.

The different HR functions have to work together as a system. Recruiting, training, compensation, evaluation, and promotion all need to be in alignment with each other. All too often the different functions have different managers which result in a lack of alignment.
The primary determinant of the employee satisfaction with the workplace is undoubtedly the organizational culture. A lot has been written about how to build a high performance, positive culture. The problem is that in all too many organizations very little has been done to consciously work on creating the culture. As a result the organizational culture is a product of the informal interactions of employees.
I am convinced that the work we do with new employees during the first three months of their employment is a critical factor in shaping a positive workplace. This honeymoon period is the best time to shape positive attitudes and to ensure that the new employee is appropriately integrated into the culture.
If you read the book, First Break all the Rules, you will find the empirical evidence to establish that one of the most significant factors in retaining high performing employees is the relationship between the employee and his or her immediate supervisor. Supervisor training needs to stress this fact above all others.
There is an old adage, “I am professional; I do not need to like you in order to be able to work with you.” While in too many cases that adage needs to be true in order for work to be completed, the other side of the coin is that high performance is most certainly a product of alignment and collaboration. More importantly, working under the stress of unhappy relationships clearly does not create a positive workplace.
Workplace conflict is important and necessary because it is the stimulus to needed change. Feuding and disputing are all too often an unfortunate side product of conflict. There is no positive benefit to feuding and disputing. Every organization needs to adopt methods by which to encourage constructive conflict without the feuding and disputing.
Recognizing the contributions of each employee is one of the most powerful tools management has to encourage high performance and positive change. Not all recognition programs, however, work. Designing and implementing a recognition program that accomplishes its objectives is critical to organizational effectiveness. Additionally, the employee recognition program is a critical tool towards building a positive workplace.
Employee recognition, high levels of collaboration, positive supervisor and subordinate relationships, all of these are wonderful. Unfortunately, there are times when management must demonstrate the ability to have a “hard edge” in order to ensure that these positive expressions will dominate the workplace. Disrespect, dishonesty, maliciousness our all cancers in the workplace and must be stamped out. Thus, where positive steps fail to resolve the problem, firm, fair, effective, formal discipline must be administered which includes the right/responsibility to remove the cancer from the workplace.

As you have probably surmised, each of the above bullet points is destined to become the focus of a future e-zine. My intention is to provide both concept and action steps. My hope is that you will find this material helpful to you.

Next Month’s Topic: B.S., F.U., B.H.: Dealing with Obscenity in the Workplace

Reader Question

Due to illness and vacation, I was left short-staffed. I had to have two of my employees work nine days in a row in order to maintain minimal staffing. Was I in violation of any laws by scheduling such a long stretch of work?

Federal legislation is silent on the topic of maximum weekly working hours for most non-minor employees, as long as minimum wage and overtime laws are observed. State laws frequently add some restrictions, however. For example, both California and Illinois have statutes requiring one full day of rest for every seven-day period.

California allows for longer stretches of work than six days for situations that reasonably require them, as long as there are enough days of rest in a calendar month to make the ratio of days worked to rest days at least six to one. Illinois does not make this exception, but lifts the requirement from executive, administrative and professional workers (among others). Consult your state Department of Labor for more information on this and other topics relating to wage and hour legislation.

Books of the Month

Professional Growth Are you tired of the ditty, ‘think outside the box?” Then, you will find value in reading this month’s fast paced selection which encourages us to get back to the basics.

Get Back in the Box – Douglas Rushkoff

Personal Growth Parker Palmer is one of my favorite authors and his most recent book explores in a very meaningful way the path to being a whole person

The Hidden Wholeness – Parker Palmer

Quote of the Month

Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experiences of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, vision cleared, ambition inspired, and success achieved.

Helen Keller

Administrivia, the Bane of Human Resource Management

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:06:00 +0000

Recently I was reading a copy of Fast Company Magazine, one of my favorite sources for recent information about business and organizational life, when I ran across an article I found totally intriguing. The title of the article was, “Why We Hate HR.” The article was written by Keith Hammonds, the deputy editor of Fast Company Magazine, and can be found in issue 97 (August 2005) at page 40. I found this article stimulating enough that it drove me to provide my reaction in written form.

At the outset of this article, the author announces that he does not like HR, and goes on to explain why:

The Human-Resources trade long ago proved itself, at best, a necessary evil – and at worst, a dark bureaucratic force that blindly enforces nonsensical rules, resists creativity, and impedes constructive change. HR is the corporate function with the greatest potential – the key driver, in theory, in business performance – and also, the one that most consistently under-delivers.

One of my favorite sports talk shows has a segment in which the listener can call in and give a “rant.” This article, which is about eight pages long, is a great rant. Yet, based on my HR experience, the quality of the rant is in part a reflection of the accuracy of the diagnosis.

HR will only achieve its promise, from the point of view of the article, if it begins to focus on being strategic and providing organizational leadership. HR needs to be a major player in designing and implementing strategies for organizational effectiveness, and it must provide leadership towards promoting and ensuring high levels of employee performance. In the author’s view, those two functions are given lip service but are simply not a part of the main HR menu in most organizations.

My intention is to use the e-zines that will follow in the next few months for the purpose of setting forth some thoughts on how to change the path of HR towards achieving its potential. In this e-zine I want to begin this project by noting the difference between the tasks that are most frequently assigned to the HR department and how they relate to the larger goal of providing strategy and leadership. To put it bluntly, the picture is not very bright.

Many of the tasks assigned to HR can at best be called administrivia. Tasks such as pay, benefits, and retirement can all be put into this classification. Obviously, each of those areas is extremely important. Making sure that employees are promptly and correctly paid and dealing with their medical insurance issues, to focus on a couple, are all time-consuming and vital activities but, at a basic level, entirely irrelevant to the success of the organization. As to evidence for my conclusion that these activities are not important to the success of the organization, I will simply point to the fact that they are increasingly being sub-contracted to an outside firms. Surprise! In many cases outside firms can perform HR tasks more efficiently and cost effectively then the HR Department. Clearly, if your prime activities involve fulfilling functions that can be easily farmed out and are not core to the success of the organization, it is not surprising to see why the individuals engaged in these activities will not be viewed by the organization as strategic and leaders. Moreover, I believe it is reasonable to assume that it will be difficult for HR to focus on administrivia, and still retain high levels of competency related to strategy and leadership. There is a fundamental belief that good peace-time generals do not make good war-time generals. The demands on the position of general are significantly different from peace-time to war-time.

Question: what “rules” in your HR Department? Administrivia? Those functions have to be done, but they do not have to rule.

Hopefully, the point that I am trying to make is now clear, and I have set the table for the next e-zine which will begin to look at the process of revitalizing the HR function.

Quote of the Month:

To unleash the extraordinary efforts of your workforce, you must first believe this to be possible. Then, you must make sure that your people have the resources, support, and freedom to meet the challenges – or seize the opportunities – when they present themselves. – Libby Sartain, Chief People Officer, Yahoo! Inc.

Trial Services: Making the Marriage Work (by Chris Flamm)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:27:00 +0000

Earlier issues of this E-zine focused on the legal aspects of the Trial Services period, and discussed the idea that this is the ideal time to bring the employee into alignment with organizational culture. In this issue we will explore some specifics of how to do precisely that, as well as explore the genesis of culture in an organization.

The Trial Services phase of employment has too often been viewed as a weeding out period. Many employers use this time to focus on what may be undesirable about an employee while they still have the ability to discharge that employee with no liability attached.

However, in terms of building a strong and successful organization, this time period can often be used to much greater success if it is viewed as a time to plant, fertilize, and nurture, rather than a period to deliberately seek for and weed out employees who shouldn’t make the cut. What seeds do you want to sow in your organization? What good habits and behaviors do you want to take root? What type of organizational culture do you want to encourage and help sustain? The trial services period is your best opportunity to construct a productive, long term relationship with your employees while helping to build a high performance, high commitment culture.

