If you have ever had occasion to reward talent there is one question you must ask before you can begin to answer the question of how to reward high performers:

“What motivates the employee you’re looking to reward?”

Different things motivate different people

Is the person you’re rewarding an hourly employee? Salaried? Commission based?

If it’s a money-motivated type, cash is typically king.

Do you think that acknowledgement at a company wide function, newsletter, or some other public display (“talent on parade”) is enough, or even what they care about? Maybe it’s cash, paid time off, airline tickets and hotel to someplace they want to go, etc. Be creative.

What do THEY want?

You probably already have an idea of how much money you’re going to spend to reward the individual, so ask.

If you want to reward someone, give something they desire. This not only makes them happy, but also will help you retain them because you’ve made the effort to make the reward about them.

I worked for a search firm for nine years. Every year there was a quota club trip for employees achieving at least 100 percent of quota.

The two principals always decided where we would go. It was typically within a 3 – 4 hour flight from New York and it was five days and four nights. It was typically a beach-side resort. The company paid for our flights, hotel room, and 1 company dinner.

Make it about YOU and suffer the consequences

It was always a very expensive resort where the employees paid for each and every meal, except the one “company” dinner. This would usually add up to several hundred dollars in meals/drinks. It always irked me that they’d fly us to some expensive resort and expect us to pay for everything outside of our flight and hotel room. To me, this was no “reward.”

I did enough traveling on my own that I didn’t really care about these trips. I usually only joined the trip every other year because the locations were often to places I had no interest in visiting.

Being an avid scuba diver I only had interest in going on a trip if there was excellent diving. If I went someplace I wasn’t interested in I’d just spend my time on the beach tanning and drinking, and I only have so much interest in that.

The president of my company used to get upset when I decided not to go. His opinion was that this was a gift and a bonding activity for the achievers. Did it ever occured to either of the two partners that some of their employees might not care about “bonding?” Did they care that those of us who wanted to have relationships with our work associates already did?

A reward that’s not all that rewarding

These questions are rhetorical because they were really only concerned about what they wanted. They figured they were giving us a flight and hotel at a nice place and that was all they had to do.

The other thing that chapped my rear was that they would only pay for a guest if you were married, or if they determined, arbitrarily, if you were in a “significant” relationship. Really?! That set me sideways for the entire time I was with them. I mean, who were they to decide if my relationships were significant enough? In my world you either pay for every employee’s “date” or pay for none of them.

Over the years, the president would periodically ask me what would motivate me. I’d always say, “money.” Give me money instead of a trip so I can use it how I want. Give me more than 50 percent of my bookings. He’d always answer that they didn’t do it that way — which showed that it was all about him, not his employees.

I quit after nine years with them — probably 2-3 years later than I should have — but that’s water under the bridge. I didn’t think they were bringing me enough value to warrant them keeping 50 percent of my bookings, so I left and made 100 percent.

I might have stayed had they brought me to 75 or 80 percent. After all, isn’t 25 percent of something better than 50 percent of nothing? Now, all their employees have gone and they are pretty much out of business. It’s just the two partners trying to make a living for themselves with no help from any employees.

Make a case

You may be thinking that your company does things in a particular way and you have no control over it. Do NOT be a victim of your circumstances.

Do be a private eye and a consultant. Reach out to your performers on the QT if you have to. Ask them what motivates them. Ask them if the “right” reward would encourage them to stay with your company.

Ask them what ever makes sense to you given the situation. Then, go to your management and make a case. Use dollars and sense to make your case that a company that retains its performers makes more money in the end.

Moral of the story

Make the reward about the employee, not the employer. You will find that this will be enough to keep some of your best people, which will keep your revenues up and your replacement expenses down.

One of the most common questions I am asked is: “Do you know anyone who’d be great for our open HR Business Partner role?”

And it’s no surprise. As more and more companies “transform” their HR function, the need for a specific-type of HR generalist has become more acute. And the aggressive networking (“who do you know for this job?“) underscores a talent problem we have in our industry: the dramatic need for strategic HR partners.

Many companies thought that announcing a new organizational structure and changing titles would be enough to “transform” the function. But now it’s clear that those changes have no bearing on whether the incumbents can really do the job. Hence, the flurry of interviewing as the role sees more and more attrition and the struggle continues to match a person to this new, sometime ambiguous, and challenging role.

