HR Capitalist Now a Featured Blog at Workforce Management (Workforce.com)

I write a column a couple of times a month over at Workforce.com in addition to the day job, and slogging it out on a nightly basis at The HR Capitalist. That makes me a glutton for punishment.

Here’s the crazy thing – before Workforce approached me in mid-2007 about giving the column thing a shot, I had very low awareness of their online and print content.  After digging into the content, I quickly came to the conclusion that Workforce.com and Workforce Management blows the usual suspects away. The content is fresher and more relevant than anything you can find at the other outlets.  It’s got street creditability for HR and Talent Management types that can’t be found anywhere else.  With the possible exception of a good blog. Which brings me to my next point...

In writing the periodic column, it became evident that a lot of the content at The HR Capitalist was a great fit for the mission at Workforce.com.  One thing led to another, and I am proud to announce that The HR Capitalist will become a featured blog at Workforce.com, joining a quality lineup of in-house blogs that includes the The Business of Management by Workforce editor John Hollon. We started a soft launch 5-6 weeks ago (that’s when you started seeing the ads here), and it has gone well enough that we’re officially announcing the partnership.  Kind of like a probationary period for bloggers.  I showed up on time, didn’t take the last of the coffee without making more, etc.

The cool part? I don’t have to change a thing.  The HR Capitalist site stays the same, and I continue to post about what interests me (and hopefully you). Workforce.com will feature the Capitalist by linking directly to the content found here. To reciprocate the relationship, we’ll continue to have ads (but only the human capital type of ad, no Viagra spots) and we’ll be writing from time to time about what’s going on over at Workforce.com. I’ve also added the Workforce Management logo on the banner above, so traffic from Workforce.com doesn’t think their PC has been hijacked by a renegade blogger.  I’m a featured renegade blogger...

Special thanks to the crew at Workforce Management, who have been great to work with over the past few months.  If you haven’t browsed through their online and print versions, do it now.  It’s the best original HR/Talent Management content on the web, and I’m thrilled to be partnering with them.

Workplace Poll - Men Need More Pats On The Head Than Women...

Can you imagine yourself sliding up to your grandfather and thanking him for a job well done?  No?   Join the club - there's something about the greatest generation that is uncomfortable with that type of praise of PDA (public display of affection).

So what the heck happened to men of my generation?

A new workplace poll is out from Harris Interactive and Adecco (survey of 1,455 workers by Harris Interactive for the staffing firm Adecco) on the topic of saying thanks in the workplace.  Some of the results are what you would expect, others are a little bit surprising.

The breakdown from the survey:

What we knew:

-Workers want to be thanked in person more (Thank-you letters, cards, bonuses and gifts were not covered).  Two-thirds of workers who responded to the survey said they would like more thanks and appreciation on the job.

-Most don't want to see it in an e-mail, they want it live... I guess I knew that...

-Appreciation works best to motivate 18-to-34-year-old workers -- 68 percent said they would hustle harder with more thanks.  Like my kids, this generation got a trophy for showing up, so be sure to say thanks, perhaps even when results aren't there...

-The wily veterans on your team don't necessarily need as much praise - hence the lead about my grandpa.  Only 42 percent of workers 55 and up said more thanks would motivate them.

-It's not those polled who have the problem with saying thanks, it's "those other people".  Three-quarters of respondents said they pass out enough thanks to colleagues, but only half said their boss "does a good job" of thanking them.  That's a disconnect similar to self-evaluation of performance....

What Surprised Us From the Poll:

-Gen Y likes their thank yous in person, not via technology.  Almost three-quarters of workers ages 18 to 34 said appreciation in e-mail is not as good as in person.  No word if they'll put down their iPod long enough to make eye contact with you...

-Men were more likely than women to say the extra thanks would make them more productive.  What??? 

Men of the world, what have we become?  Is Stuart Smalley our new role model?  (Note - I'm speaking of the affirmation theme, not anything to do with orientation, so please don't plow me in the comments)  Come to think of it, our grandfathers and fathers probably had an affirmation routine of their own.  It was called confidence, self motivation and getting the job done... They just wouldn't talk about their jobs and didn't want anyone showing any emotion to them about it.

Still, it does feel good to hear "thanks".  I prefer to think of the generational change from my grandfather to me as a nice "smoothing" process. 

PS - Thanks for reading this post....(shameless plug to your need for thanks in order to keep you coming back)...

Smoking Discrimination - Truth or Fiction for HR Departments?