Successful organizations operate as a team. Whether in sports, the marketplace, or the non-profit world, teams need to coordinate their actions. A football team can’t win if everyone plays offense and team members fight each other to be the one to score the touchdown. Each team member understands the purpose of his actions and how it dovetails into the actions of others on the team. There can be no intelligent coordination without this understanding. Lack of understanding and coordination add up to a losing season in football; no less so in an organization.

A new hire must have two levels of understanding to be successful within the organization: the general and the specific. The general requires that an employee understand that he or she must work for the overall benefit of the organization and must act in a manner that promotes quality relationships with fellow employees. As to the specific, question number one should be: does your new employee know and really understand the mission or purpose of your organization? Question number two should be: does he or she understand the purpose of his or her own job and how that fits in with the jobs of others? The most productive employees are productive primarily because they understand the purpose behind their work and how it fits into the overall purpose of the organization. They have learned how to coordinate their actions to work effectively with others on their team.

New employees need to emerge from the trial services period having demonstrated that they have the necessary knowledge and are in alignment with the general and the specific expectations. Two factors can make or break the marriage during this “honeymoon period”. The first is the approach you use to train your new hires. The second is the culturally accepted practices and habits new hires acquire from your other employees. These two items predict the long term health of your organization and determine whether the marriage will be fruitful or end during the trial services period.

Turning first to training, the most effective method and the most positive for the new employee is to plan and implement an active process for teaching the employee how to do the job. The supervisor should encourage the employee to see the relationship as that of coach and coached. Maintaining the coaching relationship helps to insure a positive response to input. A coaching relationship also infers a hands on approach to training activities.

Second, culture is formed by more than a mission statement. It is formed by the actions and attitudes of all of its members. The Trial Services phase is where new hires have the opportunity to learn how to contribute to the organization as well as what to contribute to the organization. This is your chance to get them on the team, get them excited, and help them understand the purpose of their job in the higher context of the team mission. The habits and practices they pick up during this period are the habits and practices they will keep. You have a chance to recreate your culture in its most positive aspects every time you hire and train

The following are some suggestions as to how you can maximize the effectiveness of the trial services period as a time for training and as a time to help align the new employee to the culture.

The first suggestion is not so much an action step as it is a goal for much of your work with the trial services employees. The orientation and training of new employees is often an excellent opportunity to refresh and refocus the work of your experienced employees. Using the existing employees to help train and orient the new employee not only benefits the new employee but also can help reenergize the experienced employee. Of course you will want to make sure that the right lesson is being given which means a briefing session with the experienced employee thus providing the added benefit of opening a new door for productive communication with the experienced person.
The validation method is a recommended method of training a new employee. While not ignoring the need to correct the incorrect, the employee’s work is inspected periodically for what has been done correctly and well. A list of successful accomplishments can be far more helpful in shaping desired behavior then verbal or written statements about deficiencies. It is very easy to slip into a process of only commenting on that which needs to be changed. The intent of the validation method is to help set up and reward good habits and good work right from the start. This approach generates enthusiasm and commitment for the job at hand. It has the added advantage of helping the new employee quickly feel like a contributing part of the team.
A team approach to orientation can be a powerful tool both to reaffirm the basic culture and to bring the trial services employee into alignment with that culture. One method for implementing a team approach is to assign each team member an orientation task and the time needed to carry out the task. A second and probably more effective approach is to facilitate a team meeting specifically for the purpose of orienting the trial services employee. A good place to initiate the discussion is with a general question such as: what are the most important areas of orientation for our new team member? The responses can be put on a flip chart and then systematically discussed by the team with a focus on insuring the new employee’s understanding.
One important way to define and understand organizational culture is by the values that are held in common. A team exercise that can be used to help align the trial services employee to the culture is called shared values. Again, the supervisor works as the facilitator and asks the team this question: to work effectively together, what professional values do we need to hold in common? This question can lead to some intense discussion and some very good spin off questions such as: what is a value? Do we always act consistent with our values? Do we have shared values? What does it mean to act in alignment with these values? As a side note, one measure of the strength of the team is the level of honesty in the discussion over values.

This E-zine ends by returning to a critical point. The trial services period is best used when it is viewed as a time to grow or build something that can be sustained over time. Pulling the weeds is important but the desired growth must be the critical focus. All too often the primary focus is on weed pulling with little thought given to the possibilities and potentialities. Hopefully this e-zine has opened the door to working towards a more productive trial services period.

In Defense of the Trial Service Period

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:57:00 +0000

Often times new e-zines come from a problem presented to me either through the arbitration process or one of my other professional activities. This e-zine is the second in a series of three related to the trial services period. During this past week I ran into a familiar problem dealing with the trial services period. In this case, the employer has a 90 day trial services period and a practice of dismissing an unsuccessful employee on the 89^th day of employment; perfectly acceptable practice per the last e-zine. As a matter of policy, no reasons are given for the dismissal other than the statement that the employee has not successfully completed the trial services period. Problem! In this case, the employee was deaf; a fact that constitutes a disability under the ADA. The plot thickens, the employer, during the prior two years, has only dismissed two employees during the trial services period; the instant employee and one prior. The prior employee was also deaf. Now we are in trouble.

While the courts have long recognized, as was discussed last month, that an employee can be dismissed without cause during a bona fide trial services period, the courts have never found that a trial services period protects the employer against the requirements of the ADA. The case is still pending as an EEOC complaint but my guess is that the employer is in trouble on this one.

While the ADA does not protect employees who fail to carry out the essential tenets of their job, the employer has a major burden to both demonstrate that it does not have an inappropriate pattern of unlawful discrimination and that the decision to dismiss the employee on the 89^th day was based solely on permissible reasons. For the purposes of this e-zine, I want to emphasize that the requirements of specific statutes will always trump your personnel policies – including the portion on Trial Service. You must always meet the minimum requirements of law in the way that you apply your policy.

The important point of this month’s e-zine, however, is not to focus on the legal issues concerning the trial services period, but rather to look at the possibilities. The trial services period should be all about performance. True, one dimension of the issue of performance concerns whether an employee can demonstrate the ability to perform at an acceptable level. But, when focus is attached exclusively to the right of dismissal, it misses the potentialities of the trial services period.

While the unfettered right of dismissal is an important element in a trial services period, it cannot be allowed to overshadow the more significant element which is the use of the trial services period to light a fire in new employees. If what the employer seeks is high performing employees, constant reminders that the new employee “may not make it” hardly seems to be an incendiary practice. Rather than dismissal, the focus during trial service periods should be on practices that help insure a long-term commitment to high performance. Three thoughts come to mind to help build this practice.

First, in the book First Break All the Rules, the authors cite extensive research that indicates the strong correlation between high performance and a relationship between the employee and the immediate supervisor. I do not think these research results are surprising as it makes logical sense that we all work better in an environment of positive social regard. If an employee trusts, respects and/or appreciates his or her immediate supervisor, obviously the employee will be more open to direction and coaching. The trial services period is clearly the time to establish those qualities in the relationship. What I am suggesting is that attention to relationship is as important, in the long run, as attention to work performance.

Second, the trial services period is an ideal time to bring the employee into alignment with the culture. While a more extended discussion of the process by which alignment can be achieved is a good subject for a future e-zine, I want to make two quick observations at this point. First, employees learn about culture through the modeling efforts by supervisors and fellow employees. Thus alignment can only be achieved through the involvement of team members. However, there is a double advantage to the employer of including team members in the process of creating alignment. Not only will the group process help bring new employees into alignment; it will also reaffirm to existing employees the importance of the culture.