Assessment determines the best fit

We’ve done a lot of work in the area of HR Business Partner competencies – and make no bones about the fact that assessment, rather than old school interviewing, is the best way to determine whether a person is the right fit for the role. But even if you have access to an HRBP-specific assessment program, interviewing can still provide valuable insight into the skills, experience, and mindset of these candidates. If you do it right.

Here are some questions we recommend. But remember – as obvious as it might seem – the important and challenging aspect of interviewing is evaluating the candidates’ answers based on the needs of the position – not just asking great questions.

 1. Have you ever built a talent strategy to support an organization’s business strategy? [If so, describe how you went about doing it. What was your approach? What stakeholders did you work most closely with? What was the outcome? How did you measure success?] If not, describe how you’d go about doing it. Which stakeholders would be most important to work with? What outcomes would you want to achieve? How would you evaluate the effectiveness of your strategy?

Answers to look for:

• A cogent approach to understanding the near-term business strategy (plan for growth, new products or services, infrastructure requirements, etc. – and how those map those to specific talent needs.)
• A practical method for assessing the existing talent in the organization and identifying where gaps exist and the criticality of those gaps.
• A plan for closing the gap using a multi-pronged approach such as build, borrow, buy, etc.
• A partnership mindset in which close ties to – and input from – the business leaders is leveraged throughout the process.
• An objective way to measure results through decreased vacancy rates for mission critical roles, higher rates of successful internal promotions, reduced attrition in key parts of the business, higher customer service ratings, etc.

An important strategy

2. Tell me about a situation in which you took an unpopular stand on what you believed represented an important strategy for your business, and you were able to convince others who initially disagreed with you. What was the situation, what did you do, and what was the outcome?

Answers to look for:

• A strategic situation that impacts talent in the organization (e.g., candidate pipeline, employees’ access to social media, driving support for new technology, etc.) – versus a tactical, old-school HR issue.
• A knowledge of economic, industry and business trends.
• A willingness to take risks and an ability to influence others.
• A sense of confidence, smarts and initiative.
• The ability to make data-based decisions and recommendations, and assess the ROI of business outcomes.

 An approach to managing work

3. Describe your approach to managing the range of work an HRBP faces – from strategic to tactical. What process do you use? What resources do you leverage? How do you know you’re focusing on the things and driving the right results?

Answers to look for:

• A structured approach to prioritizing work, managing time, following up, and staging deadlines
• A creative method for managing resources, delegating tactical issues, using web-based (even free) tools for task and project management, regular updates with peers, business leaders or direct reports to manage the right priorities, a process for managing expectations of business leaders regarding their role and responsibilities.
• A business-based approach for working proactively vs. reactively – e.g., attending business updates, field visits with leaders, keeping up the financials of the business, etc.
• An openness to feedback in which their input, deliverables and value to the business is assessed through surveys, interviews, objective measures, etc.

This is a start to matching HR Business Partner candidates to leaders who are demanding value from these strategic roles. And a challenging, position-relevant job interview is a great place to start.

Imagine if Ferris Bueller, from the iconic 1986 movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off by John Hughes, had a technology start-up.

The idea of Ferris the entrepreneur isn’t so far fetched. He was an inventor, after all. Remember the slumbering snoring Ferris-dummy he hooked up to his bedroom stereo and successfully fooled his own mother?

What would Ferris do to find the right talent?

Lesson 1: Find confident people

“Only the meek get pinched. The bold survive.”

Hire people that are confident and that believe in themselves. Ask about a time when their ego took a blow. What was the situation, and what happened afterwards?

Hearing about resilience in the face of tough circumstances can be very telling. After all, you may be the one giving them critical feedback in the future.

Lesson 2: Weed out ass kissers

“You can’t respect somebody who kisses your ass. It just doesn’t work.”

Matthew Broderick plays Ferris Bueller.

The same goes for hiring “A” players. An “A” player isn’t going to move your company forward by just agreeing with you. You want people to think differently, and challenge the status quo in a productive way.

Hire independent thinkers who have a genuine curiousity and won’t wait around for you to tell them what to do. Ask them to provide examples of situations where they saw a problem and what they did about it. What was the outcome? What would they do differently the next time?

Lesson 3: Spread the word

“Save Ferris.”

Ferris Bueller probably would have been the first to achieve a million Twitter followers. How are you getting the word out that your company is hiring?