If you're like me, one of the things that keeps you up at night is the cost of healthcare.  So much so, I've followed the recent news that companies have begun to penalize smokers and employees with other risk factors (high cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc.) with great interest.  It seems like an eventual fact that those who display voluntary risk factors will pay via higher employee contributions/premiums than employees who don't engage in the same risky behavior.

Of course, smoking's the easy one, since it's safely classified as voluntary.  The other health metrics (blood  pressure, etc) are more problematic, since heredity and other factors are at play.

So, Open Enrollment season is upon us.  I didn't take the leap and consider raising employee contributions for those that smoke, and certainly didn't raise them for poor scores in the health metrics.

The biggest issue for me?  I'm at a startup, and I know all the people who work at our company.  It's one thing to mandate increased premiums for smokers when you are sitting in the Death Star of a Fortune 500, it's another thing all together when you see those that smoke every day.  Much tougher to make the business decision that probably will ultimately be necessary or routine as an early adapter when you are at a place where everybody knows your name...

So, it's no to increased premiums for smokers this year, and yes to finding a toehold for a cessation program sometime soon. 

Then I see the following information - Health Populi puts the true cost of smoking at $222 per pack over a lifetime...

Maybe I'm doing no one a favor by waiting another year to be more aggressive.....

Job Title Inflation - Even the Professional Escorts Want a C-Level Title...

You know the drill as a HR Pro.  Everyone in the organization is trying to tweak their title a bit to command the respect they deserve in the marketplace.  I love taking a look at Outlook signatures in the emails that come across to see what people are calling themselves.

The other place I love to look for titles and descriptions?  The Money section of our local paper, which has the standard Human Resources feature a couple of times a week, allowing the PR flacks to announce hirings and promotions in local companies.  It's usually pretty standard stuff, but every once in a while you run across a gem.  Here's one I liked from last week, the employee, company and location names have been changed to prevent me from being sued.

"St. Paul native, Rochelle Twig, has joined Mobile Marketing as a personal concierge consultant of Mobile's My Personal Assistant division, where she will manage client's requests and activities."

Man, is there a lot of noise in that hiring announcement!  I had to read it a couple of times just to figure out that she was probably one of those personal assistants you can outsource to help you with your schedule, reservations and directions.   An assistant.  Or maybe to spice it up, a virtual assistant.  I got sidetracked by the consultant title with the OFFICIAL-sounding division name, etc.  I thought about inquiring about that type of service, since I have read about the trend before, but then I remembered that Outlook runs my calendar, and the type of restaurant I frequent (can you say "think outside the bun"?) doesn't require reservations...

Still, I was interested to see if my confusion was me or the way the announcement was written.  So I asked my wife (advanced degree, and street smart to boot) to listen to the announcement and tell me what Rochelle's job is.  Her answer?

"She's a professional escort, if you know what I mean."

Ouch.  Rochelle, if you wrote your own announcement, that's a free lesson in keeping it real.   Just tell me what you do, without the consultant and division tags.  You're a personal assistant, not a professional escort!  You're smart enough, your're bright enough, and gosh darn it, people like you...

Circuit City Says - We Fired You, Care to Come Back For Less Money?

Companies run into tough spots all the time.  Sometimes, the result is layoffs.  Staffing goes down, but often times it goes back up as the business cycle picks up.  So goes the business world.  It's ugly, but it's capitalism.

Sometimes though, a company badly bumbles the whole rightsizing thing.   Remember the whole Circuit City reorganization thing from earlier this year?  To refresh you, that's the one where the retailer laid off 3,400 experienced employees due to expense concerns, but said they would be eligible for rehire after a couple of months at a lower rate of pay.  Ugh.

Guess what time it is 8 months later?  Time to make the rehire offers at a lower rate of pay.  From the Wall St. Journal coverage:

"A spokesman for the consumer-electronics retailer said that workers discharged in March are among former employees who have received letters inviting them to apply for positions either created by new store openings or routine turnover.

Circuit City has been criticized by employee advocates and some Wall Street analysts for cutting some of its highest paid, and in some cases, most experienced, employees in the layoffs this year.

Company spokesman Bill Cimino said Circuit City has overhauled job responsibilities for all of its roughly 43,000 employees this year to try to improve customer service, making it difficult to compare current openings with former jobs.

Current job openings are largely for two types of employees: "product specialists," who concentrate on sales, and members of the "product flow team," who accept product deliveries and arrange merchandise displays. Before Circuit City's restructuring this year, associates were responsible for both selling and stocking the retail floor. The new structure also gives workers more opportunities for advancement, he said."