Third, completing the trial services period has to mean something. One of my favorite definitions of happiness is “happiness is the successful completion of a worthy goal.” When a pilot successfully completes training, he or she receives wings to memorialize that feat. Having personally gone through that process, I have a clear memory about the feeling of accomplishment. In my view, that feeling of accomplishment is needed by the employee to fuel commitment and a high level of future performance. The employer needs to do something to show that passing from trial services to regular employment is a significant event.

Finally, you probably have guessed from reading this e-zine that the question of how to most successfully structure and implement a trial service period is my current, top research interest. I am convinced that the trial service period is the most effective time for the employer to head off performance problems by focusing on procedures that can help insure performance successes. The new employee is generally the most open to responding to these efforts. I am currently working with a couple of clients to completely redesign their whole approach to the trial services period. If any of you are interested in the specifics of what we are doing, please let me know.

Next month we will complete the three month e-zine series on trial service periods.

Quote:

What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Thoughts on Trial Service Employement

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 04 May 2005 00:05:00 +0000

Private sector employment includes non-profits (private corporations with non-profit status). The law, however, does not always treat public sector employment the same as private sector employment. When writing these e-zines, I have attempted to carefully draw this distinction, when the distinction is important. Last month, I wrote an e-zine on severance pay. Unfortunately, as one of the recipients kindly pointed out in a return e-mail, I overlooked the fact that severance pay is by and large forbidden in public employment. Various federal and state statutes prohibit the “gifting” of public funds and severance pay is typically considered a gift – no work, no pay. Thus, while there may be a gray area over whether the employee must work the last few days before leaving employment in order to receive full compensation, clearly multi-month severance packages cannot be put together for public employees. I feel much better now that I have cleared the record on this issue.

On to this month’s topic. On August 10, of this year, one of my colleagues and I will be speaking at a national conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. For the record, I most enjoy speaking at conferences in: New York, Orlando, Anaheim, Las Vegas, and anywhere in Hawaii. The focus of the presentation is on managing the trial services employee. The presentation will look not only at the organizational and legal issues around the trial services period but will also map out steps that can be taken to initiate the new employee into the organizational culture. The early work that I have completed to prepare for this presentation has led me to believe that it is a topic worth discussing in the e-zine. Specifically, I intend to use the next three or four e-zines to construct an outline for effectively managing the trial services employee. In this issue I will begin by looking at two critical issues: 1) what should we call the trial services period, and 2) what significance does employment law place on the trial services period.

What to call it?

Most of the personnel handbooks that I run into still call the trial services period a “probationary period.” For a number of reasons, I believe that using the term “probationary period” to discuss the first stage of an individual’s employment is a very poor title. I recognize that it is commonly used this way but believe the term “probationary” has too much connotation of wrong-doing. Felons serve a probationary period in lieu of jail time or they are placed on probation post jail. Employees are put on probation when they have done something wrong. Thus, starting employment on probation carries the unnecessary and inappropriate sense of wrongdoing.

The term “trial services period” carries with it the concept that one is being given the opportunity to demonstrate capabilities. This is a time of training and development. It is also a time that both parties, employer and employee, can assess whether the position is a good fit for the employee. Most importantly, it is a golden opportunity for the organization to build off of a new employee’s enthusiasm for the job and appreciation for being given the job.

Significance of Employment Law

From the standpoint of employment law, there are good reasons why an employer benefits from distinguishing between an early trial services period and regular employment. First, either through a labor contract or through the organization’s personnel policies, most employees are afforded a grievance procedure by which to bring a formal complaint. Almost all of the labor contracts that I have reviewed clearly deny to the trial services employee the right to grieve dismissal during the trial services period. In other words, if you remove the trial services employee from his or her employment, that separation cannot be challenged. If you do not have a labor contract or where one does not apply, personnel policies can still distinguish between the rights of the trial services employee and the rights of the regular employee as regards the filing of a formal complaint.

Second, in the landmark Supreme Court case called Loudermill (1985), the Court emphasized that employment status in the public sector was a creation of the policies and rules promulgated by the employer. The Court goes on to emphasize that once the employer has created an employment status that carries with it a sense of permanency (regular employment), then that employee has a property interest in their employment and must be granted full due process for a discharge. This decision by the Court, in the view of legal authorities, clearly permits the employer to establish a trial services period that would carry with it no constitutional due process issues rights (no expectation of permanency thus no property interest).

While the Loudermill decision applies only to public sector employment, I believe the Court’s logic in that decision has broad applications. There are many good reasons why it is advantageous to make a clear distinction between the permanency of regular employment and the impermanency of trial services. While the next e-zine will look at the importance of making that distinction in a positive way, as a general matter of employment law it is often useful to make that distinction.

Reflecting over the points outlined above, I am closing this e-zine by offering three suggestions:

Review your personnel policies and/or your labor contract and determine whether the word trial services better reflects the early period of employment in your organization than does the word probationary period. If you have not made the change, is it possible to do so?
Review the language that describes the trial services period (probationary period) in your personnel policies or labor contract. Is it overly negative, focusing on consequences for the failure to perform? Without diminishing a clear message that separation can occur if the employee is not successful during the trial services period, can the language be written to emphasize that this is an opportunity for the new employee to shine?
Does the language of your labor agreement and/or personnel policies clearly indicate that the separation from employment for the trial services employee is distinctly different than the discharge of a regular employee? In my view, an organization ought to discharge a regular employee for cause while it separates a trial services employee for failure to pass the trial services period. The two are distinctly different. Similarly, the employer should not be using formal discipline on the trial services employee. If you cannot bring forth the desired behavior with coaching and training, then the employee has not passed trial services and should be removed from service.

One last point, personnel policies/labor contracts also use the concept of a trial services period (probationary period) for a promotion. Again, I believe it wise to focus on the positive. One difference related to the trial services period for promotion will involve the right of an employee to return to a prior position if he or she fails the trial services period. I cannot imagine that one would want to promote an individual if he or she was doing a poor job in their existing position. Thus, it seems to me that the right of return makes good sense. The policies, however, should be clear on this point.

As noted above, in June we will turn to the “art” of successfully managing the trial services employee and the organizational benefits that derive from putting a greater emphasis on working with the new employee.

Quote of the month:

We cannot teach people anything;

we can only help them discover it.

- Galileo

The Facts on Severance Pay: What's Required and What's Advisable

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 23:41:00 +0000

Severance pay has recently become a topic of discussion with a client and, as a result, I took some time to do a little research. Severance pay is extra compensation (treated like regular wages) paid to employees as a result of involuntary termination or as an enticement to voluntary termination. Since severance pay is treated as wages, it would go on the employee’s W-2 just like any other wage. If you are in a situation where you might consider offering or providing severance pay, there are a few facts that you should be aware of.