Posting jobs to free boards like Craig’s List, Indeed, and SimplyHired is one way. Another is spreading the word through social connections specific to the role for which you are hiring.

For example, if you are looking for an E-Commerce Manager, post a message in a LinkedIn Group dedicated to E-Commerce. Look for referrals from people you know. Drive applicants to an engaging Careers page on your website to learn more about your company culture in addition to the specific job.

Lesson 4: Understand motivations

“The question isn’t ‘what are we going to do?’ the question is ‘what aren’t we going to do?’ ”

Knowing what motivates people is key to creating a successful team.

Ask if they motivated by a desire to prove something to themselves? Money? Design? Solving problems? Understanding how people view opportunities will help you evaluate whether their underlying interests align with yours.

Lesson 5: Discover what’s unique

“Life moves pretty fast. You don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.”

Not only are you building your company, but also your culture. For some early-stage companies, fit is more important than skills.

How you evaluate fit is really up to you, but there are some questions that may help bring these aspects forward. Ask “What makes you unique?” and put a limit on the number of characters, like a Tweet (or 150). Ask “What is your favorite thing to do outside of work?” or “What is something you always make time for?” and Ferris would be proud.

This article originally appeared on The Resumator Blog.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Coalition for a Democratic Workforce dealt yet another blow to the National Labor Relations Board, securing summary judgment in their challenge of the NLRB’s expedited union-election rule.

In striking down the rule, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia declined to rule on the merits of the case, choosing instead to focus upon the absence of a lawful quorum at the time of the rule’s passage.

This comes on the heels of a recent decision from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia enjoining the NLRB’s notice-posting requirement, pending briefing scheduled over the summer and oral arguments later this fall. We reported on that development in a prior Legal Alert, which you can view here.

The basis of the ruling

The NLRB had previously established an implementation date of April 30 for its expedited-election rule, which is designed to streamline the representation process by postponing resolution of a number of voter-eligibility issues (including supervisory status) until after the tally of ballots.

An 11th hour petition by the U.S. Chamber for a stay in that implementation date was denied by the D.C. District Court, on the theory that the Board would be unable to schedule any elections prior the anticipated date of the court’s ruling. While this led some to speculate that the rule would proceed unscathed, the court made clear at that time that it intended to evaluate the merits of the Chamber’s claim by mid-May.

The expedited-election rule has been controversial from the outset, due largely to the fact that it purports to overturn decades of precedent without so much as a single vote of Congress. The controversy intensified when the Board hastily attempted to finalize the rule in the midnight hour – just days before then-member Craig Becker‘s recess appointment was set to expire, and only hours after it was put before lone Republican Member Brian Hayes for his consideration. Shortly thereafter, on Dec. 16 of last year, the Board voted to approve the final rule by a margin of 2-0, without any vote or formal participation from Member Hayes.

It was ultimately the mad rush to finalization that became the rule’s undoing. In this week’s decision, the district court chose to focus exclusively on this phase of the process, and specifically upon the lack of a quorum – at least three participating members – in striking down the rule on procedural grounds. As the court noted at the outset of its decision, “because no quorum ever existed at the pivotal [Dec. 16] vote in question, the Court must hold that the challenged rule is invalid.

The court was quick to point out that it saw no need to rule on the merits of the plaintiffs’ contentions. Moreover, it suggested that:

… it may well be that, had a quorum participated in its promulgation, the final rule would have been found perfectly lawful. As a result, nothing appears to prevent a properly constituted quorum of the Board from voting to adopt the rule if it has the desire to do so. In the meantime, though, representation elections will have to continue under the old procedures.”

Many questions remain

While this decision does indeed deal yet another blow to the NLRB in its efforts to secure pro-labor reforms by way of administrative rule-making, it leaves a number of questions unanswered, such as:

1. Will the Board take heed of the decision (as expected) by suspending efforts to implement the expedited election rule in the short-term, pending its inevitable appeal?
2. If so, will it take interim steps to “rubber stamp” its previously invalid decision by virtue of a proper quorum of current Board members?
3. Does the Board have the votes needed to secure its passage yet again?
4. Would this simply lead the parties back to the same court for a ruling on the merits of the case?
5. Would the current Board’s ruling ultimately be upheld in the face of ongoing challenges as to its own authority, given the fact that a majority of its members assumed recess appointments during a pro forma session of Congress?