Even after 8 months, it's still hard to get my head around this one.  Rehires of laid-off employees happens all the time, and it's a good source of talent when business picks back up.  But rehires of laid-off employees at a lower rate of pay?  How can that end well?  I can't imagined a more disgruntled group of employees than those who are rehired at the lower rate of pay.   

Outsourced Terminations - Let's Go to the Highlights....

Neil Jensen of Knowledge Infusion recently highlighted an article from Inc.com entitled "Meet Rebecca, She's Here to Fire You", which profiled the growing trend of companies to outsource many talent/HR functions, including the termination.  From the Inc.com article:

"Welcome to the final frontier of human resources: the outsourced termination. The popularity of HR outsourcing and consulting, which was in its infancy only a decade ago, has exploded in recent years. Worldwide, the industry now accounts for $88.7 billion in spending, according to IDC (NYSE:IDC), a research firm in Framingham, Massachusetts. Big companies are responsible for much of that spending, but small companies that have traditionally relied on professional employer organizations, or PEOs, to manage payroll are increasingly outsourcing more complex tasks such as recruiting, performance reviews, and, yes, terminations. Rebecca Heyman's boss, TriNet founder Martin Babinec, says that demand for these services is growing so fast that he now does as much revenue in a given quarter as he did in all of 2002, when he booked $22 million."

"In an outsourced firing, a consultant typically meets with a CEO to script and rehearse the big conversation. On the day the ax falls, the consultant sits in on the meeting, taking notes and making sure the manager stays on message. "We're sitting right there," says JP Magill, co-founder of the Achilles Group, a Houston company that provides termination and other HR services. "And our client has exactly what they need to say written out verbatim."

Neil correctly points out in his post at KI that companies outsourcing emotional items like terminations face a potential image hit as they try and attract future talent.   My take?  The process described below is pretty close to what a competent HR person would provide for a business leader.  If the company has a viable HR pro, the role should never be outsourced.  However, if a smaller startup has outsourced their entire HR function, looking for some help is a good idea.  The description above is the way to go in this circumstance, with the business owner taking the lead in the communication of the business decision.

A bigger concern is the quality of the outsourcing firm.  Since many PEOs have their roots in transactional processes, like payroll, they may not have the chops to effectively guide the business leader who needs the consulting.  Poor consulting is the bigger risk in this scenario.

Leave it to Jamie Kennedy to keep us on theme but lighten this up a little bit.  If you aren't aware of Jamie Kennedy, he's an actor/comedian (see his role as B-Rad in Malibu's Most Wanted for a gem) and the creator of a show called the Jamie Kennedy Experiment.   JME is a show similar to Candid Camera - and in the episode below, Jamie poses as a business owner who runs an employment ad, then hires a manager after a minute long interview.  The manager's first task?  Fire five employees because Kennedy doesn't want to.  Enjoy the outsourcing clip and have a great weekend....

Oprah - Union-Free, Working You OT, and Proud of It.....

By now, you've probably heard about the 2007 Writer's Guild of America Strike against the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. The Guild is made up of two organizations: The Writers Guild of America, East and The Writers Guild of America, West.  These two organizations represent film, television and radio station writers in the United States. The AMPTP represents the interests of the producers and the film industry.

The strike began on Nov. 5. AMPTP and WGA then halted negotiations after WGA began its strike. The two groups had been in negotiations since July.   Get a solid rundown of the primary issues here... 

Me?  I'm interested in the issues, but more interested in the winners and losers during the strike.

Losers - TV viewers like me.  Probably the writers long term, since the network will jam thousands of hours of reality TV down our throats as an alternative and never come to the table.  Think you saw a lot of American Idol last year?  If the strike isn't resolved, you'll get to see Simon berating the parking attendant at Denny's to fill the programming hours.  Notes of interest from the strike from MSNBC:

"Among the picketers was Greg Daniels, executive producer of “The Office,” who said filming stopped on the show after star Steve Carell refused to cross picket lines. Writers and actors from the show used their time on the picket line to make a video and post it on YouTube.

Production of at least seven sitcoms has been halted because of the strike, and the hit ABC drama “Desperate Housewives” was scheduled to finish filming its latest episode because it had run out of scripts."