Severance pay is not covered under federal wage and hour (FISA) legislation but is covered in a few state statutes. For example, the State of Maine requires severance pay in the case of relocations or shutdowns. Therefore, an employer should check with their state department of labor before determining whether to offer severance pay and, if offered, how much to provide.
While many employers provide severance pay for managers and executive level employees, very few provide it to hourly employees. This distinction may very well be an issue addressed by state statute, so one should be careful in making this decision.
Severance pay is usually provided as either a matter of the employer’s general practice or a specific policy. Only infrequently is it provided on a case-by-case basis.
Severance pay, in many situations, would be better considered as a severance package. Within this package you might have matters related to insurance, pension benefits and severance pay. If so, the employer should keep in mind that parts of the severance package may be a requirement of statute and other parts a voluntary action on the part of the employer. The employer should maintain the ability to separate the voluntary from the required in the event that agreement cannot be reached on the whole package.
Frequently, companies that provide a substantial severance payment will condition the payment on the employee’s agreement not to take any legal action against the employer. In such a case, the employer should be aware that the employee has the right to refuse the severance pay and proceed with the legal action – assuming that legal action can be taken. At least one source that I found indicated that the courts are more responsive to a no-lawsuit restriction on severance pay when it is a matter specifically addressed in the company’s policies.
Obviously, if the employee has the right to accept or refuse the severance package then the employee also has the right to negotiate the terms. Since there is no duty to bargain, the employer can reject the employee’s efforts to negotiate the severance package or can attempt to take advantage of what might be an opportunity to reach agreement that would ultimately save the employer a substantial amount of money and be to everyone’s advantage.
The amount of severance pay is typically related to the number of years of service; with a cap often being placed on the total number of years for which credit will be given. For example, a one-year employee may be granted a one-week severance package, a ten-year employee might be given a ten-week package and a seventeen year employee a fifteen week severance pay benefit where the company has a fifteen week maximum benefit. Since severance pay is not a matter of law, there is no rule as to what is reasonable. Consistency in the employer’s severance pay activities would be advisable.
Generally speaking, you should not expect an employee to make a final decision with regard to severance pay the first time you make the offer. See it as a multi-session negotiation. For example, you might have an initial sitting with the employee in which you lay out the broad perspectives of your severance package with the conclusion that you don’t want any response from the employee at this time but would rather have the employee take it and study it for a week and come back so that you can discuss it. A week later you may sit down with the employee and work out elements such as matters related to pension, medical insurance or other things involved in this package with additional discussions over the amount of severance pay and the no-lawsuit provision. You can then schedule an additional follow-up sessions. On the other hand, the employee may be fully willing to resolve all matters during the first or second session and, if so, proceed to settlement. Always remember that time means everything in negotiations and what a person is not willing to accept at one point in time they may be fully willing to accept at some later point in time.
Severance pay can be given as a one-time payment or in multiple payments. Multiple payments have substantial value if there are conditions that the employee needs to meet that are part of the severance package.
The following is some sample severance pay policy language that you can tweak to meet your specific situation:

SEVERANCE PAY

A. An employee who has been employed for a continuous period of at least 18 months and who is involuntarily separated from employment for reasons other than misconduct or unacceptable performance and who is not eligible for an immediate annuity shall receive severance pay.

B. The amount of severance pay shall be one week’s salary for each year of the first fifteen years of service and two weeks salary for each year of service after fifteen. No severance pay will be granted for service after the twentieth year.

C. Upon separation, the employer shall pay the employee’s severance pay at monthly intervals in an amount equal to his or her basic monthly salary until such time as all severance pay that is owed has been fully paid to the employee.

After having spent a substantial amount of time researching this question, I have arrived at the conclusion that for most of my clients it is wiser not to have a specifically written severance policy than it is to have such a policy. A specific severance pay policy may unduly restrict a small employer. Also, there is nothing that prohibits the negotiations of severance pay, on a case by case basis, and conditioning those negotiations on the specific facts of the involuntary separation.

Finally, since I am self-employed, I have no one with whom I can negotiate my own severance pay. I decided to resolve this matter by setting up a personal severance pay fund in the event that I terminate myself and I am beginning to set money aside in that fund. In the event that any of you feel sorry for me, have an overwhelmingly generous spirit and would like to contribute to my personal severance pay fund, I will gladly accept such donations.

Guidelines for the Use of Administrative Leave

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:16:00 +0000

A recent consulting activity raised the question of the appropriate use of administrative leave. Sometimes it may be necessary to place one of your employees on leave. The most common reason for doing this is to safeguard the employer during an investigation into allegations of misconduct. Administrative leave includes both the temporary removal of the employee from all job duties or the temporary re-assignment of an employee to a different job pending an investigation. Administrative leave is not a disciplinary action, and it should not harm the employee’s record or performance appraisal. If the investigation confirms wrongdoing on behalf of the employee, disciplinary action should be imposed following the investigation.

You, as the employer, may question whether the nature of the alleged infraction is significant enough to warrant placing the employee on administrative leave. The critical question is not the seriousness of the infraction, but rather the vulnerability of the employer. If the nature of the infraction is such as to create a potential liability for the employer if the employee continues to perform his or her duties during the investigation, then administrative leave is appropriate. For example, if you believe an employee is embezzling money from the organization, the minimum prudent response is to remove that employee from a position where he or she can continue to take money. Similarly, an employer would not allow an employee to continue to drive a school bus during an investigation into a drunk driving charge. Were an accident to happen, the liability would be enormous.

In implementing an administrative leave, there are a few basic rules to follow:

Your actions must be consistent with your personnel policies and/or your labor contract.

You should have a consistent policy. Paying one employee who is on administrative leave and not another could lead to legal action or allegations of disparate treatment. Also the employer should be clear about whether an employee can use any accumulated vacation or other paid leave to compensate for an unpaid administrative leave.

In making a determination of whether administrative leave is appropriate, you should consider the potential legal liability of allowing the employee to remain at work, the state of mind of the employee, and whether the employee could potentially cause more harm or disruption if he or she remains at work during the investigation.

The law does not require that you pay an employee when they perform no work. Most employers, however, find it wise to, at minimum, reimburse an employee for lost wages if he or she is exonerated. Otherwise you may find yourself dealing with a bitter employee.

If you call the employee in for an investigative interview, you must pay the employee for this time. I recommend a full day’s pay as an incentive for cooperation.

If an incident occurs during the workday, you should send the employee home with pay for the remainder of the day. If the employee is exempt from overtime, you should always pay the employee for a full day when they are sent home, regardless of whether the remainder of the leave will be without pay. Exempt employees by definition are not “hourly”, and employers should not dock their pay in any increment less than a full workday. Doing so may lead to challenges of the employee’s exempt status.

Be sure the employee is aware of how they will be kept informed of the status of the investigation. Employees should be told that they must be available during working hours to attend conferences or interviews related to the investigation. Also it’s a good idea to designate days and/or times that the employee should contact their supervisor or Human Resources to check in.

An administrative leave may be turned into a suspension without pay if the investigation establishes charges sufficient to justify a suspension but not sufficient to terminate the employee. “Time served” thus becomes the discipline and gets the employee back to work.

To avoid disputes later, always follow up with the employee in writing. Send a memo to the employee notifying them that they have been placed on administrative leave, the reason for the leave, whether the leave will be paid or unpaid, and how contact will be maintained during the leave. Also, if your labor contract or organizational policies provide for a hearing or conference with the employee, the memo should state the process and timelines for requesting such a process. Keep a copy of the memo in the employee’s file.

It is in your best interest, and the employee’s, to conduct the investigation as expediently as possible. Remember, you are either losing money to pay an employee to stay home, or creating a financial hardship for an employee who is home without pay.

The time to create a policy on administrative leave is not when an incident occurs. If you do not have a policy developed, you should consider creating one. Be sure that your policy is clear and utilized consistently and that your managerial staff are trained on the use of administrative leave for investigation of wrongdoing. Hopefully, you won’t need to use your policy, but it’s best to be prepared.

Tattoos and Piercings Galore: Implementing a Modern Dresscode

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:45:00 +0000

I recently came across a problem area that I thought might be important enough to put into an e-zine. The issue has to do with body piercings and tattoos. What are the employer’s rights with regard to “controlling” employee decisions to decorate their bodies with tattoos or provide uniquely situated piercings? Of course, what I mean by the term “employer rights” involves the current state of employment law as it implies to any right of the employer to control-sanction-prohibit the free expression of employees related to decorating their bodies.

My first response to the above question is to encourage all of you to acquire the book Weirdos in the Workplace by John Putzier, published by Prentiss Hall with a 2004 copyright. This book briefly summarizes, in a somewhat entertaining fashion, the interaction between employment law and a host of issues related to unusual employee behavior in the workplace. For our purposes regarding this e-zine, page 48 from the book will do nicely:

Art is a GenY individualist whose hobby is to “personalize his body.” He has a bolt through his nose, a stud in his tongue, rings through his eyebrows and tattoos in all the right (or wrong) places. Art thinks of himself as, well… exactly that… living, walking “art.”