At the moment, the only thing that remains clear is that the status of the NLRB’s quickie-election rule will remain in question over the days and weeks to come.

Still, it would appear that employers have secured at least a temporary reprieve from ambush elections, during which time they remain well-advised to continue exploiting this window of opportunity to fine-tune their employee relations programs in an ongoing effort to render third party representation unnecessary.

This was originally published on Fisher & Phillips’ Legal Alerts. This Legal Alert is intended to provide an overview of an important new law. It is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice for any particular fact situation.

Employee loyalty is one of those topics that can divide a room.

Well, at least room full of HR Pros who live and breathe recruiting, retention and productivity. Some argue loyalty is long dead, thanks to corporate actions begun in the 1970s and ’80s. Others believe loyalty is alive and well, but to fellow colleagues and managers, not to the organization per se.

Regardless of your position, employee loyalty can have a profound impact on organization culture and business results, not to mention individual employee engagement, performance and productivity.

It’s the interpersonal connection that is in jeopardy

This report out of Knowledge@Wharton is one of the best I’ve seen for hashing through the great majority of arguments around employee loyalty. In the article, James Harter, chief scientist, workplace management and well-being, for Gallup takes this position:

“Human nature, Harter adds, ‘doesn’t change when the economy changes. It might take on a different dynamic’ during a recession, but what remains constant is ‘the need to be connected — to a manager, a co-worker and/or a purpose, and also the need to be recognized… There is something about having a mentor, or someone in your life who helps you see the future in the midst of chaos, that can make a difference.’”

It’s that interpersonal connection that matters. And it’s that interpersonal connection that’s in jeopardy.

According to the Spring 2012 Globoforce Mood Tracker™ survey, recognition programs are on the rise. Yet, more than 50 percent would still leave their jobs for a company that clearly recognized employees for their efforts.

Why you want to retain good workers

I’ll be leading an interactive webinar about the results of the latest Mood Tracker survey, including a discussion about why a strategic, frequent approach to recognition is essential to a more productive, motivated, and engaged workforce.

Along with my colleague, Thad Peterson, we’ll reveal survey findings, including the top three benefits of recognition done right:

• Higher retention: 89 percent.
• Higher motivation levels: 82 percent.
• Higher job satisfaction: 81 percent.

Why does getting this right matter? As the Knowledge@Wharton report reference above points out:

Perhaps the most compelling argument for trying to retain good workers is that replacing managerial and professional employees can cost approximately 150 percent of their annual salary, according to various estimates. Harter suggests that for frontline, lower end workers, it costs about half of their salaries, while for high-level IT professionals, the figure could be as high as 200 percent.”

You can find more from Derek Irvine on his Recognize This! blog.

Is there a gap between your recruiting practices and your culture?

In today’s economy, even organizations of modest scope can expect many willing and qualified applicants for every open position. So if your small to mid-sized company is hiring, you may think you’re sitting pretty, and you may be tempted to snap up candidates who appear most qualified by reason of their resumes.

A word of caution: in bringing talented performers in the door, you shouldn’t forget the workplace environment into which you’re releasing them. No matter how impressive a candidate’s background and apparent qualifications, a mismatch with your corporate culture can turn a seemingly stellar candidate into a sullen short-timer or, worse, a disgruntled naysayer.

Fitting candidates with your company values

That’s exactly why many organizations consider cultural fit when they hire. And why you should too, especially if your workforce is relatively small–considering the potential damage an ill-advised selection can inflict on productivity and morale. So it’s generally a good idea to run the resume review and interview processes with an eye on the potential fit between your candidate’s values and expectations and the authentic attributes of your company’s culture.

Bob Duffy

In some organizations, this approach runs counter to standard practice, and is viewed as a redundant exercise if a candidate’s talent and experience clearly shine through his or her resume. In the everyday working world, however, this extra step goes right to future productivity and teamwork. And it’s a best practice that can save you likely disruptions down the road.

A company’s culture can create productive engagement or — when an otherwise qualified individual doesn’t mesh with the prevailing environment —  obstructive disenchantment. Culture is a distinctive amalgam of company strategy, policy, work habits, and, yes, values. A given corporate culture often embodies its own approach to teamwork, to institutional knowhow, and to relationships on the job and off.

And while an organization’s culture may seem difficult to pin down in hard, quantitative terms, visit any workplace and — if you observe attentively — you’re likely to walk away with a strong inkling of what the organization’s culture is like.