Winners - As usual, Oprah Winfrey.  I kid you not.  A sidebar on the same MSNBC article notes that "The Oprah Winfrey Show” doesn’t employ union writers and will continue uninterrupted.  I gave Oprah a hard time a few months ago for being a taskmaster and working her PA an average of 87 hours per week one quarter. 

Regardless of the work-life balance at the show, it's good to know Oprah runs a union-free shop.  She'll work you hard, but make sure the hours are reported and you get paid.  That's one way to remain union-free.... 

Complaining About Your Pay - Stay Classy, HR Professionals....

I was trolling through my Google Reader over the weekend, and saw the following post from YourHRGuy regarding a manager making less than one of his subordinates.  Ah yes, the pay question.  Always tricky.  Hurt feelings... principles...the burning need inside you to address it via confrontation...

I've been in the same circumstances as the manager profiled by YourHRGuy.  You're a young manager new  to your role, and after 2-3 months, you finally get some payroll data on your team.  You're scrolling through the detail and BAAAAAAM!!!  Sally (your direct report) is making 5K more than you.  How the #$*# does that happen?

The answer?  It's complicated.  Sally was hired for a different role and was slotted into her current job in a reorganization.  Sally has 15 years of experience, you have 5-10.  Sally was hired by Bob in Global Sales, and man, did they like to pay a lot up front.  Lots of factors.

Of course, after you go through the reasons, the reality is the same.  Sally's making more than you, and you're her manager.  That ain't right.

So what's it going to be?  Are you going to suck it up, or are you going to make someone accountable for the issue?  Are you sure you want to go there?  After all, you are a HR Pro and have access to ALL the data... That makes you different...

Here's my list of rules when it comes to determining whether you want to address a pay issue that's comparative in nature (that means you have salary data for someone else in mind).  These apply whether someone you manage, or someone who is a peer, is making more than you are:

1.  If the pay information you have is based on rumor or secured through the access your job provides, you probably shouldn't go into the conversation "guns a-blazing" - Find out that Sally makes more than you via the rumor mill or via your access to payroll provided by your job?  You'll hurt your credibility by identifying the direct issue (the employee who makes more than you) to the powers that be... Nobody wants to hear that you're combing the payroll records, putting them to memory and stirring the pot.

2.  If your career is on a solid arc upward, and the identified issue involves a peer or direct report that doesn't deliver what you do, be confident the market will balance the issue over time.  If you're a player and the other person isn't, don't muddy your brand by starting a negative conversation.  The market knows you're a player, and over the course of the next few years, you'll be rewarded.  If you are managing those that make more than you, that process has already begun.  The only thing that might derail that?  The perception that your work isn't the most important thing to you - the money is...

3.  Stay Classy, San Diego - If you have to have a conversation about money, identify who the best person is for that conversation, then keep the negative emotion to yourself.   No one wants to hear the emotional rant.  Figure out the best way to ask that person to take a look at the issue on your behalf, and ask them for their help without defining the end result you expect or those that make more than you.   Defining what you want indicates if they don't get to your number, they've failed.  All that does is damage a relationship.

I'm a big fan of high-end talent letting their performance define their worth.  That being said, I suppose there are times when a pay conversation is in order.  If that time is now for you, leave the citations about what other people make in your desk.  It will hurt your lifetime earnings more than it will help.  Figure out a better way to get into the conversation.

That goes double for all us HR types.  With great access (to payroll records) comes great responsibility.  You can't be trusted to see all the comp increases flowing across the Matrix, then have the audacity to come forward to complain about what someone else is earning.  For us, and the people who manage us, it's all about trust....

Strategies to Get the Best Candidates to Call You Back....

Buzzphrase - Passive Candidates are the best types of candidates.

Reality - It can be difficult to get a passive candidate to call you back.  After all, they aren't looking for a job, right?

That part of recruiting passive candidates stinks.  Ready to play hardball?  Check out the quick video below as sales guru Jeff Gitomer shares his strategies for getting people to call you back.  I've always found Gitomer's stuff timely, because the best HR people are selling everyday.  Take a look at the clip below and give it a whirl..  Hat tip to Jim Stroud for the clip...

More On... Employee Resigns - Walk Them Out the Door Or Let Them Work a Notice?...

As with everything liability related, it always comes down to consistency...

Last week we broke down a commonly occurring HR issue - once an employee resigns, do you walk them out the door immediately, or let them work out a notice?   In addition to the usual considerations driving your decision on what to do (is the employee a malcontent, going to work for a competitor or needed for the transition period), we also broached a bigger question - should you pay the employee for the two-week notice provided, if you elect to walk them out of the workplace the same day?