The book goes on to point out that “self-inflicted diversity” is not a protected class. “Art can express himself as painfully as he wishes when he is off the clock,” but the employer has substantial rights with regard to limiting body art in the workplace. The employer can require the removal of hardware, require that tattoos be covered with long sleeves, turtle necks, etc., can make job assignments where body art cannot be covered and can choose not to employee based on a reasonable decision that in-your-face body art will not present the desired public image.

To put the matter in perspective, body piercings and tattoos are considered by the court in the same category as dress codes. With this in mind, keep in fact the following four generalizations about employment law as it applies to dress codes:

The courts have always permitted employers to reasonably determine their public image which includes the right to set a dress code. Thus, IBM always had the right to require its employees to wear white shirts or blouses, ties, etc., a right that is enjoyed by any other employer.

Consistency is a critical factor that is almost always an essential tenet of employment law. That does not mean that all employees have to be treated exactly the same, but any differences should be explainable in business terms.

Your dress code needs to reasonably reflect the type of work that is being performed. For example, an old court case distinguished between employees who interact with the public and those who have no interaction with the public. In the first case the courts permitted the employer to require that all women wear skirts to work – I did mention that this is a very old court case, did I not? In the second case (no public contact) the courts found that requiring skirts was inappropriate because it had nothing to do with the company’s public image and was a hardship on the employees.

Sensitivity has to be paid to the relationship between the employer’s right to impose a dress code and issues related to discrimination around gender, race, religion, etc. If the dress code is perceived to discriminate against a protected class with no discernable business necessity, it can get thrown out. For example, requiring all of the young women in your employment to wear miniskirts will get you in serious trouble unless you are Hooters or some other similar establishment. From my perspective, if you do not understand why this is true, you are already in serious trouble.

The bottom line is this, you have, as the employer, a reasonable right to insist on compliance with a dress code which can include covering up tattoos, removing hardware and dressing appropriate for the position. The dress code can be stricter where employees are required to wear a uniform but can be imposed in a non-uniform situation. For example, the Air Force provides very strict guidelines for how Air Force personnel must present themselves. In this regard, note the following:

Females in uniform or in civilian clothes while on duty, may wear one small, spherical, conservative, diamond, gold, white pearl, silver pierced or clipped earring per earlobe; the earrings in both earlobes must match and the earrings must fit tightly without extending below the earlobes. (AFI 36-2903, Table 2.5)

I cannot imagine any of you who receive this e-zine wanting or needing to be this strict. On the other hand, if you believe the above requirement is a little rigid, then go to the internet, find the Air Force Uniform Policy and check what it has to say for men.

Let me close with this thought, the issue for most of you who read this e-zine is not going to be what you are permitted to do under law but rather what you can effectively implement with your employees. Creating a great deal of negative energy in your workplace by abruptly implementing a harsh and restrictive dress code is hardly what you want to do. At the same time, if you find that the body art of certain employees simply won’t cut it, then it is time to beef-up your dress code because the failure to take action will ultimately limit your effectiveness as an organization. If you need some help writing new policy on this matter, I will be glad to help.

A Thoughtful Review of the Latest Changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 02:22:00 +0000

Having received a couple of requests for info on the new overtime regs, I decided to provide a comprehensive overview of the changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Basically, despite Congressional challenges, new federal overtime rules are in effect that substantially change the overtime status of millions of American workers. The “Overtime Security Rule” is a revision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) which was implemented by the Department of Labor (DOL) on August 23^rdof this year. The revision of the FLSA represents only the third time that overtime rules have been updated since the FLSA went into effect in 1938. The last revision occurred in 1975.

How Have the Rules Changed?

The most significant changes in the 474-page revision of the FLSA are an increase in the salary cap of workers who are automatically eligible for overtime and a change in the determination of which employees are exempt from overtime pay.

Under the new rules, any employee who earns up to $23,660 per year is automatically guaranteed overtime whenever they work more than forty hours a week, regardless of their job duties. This is a substantial increase from the previous cap of $8,660 per year, and covers everyone from blue collar workers to clerical staff to managers, regardless of whether they are paid on an hourly or salary basis. The DOL estimates that this change will grant overtime protection to some 6.7 million workers nationwide.

The second change redefines which employees are considered exempt from overtime. Under the new rules, workers who make more than $23,660 per year are exempt from overtime if their duties are professional, administrative or executive. The law also generally excludes anyone who makes $100,000 per year or more from earning overtime, regardless of their duties or salary basis. Critics of the new rules estimate that this change will eliminate overtime protection for nearly 6 million workers.

Who’s Entitled to Overtime?

So how can an employer know for sure which employees should receive overtime? First, for employers who have employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement which gives them more generous rights to overtime than the new rules, the terms of the labor agreement supersede the new rules.

Second, employers should be aware of what the laws are in their particular state. In states that have different overtime provisions, employers must abide by whichever standards are more beneficial to the employee. States that have separate overtime regulations include: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. A quick trip to the web site for the DOL of the state will provide any desired information.

After taking these two factors into consideration, there are three major tests for determining overtime eligibility.

1.) How much does the employee earn? If the employee makes less than $23,660 per year ($455 a week), they are automatically entitled to overtime, regardless of their duties or salary basis.

2.) What is the employee’s salary basis? Employees who earn more than $23,660 per year and are paid on a “salary” basis are generally exempt from overtime. Salaried employees are paid a fixed salary per pay period, regardless of hours worked, as opposed to employees who are paid “by the hour”. Hourly employees are generally entitled to overtime pay.

3.) What are the employee’s duties? White collar employees who earn more than $23,660 per year are exempt from overtime if their duties are primarily managerial, administrative or professional.

“Managerial” employees are defined by the rules as those whose primary duty is the management of an enterprise (such as a department, store or subdivision), those who customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more other employees, and who have input into personal decisions such as hiring, firing, promotion, etc. (regardless of whether the employee has the sole discretion to do so). Unless otherwise guaranteed overtime by a collective bargaining agreement, employees in this category generally include: executive staff, managers, assistant managers, supervisors and team leaders.

“Administrative” employees are those whose primary duty is performing office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the organization. Administrative employees also exercise “discretion and independent judgment”. Unless otherwise guaranteed overtime by a collective bargaining agreement, employees in this category generally include: administrative assistants, executive secretaries, school principals and vice-principals, school counselors, human resource staff, purchasing staff, public relations and quality control staff.

“Professional” employees are those who are “learned professionals” or “creative professionals”. “Learned professionals” are generally those whose jobs require advanced knowledge of science or some other field of learning which is gained through specialized intellectual instruction. “Creative professionals” are those who perform work requiring invention, imagination, originality or talent. Unless otherwise guaranteed overtime by a collective bargaining agreement, employees in the professional group include: restaurant chefs, nurses, financial service industry workers, insurance claims adjusters, teachers, lawyers, engineers, actors, musicians, dental hygienists, pharmacists, journalists and funeral directors.

The law also guarantees overtime to several groups of workers, regardless of salary or duties, including: blue collar workers (such as carpenters, craftsmen, construction workers, etc.), “first responders” (such as police officers, fire fighters, paramedics and EMTs), computer workers (such as system analysts and computer programmers), and inside sales employees.

For more information on determining which employees are exempt and non-exempt, check out the DOL’s website which includes listings by position and exemption type, exemption tests, fact sheets and frequently asked questions. The website is located at www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay.

What Steps Should Employers Take to Comply?

There are several steps all employers should take to ensure that their organization is in compliance with overtime rules.

1. Review your state law on overtime

2. Review the provisions of any collective bargaining agreements

3. Check the salary levels and salary status of employees

4. Revise job descriptions and clarify which employees are exempt

5. Train HR and payroll employees on the new rules

6. Consult with legal counsel as needed

Finally, before reclassifying employees as exempt under the new rules, be sure to consider the effect it will have on employee morale and retention. Employers always have the right to voluntarily pay overtime to any worker. As with any new rules, it’s only a matter of time before some of these new overtime provisions are challenged in court.