Corporate values inspire workplace performance

Consider, as convenient examples among many others, companies like Google, Zappos, Nordstrom, and UPS. It’s a good bet that you have some notion about what it’s like to work at each of these companies, about their workplace environments, and about the corporate values that govern or inspire performance there.

Are there distinct cultural differences among them? Of course there are. Each company values the attributes of its working culture, and each consciously recruits for cultural fit.

Of course, they’re all big players and can afford to be selective in hiring, and even in consciously analyzing and shaping their cultures through formal programs, many of them quite costly and time consuming. But a smaller company or organization can get a handle on the essential elements of its own culture without going to these lengths, and certainly without commissioning exhaustive cultural analyses or complex OD programs.

Alert observation and a habit of participating attentively in the working life of your organization are the critical ingredients here. If you’re a manager, or work in HR and/or recruiting functions, you’re likely doing this to some extent already.

Your real-world culture must match expectations

It’s often as simple as opening your eyes to the workplace: is your culture formal, hierarchical, and buttoned-up … or casual, collegial, and egalitarian? Is it a meetings-oriented or an email-driven culture? A culture where creativity and innovation is prized? One of solitary production or collective give-and-take?

While these categories are far too simplistically antithetical to serve as anything but top-level examples, I think you see where I’m going here. You can commission employee surveys or focus groups if you choose. But if you’re a small to mid-size enterprise, these formal methods are only likely to validate the evidence of your eyes, ears, and intuition.

This self-conscious cultural awareness can pay dividends when you are hiring. If you emphasize your cultural characteristics in your recruiting communications — online, written and oral — you can draw the interest of talented candidates personally attracted to the signature workplace experience you offer. But perhaps more importantly, from the management standpoint, factoring a consciousness of your company’s working culture into recruiting and hiring decisions is an eminently sensible strategic business practice.

If your real-world culture doesn’t match the expectations that your recruiting efforts have spawned, can you reasonably expect even talented and motivated performers among your new hires to stick around for long, let alone contribute productively to the future success of the company?

President Obama’s pronouncement last week in favor of same-sex marriage has no legal effect on employers’ decisions on whether to offer benefits to workers’ domestic partners, but some advocates believe it could reinforce a decade-long trend toward coverage.

Last year, 52 percent of all employers offered domestic partner health benefits, with the percentage varying widely by region and industry, according to a nationally representative sample of about 3,000 employers surveyed by benefit consultant Mercer. That’s up from 31 percent in 2010.

The biggest factors driving that change are employers’ views on whether such benefits help them attract and retain desirable workers.

Steady growth in domestic partner benefits

“Employers started doing this because they felt they needed to be competitive in the labor market, just like with other benefits,” said Paul Fronstin of Employee Benefit Research Institute, a think tank in Washington D.C. “I don’t see that changing.”

The Village Voice newspaper in New York is credited with being the first private employer to offer workers domestic partner benefits in 1982. In 1995, Vermont became the first to offer coverage to state workers.

“There’s been a steady growth for a long time,” says Joan Smyth, a partner at Mercer. In the early days, some employers worried that adding coverage for domestic partners could make their costs skyrocket by attracting people with higher-than-average health risks, she said, but “that did not happen.”

The District of Columbia and almost half of states currently offer benefits to domestic partners or same-sex spouses of state workers, according to the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign.

Same-sex partners of federal workers are not eligible for coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB) because the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman, the FEHB website says. That law is being challenged and may well end up before the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has said it will not defend the statute.

Coverage most common in the West

In the Mercer survey, coverage of same-sex partners was most common in the West, with 79 percent of large employers offering such benefits. It was least common in the South, at 28 percent. Big differences were also noted within industries. Among manufacturing firms, for example, the coverage rate ranged from a high of 96 percent for pharmaceutical companies to 18 percent for machinery and heavy equipment makers.

Public sector jobs had a lower rate of coverage, averaging 26 percent across state, county and municipal workers, the Mercer survey found.

While Smyth at Mercer doesn’t think the president’s pronouncement will sway employers, the Human Rights Campaign’s state legislative director Sarah Warbelow has a different take.

“Hearing the president supports this as well makes this even easier for corporations to get on board,” says Warbelow, adding that 58 percent of Fortune 500 companies currently offer domestic partner benefits. Some of those companies limit those benefits to same-sex couples, while others include domestic partners of opposite sexes.