A trackback to the post by the Workplace Prof Blog underscored an additional consideration - if you are going to treat people differently once their employment is scheduled to voluntarily or involuntarily end, you need to make sure the differences are business-related.  The Workplace Prof Blog post cited a recent ruling where five Boston health workers received monetary awards stemming from a 2000 discrimination ruling, for what one of the employees said was "being treated like a criminal" when they were laid off 13 years ago.

From Boston.com regarding the cited case:

"Today the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that five black women who worked for the Healthy Baby/Healthy Child Program run by the Trustees of Health and Hospitals and the City of Boston were treated differently than a white man who was laid off at the same time.

After a series of appeals and reviews, the payments, with interest dating back to 1994, will more than double the $20,000 to $30,000 each woman originally would have received.

Gloria Coney, Marlene Hinds, Victoria Higginbottom, Belinda Chambers and Betty Smith lost their jobs in July 1994. Given no notice of the layoffs, they were monitored as they gathered their belongings and not allowed to speak to their co-workers. One woman had her lunch bag searched while she packed, a court summary says.

Coney "felt humiliated, mortified and angry at being treated like a criminal," the document says, and she believed her employer had acted on a presumption "that black women steal things."

A white male worker was told in advance that he would be laid off and was allowed to walk around the office freely before he left.

The city argued that because the white man's job was different his layoff was carried out in a different manner."

In the original post, we focused on the voluntary resignation, and the considerations managers make to decide whether to allow the employee to work out a two- week notice.  If you haven't checked out that post, check it out and give the comments a read as well - lots of smart people checking in on the issue. 

Oddly enough, one individual checking in (Scott) wondered aloud why more people aren't allowed to work out a notice when reorganization impacts their position.  Good question, and I'd have to say that anytime multiple people are impacted by a reorganization, we always plan for the worst (the employee that might try to lash back at the company by harming physical or intellectual property), which means all impacted employees generally are asked to leave once the news has been shared.

The boston.com story just underscores a simple point regarding how you treat people once you know they'll be leaving the company.  Consistency is key.  Don't like employees going to work for a competitor hanging around after they voluntarily resign?  Fine - make sure you show all of them to the door.  Start slicing and dicing it in a finer fashion, and you might run into litigation similar to the case shown above - regardless if there are good reasons for the differing treatment for individual employees.

Of course, just because people sue doesn't mean they are right.  But litigation cost money and invokes risk, so you might as well avoid it when you can.

Try and have a macro plan and stick to it.  Case by case is fine, but the macro plan should rule the day in this area most of the time.

Performance Management at Microsoft - Moving from 5-point to 3-point Rating Scale

It's been awhile since I waxed about the limitations of the performance management systems most of us use in our companies.  Probably my biggest pet peeve is the 5 point rating scale, where managers invariably use a combination of 3's and 4's to bail themselves out of tough conversations with average employees (click through on the link to get my take). 

I like the 3-point scale better.  With that in mind, it was good to see Microsoft featured in the most recent print edition of Workforce Managment as having ripped out their 5-point rating scale and installed a 3-point scale.  From the article:

"Under that old system, Microsoft managers assigned current performance ratings of 0 to 5 in half-point increments based on a forced distribution.  Because current performance ratings not only determine annual salary increases but also come in to play when employees apply for another position with the company, the forced distribution approach was a sore spot.

"We also discovered the old system was not fully effective", Ritchie (Microsoft GM for Performance Management) notes.  Consequently, Microsoft trashed its 0 to 5 rating scale and adopted a three point "commitment" scale of "exceeded", "achieved" and "underperformed" with no forced distribution.

"Distribution under the new system is about what we expected," Richie reports.  In the last full cycle, 37 percent of employees received a rating of "exceeded", 58% received a rating of "achieved" and 5 percent were rated "underperformed".  The general rule is that the top group receives a merit increase that is 50% higher than average performers."

Of course, your problems don't end just because you move from a 5-point to 3-point scale.  You still have to have managers that can communicate the difference between a "meets" and an "exceeds", and the distribution of overall ratings can still be an issue. 

But you are taking the "Sometimes Exceeds" crutch away by moving to a 3-point scale, and that's worth the effort alone.

Sports and HR - What the Knicks Teach Us About Manager/Employee Friendships...

Topic - Being good friends with employees you support as a HR Manager or those that you supervise as a manager...