Sick Leave and Chronic Absenteeism

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 03:14:00 +0000

I recently came across a study that caught my interest. Have you ever wondered how many of employees who call in sick are actually ill? A 2003 study by Harris Interactive found that only 36% who claim to be sick are sick. Not only is this figure disturbing, the trend is disquieting. It seems that back in 1995 45% of those taking sick leave were sick; we have lost 9 % in 8 years.

A summary of the full study is available at www.cch.com in an article titled Unscheduled Absence Survey. The actual data on the reasons given for using sick leave, as provided by Harris Interactive:

36% Sick

11% Stress

13% Entitled to their sick leave

18% Personal matters

22% Family Matters

100%

The study also viewed the data from the standpoint of companies with very good morale (12%) and good morale (44%), fair morale (34%) and poor morale (10%). As you might guess, morale did have a marked impact on absenteeism. Companies with very good/good morale had an overall absenteeism rate of 1.8% compared with 2.1% for companies with fair/poor moral. More importantly, Companies with very good/good morale saw an increase in absenteeism of 34% compared to 15%.

There was one other thought-provoking piece of information in the study. It seems that there are a growing number of employees who have decided that they would rather be sick at work than to stay home (presenteeism). Suffering at work, for these employees, is better than suffering at home and you get to save your sick leave for more important things. Obviously, from the employer’s perspective, this can be more of a problem then absenteeism.

There are a number of different responses that one might take to this information. One response is to view it in the context of data, as reported in e-zine #6, that employees are on average working 199 more hours per year than they were thirty years ago. In that case, the use of sick leave to reduce stress or deal with personal/family matters may seem quite reasonable.

Another way of looking at the problem is to find in the data support to beef up your absenteeism policy. The implementation and regular enforcement of a no-fault absenteeism program may very well be justified and cost-effective. Details on how to implement such a program were provided in e-zine #3 and I will be happy to resend that e-zine if you did not receive it or have misplaced it. However, 96% of companies responding to the survey indicated that they had a discipline policy related to absenteeism. This fact makes me wonder both as to the consistent application of the policy and/or the overall effectiveness of formal discipline as an approach to address the problem.

Finally, the survey clearly provides support for modifying the employer’s approach to the larger issue of structuring the program by which employees take time off from work. The old approach is to make a distinction between time off that is an earned benefit (vacation and holidays) with time off that is protected in the form of an insurance policy – only those who need it should use it (funeral leave, sick leave, personal leave, jury duty). The survey mentions that more and more employers are changing to a single paid time off program (PTO) by combining all of the above. This seems fully justified since so many employees do not make a distinction between the two. Moreover, a PTO program is so much easier to administer.

Given the significance of the absenteeism issue, I have decided to devote the next e-zine to laying out the issues and approaches to a PTO program. So, stay tuned, there is some good stuff to come.

The Limits of Conflict Management Training

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 03 May 2004 02:49:00 +0000

Interpersonal conflict resolution is often an area that clients want to discuss. Generally, the topic is approached because of a specific work team that is going through a highly conflictive stage. Many times the issue is presented to me through a question like, “Do you think we can improve the situation by providing interpersonal conflict management skills training?”

I have a very strong belief in the value and importance of providing training within an organization. For example, I have found that providing skills training in conflict management to new supervisors can have substantial payoffs to the organization. However, there are many situations where I do not believe that training is the answer to the problem. Using training in an attempt to reduce the conflictiveness of a work team is one of those areas.

Yes, it is often true that individual team members can benefit from the conflict management training. I am very well aware of programs that I think have value for the individual. For example, it is reasonably easy to structure a training program around the book Getting Together by Fisher and Brown. I still use this book in one of my graduate level courses and have always found it to be a very helpful guide on successful strategies and tactics for dealing with conflict and conflictive situations. The essence of the book is to teach the skill of “unconditionally constructive behavior.” The views that are set out in the book have nothing to do with being nice but rather focus on the important life lesson that conditioning your constructiveness on the behavior of another is to your detriment. Why let someone else decide whether you will act constructively or destructively?

Now I believe that there is value in providing training on unconditional constructive behavior for members of a highly conflictive work team, but the impact of this training on team alignment and cohesiveness will probably be small. The fact is that improving individual behavior does not generally bring around a re-orientation of the team as a whole. That issue needs to be confronted directly in a process that is different than simply providing a training program. I have had the opportunity in the last couple of years to witness a number of teams that have successfully gone through significant, positive realignment. There are four basic elements in the work that I do to bring about this alignment. These elements are outlined as follows:

The vast majority of employees in a work group that is conflictive would prefer to be on a different track. The stress that the conflict creates on their personal lives and the negative impact on performance is the motivator for change. When provided a viable method for improving the work environment, employees will usually make this choice particularly when given the opportunity to make the choice as a group.
The most effective approach is to have the group focus on creating what it wants. A far less productive approach is to have the group focus on what it wants to get rid of. This latter approach frequently generates ill will and finger pointing behavior. The basic concept is to facilitate a process that will help create a positive, affirming culture.
A team culture is grown, not imposed. Since it is grown the group must learn to develop processes for nurturing the desired culture. Without these processes, the affirming culture can easily die. My approach to the group begins by taking it through an activity designed to clarify what is wanted. The second step is to help the group design the program by which it will bring about the desired culture.
The final step is to build team commitment to what has been designed. The central message of this element is that our actions will speak louder than or words – how original. We need the commitment from every team member to honor what we have agreed to.

The bottom line is that all too often having individual team members grow in their personal skills does not address the needs of the team to grow as a team. Good training is helpful for the development of personal skills. However, a facilitated process, which may incorporate some training, is the only program that I have seen move a whole team forward. If a work group has relationship problems, then those problems need to be addressed as a team.

Spotlight on Integrity

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:53:00 +0000

I recently received an informational request, asking whether I could provide a one-day training program on the topic of Integrity. Frankly, I was somewhat surprised with this request. For one thing, I have never heard of a full-day training program on a topic like integrity. There are many programs on the general topic of ethics, but to single out one element seemed unusual.

The more I thought about it, however, the more I found myself intrigued by this request. I began to realize that while I have not presented a full-day training program on the topic of integrity, that subject is woven throughout many of the training programs that I do conduct. For example, a program that I frequently conduct deals with the topic of supervision and the effective use of “power.” A basic premise of that course is that power used with integrity builds relationships, while power used without integrity destroys relationships. Likewise, much of the work I do in dispute resolution/prevention emphasizes that integrity, or the lack of integrity, is at the heart of our ability to deal effectively with problems.

As a result of my reflection, I submitted an outline for a training program that was based on two primary premises. First, my sense is that we do not directly seek integrity. Rather it is a fundamental element in the emergence of the desired outcome. Wile integrity for its own sake is quite obviously significant, it is the impact on organizational life that is the justification for creating a training program on the topic. Second, preaching on the topic of integrity will have almost a zero impact on an audience. On the other hand, a group of participants can learn from good examples and stories. More importantly, interactive dialogue will have to be the cornerstone for the design of the training program. After all, I doubt seriously that any of us can hold ourselves up as the model for integrity (let he who is without sin cast the first stone).

With the above two points in mind, I provided the organization the following outline for a training program:

Integrity: The gateway to a positive workplace culture.
Integrity: The gateway to powerful relationships.
Integrity: The gateway to constructive collaboration.
Integrity: The gateway to personal happiness.

As part of the work that I do with different organizations, I regularly critique the response to an EEOC complaint. Many of you have been there and know of what I speak. A question that is always asked on the initial EEOC complaint is whether the organization wishes to mediate the problem. I have a standard response. If the complainant has been honest in his or her statement of the complaint, then there is room for mediation. If the complainant has been substantially dishonest in his or her statement, the only thing to mediate is honesty. Mediation doesn’t handle the topic of honesty very effectively.