The climate remains volatile, particularly for state and municipal employees. What, for example, will happen in states like North Carolina that passed a ban on same-sex marriage and have municipalities that offer domestic partner benefits to government workers?

Some 31 states bar gay marriage

With last week’s vote in North Carolina, there are at least 31 states that bar gay marriage.

In North Carolina, attorneys for cities such as Carrboro and Chapel Hill are still evaluating whether they can continue to offer domestic partner benefits, according to reports from the area’s local NBC television affiliate.

“We have employees asking us, ‘What’s going to happen?’ These are people who otherwise wouldn’t have health care, children who wouldn’t have health care,” Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt told NBC-17 in Raleigh, N.C.

Court decisions in other states with similar laws have split on whether domestic partnership benefits can be retained for state or municipal workers, says Warbelow.

Meanwhile, private-sector employers must contend with a confusing array of state laws governing the types of unions residents may enter.

Eight states and the District of Columbia have passed laws to allow same-sex couples to marry, for example, while an additional nine allow civil unions or domestic partnerships, which offer many, if not all of the same legal protections as marriage.

Employers are “focused” and “watching”

While many employer health programs are exempt from state law because they are self-insured, some employers buy coverage from insurers that are subject to state rules.

Employers who buy coverage from insurers in those states must follow that state’s law, even if the employees live another state, Smyth says.

A separate Mercer report out last week gave an example set in Virginia: “Ellen and Sue live in Virginia, which doesn’t permit same-sex marriage. Ellen works in Washington, D.C., and is covered by a group health insurance policy issued in D.C., which must cover same- and opposite-sex spouses equally. Ellen and Sue marry in D.C., even though they live in Virginia. Ellen may add Sue to her health coverage because they are lawfully married and covered by a D.C. policy.”

Employers are “focused on this right now and are watching” the changing political landscape to make sure they are in compliance with the rules, says Smyth. “They need to be really careful that they know the laws.”

This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

By Eric B. Meyer

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is hot!

How hot is the Chamber? Hotter than Paris Hilton humming an 80′s Buster Poindexter tune. (Actually, she abandoned her trademark exclamation “That’s Hot!” for “That’s Huge!”).

I teased it two weeks ago, the day after the NLRB’s election rules took effect, when I posted that the new rules may get derailed. Well, that’s what happened yesterday as a District of Columbia federal court ruled that the National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to implement its new “quickie” election rules. This on the heels of the Chamber winning an injunction against the NLRB’s union-rights poster requirement.

Court cites Woody Allen

And why did the NLRB lack authority to implement these rules? The DC court explains by citing Woody Allen:

According to Woody Allen, 80 percent of life is just showing up. When it comes to satisfying a quorum requirement, though, showing up is even more important than that. Indeed, it is the only thing that matters — even when the quorum is constituted electronically. In this case, because no quorum ever existed for the pivotal vote in question, the Court must hold that the challenged rule is invalid.”

Put simply, it takes three Board members for the Board to do business. So says the U.S. Supreme Court in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB. As to the new election rules, the DC court recognized that the Board only had two members participating in approving a final version of the rule. So, those rules don’t count.

Expect this decision to be appealed. In the meantime, the new quickie election rules get tabled.

This was originally published on Eric B. Meyer’s blog, The Employer Handbook.

Facebook made headlines once again, and it was not due to another layout change. Apparently, the company’s second-in-command, COO Sheryl Sandberg, leaves work every day at 5:30 p.m. so she’s home for dinner with her kids.

If you’re wondering why this has any sort of significance, think about all the advancements in technology. Thanks to our lovely laptops, smart phones, iPads, etc., we can take work anywhere we go, which is both a blessing and curse.

However, Sandberg points out that she not only leaves work when the sun is still shining, she actually spends time with her family once she’s home. In other words, she embraces healthy work boundaries.

While this is somewhat of a novel approach in today’s work environment, it shouldn’t be.

Employees will follow your lead

According to a 2010 report from the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, there is strong connection between flexibility and productivity, which can help reduce turnover and absenteeism, and provide higher morale and company commitment.

As the manager or executive of your company, you deal with seemingly nonstop responsibilities on a day-to-day basis, but you still need to make sure to have some sort of work-life balance. And remember, employees follow your lead, and if you’re staying at the office from 8-8 with no breaks every work day, your employees will (involuntarily) follow suit.