What I overwhelmingly have found is that complainants often take the position that he or she was a model employee and that the employer, for reasons of age, gender or race, has chosen to mistreat this model employee.

My recommendation not to mediate a case that has a high level of dishonesty in it is predicated on my experience as both an arbitrator and a mediator. As a mediator, I cannot and do not choose to address the subject of integrity. The mediator is not him or herself a part of the substantive discussions. Therefore, it would be difficult for the mediator to bring up the issue of honesty. As an arbitrator, I routinely make a judgment about the integrity of individuals who have testified. The judgment, at times, is extremely harsh. To put it bluntly, the award simply states, “you lied, you lose.”

Returning to the EEOC complaint, an EEOC hearing officer does have the same ability to make an evaluation as to who is “correct” as to their position on the point of dispute. This ruling does involve making a judgment about the integrity of the person’s position. If the complainant has been dishonest, the hearing officer can so rule. If the organization has been dishonest, the hearing officer can also so rule.

I would like to close on a positive note. I am very much looking forward to the opportunity to conduct a one-day training program on the topic of Integrity. It will be a unique, new challenge and I believe it will be a great addition to the body of work that I have been developing related to building a positive culture in an organization.

Vacation Usage (or Lack Thereof)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:49:00 +0000

A graduate student in one of my Public Administration classes recently wrote a paper on the use of vacation time in the United States. It turns out that employees in this country annually turn back some $21 billion of unused vacation time. This represents 1.8 days of returned vacation per employee nationally. Here are some figures with regard to average annual vacation usage to think about: U.S. – 13, Japan – 25, South Korea – 25, Canada – 26, Great Britain – 28, Brazil – 34, Germany – 35, France – 37 and Italy – 42.

What ought to be of concern to an employer about these statistics is that an average score is probably not very significant. For example, to say that 1.8 days of vacation are returned by each employee in the country is not very revealing because the data is undoubtedly bi-modally distributed. As most every HR or Employee Services Director can attest, there are a group of employees who take every possible day off just as soon as they can. These employees never accumulate any vacation, personal leave days or sick leave. Whenever a day of sick leave goes on the book, they immediately get sick and use the day. Vacation and other paid days off are treated similarly.

On the other hand, there is that group of employees who are never sick and are almost forced by their employer to take vacation time. It is this second group of employees that give back vacation days and they probably average 6-7 days per year. While you are thinking about this, let me add a new statistic. I keep running into what appears to be a reasonably well known fact. Americans today are working 199 more hours per year than 30 years ago. Tying this back to vacation usage, while wages have gone up substantially over that 30 year period, both the amount of vacation time available for employees and the amount of vacation used has remained constant.

A substantial amount of my current work focuses on creating highly energized employees with the ultimate goal of creating a high performing organization. Last November I brought to your attention the book, The Power of Full Engagement (Jim Loehr & Tony Schwartz). One of the strong points that they make in their book is that peak performance is not a continuous activity. Rather, peak performance needs a recovery period before one can move on to the next peak performance. In this context, vacation usage is absolutely essential.

With all of the above points in mind, I would like to offer the following three observations:

Having employees give back vacation time is not a good thing.
Long vacations (4, 5, 6 weeks) are not as useful for peak performance as more frequent, short vacations.
Effective supervision requires that the supervisor monitor time-off. Employees who never take time off should be a concern just like those employees who never accumulate an extra day of available paid time off.

One last thought – meal and rest breaks also impact recovery time. I was recently working with a client who had a group of clerical employees that all wanted to work through their lunchtime (1/2 hour). In other words, these employees wanted to pull out a sack lunch or go to the local deli and pick up a sandwich, and eat it at their desk while they continued to work – paid time of course. Beyond the fact that a clerical employee is not nearly as efficient when they are eating, a practice of working through your lunch hour ignores the importance of recovery. No wonder we all feel stressed out in this country when we can’t even take a half hour to put work aside and eat lunch.

Just to remind you, lunch period is unpaid only if it is completely duty free including being free of on-call responsibilities. Obviously if the employees are working a position where they have no choice but to be on duty for their full shift, then they ought be receiving compensation for the meal time and recovery will be a separate issue. By the way, you are completely within your legal rights to require employees to take a half hour or an hour lunch period. Scheduling the work day is a management prerogative.

As for me, I’ve decided to move to France where I can get a two hour duty-free lunch break and a glass of wine.

Quantum Culture: The Physics of the Energized Workplace

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 02 Nov 2003 04:00:00 +0000

I recently arbitrated a dispute involving a Teamsters bargaining unit and a large non-profit organization in the State of Washington. Their labor history, in my view, might best be characterized as what not to do. It was marked with extensive conflict, including a recent strike by the employees that lasted almost four months. As I listened to the testimony of various witnesses, I found myself repeatedly attempting to understand why there was so much negativity in the workforce. It is easy to arrive at the conclusion that the negativity is a product of having a labor union represent the bargaining unit employees, but that analysis seems superficial to me since there are numerous examples of labor management relationships which support a positive workplace environment.

That arbitration hearing influenced my decision to write about negative and positive energy in the workplace. While an employee work stoppage is an obvious example of negative energy at work, it does not take a strike to create negative energy. The fact is that negativity in the workplace is one of the most frequent problems that I find myself discussing with clients. Malicious rumors, gossip and other similar behaviors are all too frequently present. Moreover, I was further influenced to write on this topic by the comment I heard recently from a well known consultant. He believes that negativity in the workplace is the number one problem facing American business.

The following points of analysis are offered with the hope that one or more of them is helpful to those of you receiving this e-zine.

Margaret Wheatley’s wonderful book, Leadership and the New Science, applies principles of quantum physics to the process of leadership. Since quantum physics is all about the study of energy, she has a lot to say about how energy can be directed in an organization. She offers the proposition that managing employees can be rethought of in terms of managing the energy of employees. From this view, management is all about helping employees align their energies towards the twin goals of 1) positively supporting each other and 2) task accomplishment. While easier said then done, I believe that recognizing these goals is an important first step towards significant change.
Also, notice the subtle but important distinction between working to stop malicious gossip or rumors and the goal of building positive energy towards specific goals. My experience has been that when you present a positive task to a workgroup, particularly the task of focusing their energies on helping to build a more positive workplace, their efforts towards this goal pushes aside the ongoing negativity. The challenge for the organization, therefore, is to help supervisors and managers develop the skill set necessary to keep their workgroup’s attention focused on the positive goal. Most important, focusing a group’s energy on what is wanted is usually more productive than trying to focus that energy on what you want to get rid of.

I am very impressed with a new book that I have just received (2003 copyright) by Jim Loehr and Tony Schwartz, The Power of Full Engagement. The authors take the position that “managing energy, not time, is the key to high performance and personal renewal.” The following is found on page 5:

“The number of hours in a day is fixed, but the quantity and quality of energy available to us is not. It is our most precious resource. The more we take responsibility for the energy we bring to the world, the more empowered and productive we become. The more we blame others or external circumstances, the more negative and compromised our energy is likely to be.”

I found this book to have a wealth of good information about energy management in the workplace.
Loehr and Schwartz first emphasize that, just like an athlete trains to become stronger, an organization can train to have greater amounts of positive energy present in the workplace.
Loehr and Schwartz also believe that we increase the capacity for high energy output when employees take on a significant task, work hard at it and then have a period of time for recovery. In their view, employees in an organization gradually wear down when they are asked to output continuously at a high level. On the other hand, work continuously performed at a slower, steady pace never stretches employees and thus also does not work to build greater energy. I believe that the concept of cycles of exertion followed by recovery needs to be explored and implemented.
A critical point is that it is hard to focus de-energized employees on a positive task. Thus, having employees who bring high levels of energy to the workplace is a first step towards creating and aligning positive energies.