I, myself, have been guilty of sending emails at 11 p.m. and staying at the office until, well, it was pretty late into the night. I have to constantly remind myself about work boundaries so my family remembers what I look like.

Three things to remember

I’m not perfect about it and I’m sure neither are you, but here are some points to remember to give ourselves a bit more balance.

• Look into your time management. It always goes back to time management, doesn’t it? Still, if you think leaving at a decent hour is not feasible, you should look into your time management skills. Are you prioritizing what deserves immediate action, and what can be delayed? Make sure you focus your time and energy on the tasks that matter, and you’re not being pulled off course on every tiny work activity. Try tracking your time for one week to see how you spend it; this might help put your time management in better perspective.
• Take a break. As you are reading this article, ask yourself  – when was the last time you got up and moved around? We are all guilty of being tied to our desks so much that we don’t even take a break to go to lunch. Make sure you take breaks throughout the day. Research shows that regular walking can help increase your focus.
• Work from home. We live in an era where working from home can be extremely productive. I actually work from home once a week and I’ve noticed it has helped me tremendously with achieving balance. It also allows me to get more done without the distractions of the office. If you’re able to work efficiently at home, I highly recommend you work-at-home at least once a week.

Like it or not, achieving work-life balance is a journey, and it might be hard to ever find the true destination. But if you work on flexibility, you might make that journey a little easier.

It’s one of the hottest and long-standing recent HR stories.

In March, the Associated Press reported on several job seekers being asked their Facebook passwords. Then, it spread like wildfire. New Jersey, among others, introduced a bill to ban the practice.

Relax. You’ll never be asked for your Facebook password when you apply for a job. Here’s why:

It’s against the Facebook Terms of Service — Twice

Sharing your own or requesting someone else’s Facebook login information is against the Facebook Terms of Service. First, it’s a violation of the ToS to share your login information with anyone, as it says in the section on “Registration and Account Security”:

8. You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.

And it’s also against the rules to ask for anyone’s login information, as it says in the section on “Safety”:

5. You will not solicit login information or access an account belonging to someone else.

Put simply: neither you nor the person interviewing you can let this happen while remaining on Facebook’s good side.

Almost literally everyone thinks it’s deplorable

… especially the people with power to do something about it. Facebook has strongly come out against it as have several state legislatures (Illinois and Maryland in addition to New Jersey) and the U.S. Department of Justice. You can bet if the practice grows, it will be treated as much more than a nuisance. But it runs a lot deeper than a few powerful hoodies and suits.

The Facebook login debacle has been compared to asking an applicant for the keys to their house. That’s true in another way: everybody has one. You’d never ask someone to take a look around their bedroom because you’d feel violated if someone asked you the same question.

Anyone on Facebook (okay, anyone) who isn’t deeply misguided about the recruiting process will feel the same way. And it shows: public sentiment is hugely on the side of “don’t you even dare ask.”

There’s actually not that much to learn from them

I am a textbook Gen-Y/Millennial social media maestro, and I can tell you that my Facebook account is useless to the kind of recruiter who’d ask me for my login. Useless.

Know why? Because they’re looking for dirt: profanity, unprofessionalism, and red solo cups. There’s nothing there. And not just because that’s not who I am.

It’s because I grew up with the thing, and I (like everyone else) know that every naughty Facebook post will eventually be seen by the wrong person. Those of us with brains won’t put anything incriminating on Facebook. For those without, there are better ways to find out — like, say, a conversation.

It’s simply not happening that often

And you know why? Because it’s bad practice. Would you refuse to hire someone if they swear occasionally? Drink a glass of wine now and then? So, where do you draw the line between that and un-hireable? A three-drink-per-Facebook limit? You can’t, really.

There’s a reason nearly every story about employers asking for Facebook passwords involves the statistician from New York. That’s because it hasn’t happened many other times. It’s because a few hopelessly out of touch recruiters thought they were being innovative and jumped on the Facebook train.

Using public social media posts to learn more about your candidates is great. You’ll see their interests and see their social media savvy. These are great, relevant pieces of information. But go into the realm of private and protected to glean those extra bits of data, and you’ll lose. Quickly. They lost candidates, lost their organization’s reputation, and learned very little.

So — relax! Your Facebook password is safe.

This article originally appeared on The Resumator Blog.