Obviously, I find the topic of building, maintaining and focusing positive energy in the workplace to be highly important. Therefore, I intend to revisit it next month with the thought of providing some useful “how-tos.”

Managing the Dysfunctional Employee

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 06 Oct 2003 23:41:00 +0000

I was recently asked to make a presentation at an annual conference for public sector human resource management professionals. Specifically, I was asked to speak on the topic of Managing the Dysfunctional Employee. I thought it might be useful to those of you who receive this e-zine for me to repeat some of the key points made in that presentation. Obviously, the first place to start is with the point that dysfunction is a broad, difficult and ambiguous topic. That being said, I offer the following points.

As an arbitrator, I have always made a distinction between a discipline and/or a discharge case involving a matter of misconduct as opposed to unacceptable performance. One of the practical distinctions between the two is the extent to which the employer expects an immediate behavior change versus a situation where the employee is expected to grow into the ability to perform. For example, if you have an employee that you can prove is stealing from you or sleeping on the job, it is not likely that you will tell the employee that he or she has sixty days to stop stealing or stop sleeping on the job. To put the matter differently, with misconduct the employer has the right to insist on an immediate change in behavior and, if such a change is not forthcoming, to move to discipline including discharge. On the other hand, if the quality or timeliness of an employee’s work is substandard, it is reasonable to expect that the employer will provide a period of time and some assistance to help the employee develop the ability to meet performance requirements. Growing new skills or attitudes clearly takes time.
Most often, the “dysfunctional employee” is a performance problem, not a matter of misconduct. If the employee’s inappropriate behavior was a matter of misconduct, the situation would be clearer and more easily dealt with. A path could be started that would quickly lead to discharge if the employee failed to stop the undesired behavior. Because it is a performance problem, however, what most employers find themselves doing is attempting to coach the employee to bring about a change in performance, usually with little success (otherwise we probably would not use the word “dysfunctional”)
How then do you work with the employee to make a change? I always recommend starting with a positive approach and then moving to formal discipline, if that is necessary. One such approach, that I believe is often overlooked, is to focus on the culture of the employee’s work team. Is it a strong, positive culture that may be able, with the right processes, to reach out and draw the employee into compliance? This idea is the main focus of a new workbook that Martie Geltz and I have recently released called Supervisor’s Guide to Cultivating a Positive Culture (available at 800-807-6544).
Unfortunately, what marks or distinguishes a dysfunctional employee is that he or she is often resistant to positive performance change processes. Moreover, there is a negotiating principle that I find important when addressing the issue of a dysfunctional employee: offers of reasonableness, kindness and cooperation are often viewed as a weakness to be exploited or viewed as a subterfuge for an underlying hostile intent. Thus offers of collaboration are met with increased demands or hostility. As a result, any attempt to be conciliatory is useless unless it is framed within a context of what the employer will not do or accept – you must be able to say “no” with authority.
Since employee dysfunction is often exhibited through a game that is played with the employer, I believe that it is absolutely essential for each employer’s handbook to clearly enunciate positive expectations. For example, employees should be expected to interact positively with other employees, to be productive, to work in a manner that encourages productiveness on the part of other employees and to demonstrate concern about the safety and well-being of individuals that are being provided services. Check your employee handbook, your employee orientation program and your training programs to make sure that the emphasis on affirmative responsibilities is in balance with the emphasis on specific behaviors that are prohibited. Yes, you can terminate the employment of a highly productive employee who makes life miserable for other employees. You need to make sure, however, that employees cannot hide behind the phrase, “I do my job.”
One last thought, as depressing as it sometimes is and as much as you might want to reach out and provide assistance to an employee in distress, years of arbitrating cases and listening to expert testimony leads me to the conclusion that for some the only real change occurs when they hit rock bottom. The termination of employment is often one necessary step towards hitting rock bottom. Moreover, the failure to timely implement the termination often simply prolongs the issue and makes life miserable for management and fellow employees.

Thoughts on Issues of Performance, Attendance and the ADA

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 04 Aug 2003 03:09:00 +0000

As promised in the first edition of the Williams’ HR Insights e-zine, I am providing additional information into the implementation of a no-fault attendance policy. If you are contemplating a no-fault policy, give careful consideration to the following points:

-- A fault based attendance program rests heavily on the requirement that employees provide a doctor’s statement for absences related to an illness or accident. A bona fide doctor’s statement justifies the employee’s absence, and bars the employer from taking action against the employee. A no-fault policy does not require a doctor’s slip for any absence. I like this fact because doctors will always provide a statement, even if it says no more than, “patient X visited me on X day and reported that he had a sore throat.” Notice that this statement does not indicate whether or not the employee could have worked. In fact, as most of you know, it often seems that a doctor’s statement is one element of an elaborate game that is being played out between the employer and the employee. The no-fault policy is an attempt to get away from this game, and simply recognize that the employee was hired because there is work to do. When an employee is not at work, the work is not being done. While there is some latitude a reasonable employer must give for an illness and/or other personal problems, the employee’s good attendance is an essential tenet of the job.

-- Please note that the exception to the first bullet involves an absence that is covered under FMLA. Any absence covered by FMLA cannot be assigned an attendance point under the no-fault attendance program. Thus, a no-fault attendance policy would need to be constructed that clearly differentiates those absences that would produce an attendance point from those that would not. A no-fault attendance policy, as explained in the July e-zine, is usually based on a point system where the accumulation of a certain number of attendance points will lead to discharge. Examples of what might trigger an attendance point include any absence (multiple consecutive days of absences are typically viewed as one absence or one point), a tardiness of 45 or more minutes, a no call/no show, funeral leave and time taken off during the day for personal reasons. Please note that a one-day absence that is a no call/no show would receive two attendance points.

-- One of the important elements of a no-fault attendance policy is that very legitimate absences (funeral leave) are given an attendance point – the employee is absent. Thus, while your policies may provide for funeral leave (paid or unpaid) the absence would still create an attendance point. Under a well-crafted no-fault policy, however, employees with good attendance will quickly remove any attendance points that have been placed on his or her record.

While we are on the subject of employee attendance problems, I ran across a recent court decision (State of Washington) where the employer was held liable for the taunting of an employee by fellow employees over absences related to an on-the-job injury. The employees were upset because they felt the injury was faked and resented the fact that the employer had provided light duty alternative work. As a result, a group of employees made life miserable for the injured employee. This cost the employer a great deal of money, even though the employees were told to “knock it off” by their supervisor on a number of occasions.

There are two legal concepts that are of substantial importance as applied to state and federal law. The first is the word “pretext.” Whenever the court evaluates an employee’s claim under statutes, such as ADEA, ADA and OSHA, the critical question asked by the court is whether the reasons given by the employer for discipline or discharge are simply a pretext provided to justify an illegal action under the statute. Thus, the evidence provided by the employer, in order to satisfy the court’s concern over pretext, must by solid and well-documented.

The other term of significance is “essential functions.” The problem with the term “essential functions” is its slippery nature. Employers are not required to change an essential function of a position to accommodate an employee. An essential function is a job duty that is fundamental, basic, necessary and indispensable to filling a particular position; as opposed to marginal duty divorced from the essence or substance of the job. Also note that an essential function includes both the expected conduct for the position and the actual service that is required from the employee.

A recent Nevada case, upheld by the Appeals Court, provides insight into the importance of the “essential functions” concept. The Appeals Court affirmed that an employee is not entitled to reasonable accommodation, under the ADA, when he or she is unable to perform the essential functions of the job. The protections of the ADA apply only when an employee with a bona fide disability is able to perform the essential functions of the positions. The employer must be careful with this concept, however, because if the disability is the result of a workplace injury, the employee may be entitled to reasonable accommodations under state disability statutes.