Let me first say this - you are damned if you do, and you are damned if you don't.  Everyone wants to be more than a HR Director or the manager of an employee - we want to be someone that the employee can rely on in times of need, someone the employee can consider a friend.     The downside is that deep friendships with employees you manage directly or support in a HR capacity can sometimes position you as questionable with employees that aren't in the inner circle.

So, we all dance the dance to figure out the middle ground.

Of course, there are other concerns.  You could be hijacked by an troubled employee grasping for leverage in an employment situation.  Case in point?  Stephon Marbury of pro basketball's New York Knicks.  From Deadspin:

"Stephon Marbury (guard for the Knicks), an investment that has totally paid off for the Knicks, supposedly blew up at Isiah (Coach and GM) when he learned he wasn't starting last night and bolted the team. But his threat to Isiah is the real beauty here.

"Isiah has to start me," Marbury fumed, according to the source. "I've got so much (stuff) on Isiah and he knows it. He thinks he can (get) me. But I'll (get) him first. You have no idea what I know."

We can only imagine how juicy this must be. Lord, Stephon, please don't tell us he was in the truck with you and the intern. That's too much for our meager brains to take"

That's the ugly side of getting too close with the employees you manage or support, or for that matter, with those who supervise you.   The winners are those of us with an open door and the reputation for being approachable.  Those at risk?  Both extremes - those waaaay too close to those they manage (see Isiah above) and those who never say hi in the hallway. 

Find the middle ground accordingly.  Nobody wants someone to go all Marbury on you....

Employee Resigns - Walk Them Out the Door Or Let Them Work a Notice?...

It's a morality tale that's played out countless times across corporate America every day.  Employee resigns, and manager and HR figure out whether they'll honor the two-week notice or send the employee packing on the same day. 

Playbook as follows for most of us:

Employee stays to work out a notice if:  Transition needs are high, limited risk exists for them staying in the environment, company's feelings aren't hurt regarding them going to work for a competitor, employee won't spend two weeks telling everyone how cool the new gig will be compared to where they are...

Employee is walked to the door if:  They were a conduct/performance problem on the way out anyway, they're going to work for a cometitor that troubles the company, history suggests they'll be mailing it in, they're in a position where company policy/protocal is to walk them immediately.

You're not alone in trying to figure it out on a case-by-case basis.  Even Microsoft has to figure it out, especially with Google picking off their talent.  From Valleywag:

"Stuart Scott, Microsoft's former CIO, is not the only Microsoft employee unceremoniously being shown the door. Some staffers who are putting in their notice are being escorted off campus immediately. Why? Because they've put in their notice to join Google. In Microsoft's eyes, Google is Enemy No. 1. Anyone leaving Redmond for the search leader is a threat. Not because they'll scurry around collecting company secrets -- as if Google's interested in Microsoft's '90s-era technologies.

Departing employees, however, might tell other 'Softies how much better Google is. If an employee is leaving for Amazon.com or another second-tier employer which doesn't make Microsoft so paranoid, they'll probably serve out the traditional two weeks of unproductive wrapping up. So if you're planning on leaving Microsoft for Google, pack up your belongings and say goodbye to friends ahead of time. There'll be no cake and two weeks of paid slacking for you. And, Microsoft, don't expect former employees who are treated like security threats to ever want to come back, even after their Google stock options have vested."

Of course, as a HR Pro you know where it REALLY gets interesting, if you decide to walk the employee out on the same day you receive the notice - the decision on whether to pay them for the two weeks notice you are waiving.  My experience suggests this is primarily a cultural call, and if you want the majority of your employees to work a notice when they resign, you don't want to withhold the notice pay.  If you have a history of doing that, ultimately folks will simply resign same day with no expectation they are going to work a notice.

But you probably have a provision in your handbook that withholds vacation pay if employees don't give a notice.  That's why employees call you Catbert...

Compensation Dreams...Massage Therapist Gig at Google - Priceless!

I once had a drawer full of optons from a previous employer that were granted about a year before the dotcom crash.  Total value today?  Zero - not much of a retention tool when I was pondering another opportunity.

Of course, I didn't work at Google.

Put down your HR trade and start rubbing backs for profit (they really don't go together anyway, know what I mean?).  It can work out pretty well if you work at Google.  From a clip in the NYT:

"Bonnie Brown was fresh from a nasty divorce in 1999, living with her sister and uncertain of her future. On a lark, she answered an ad for an in-house masseuse at Google, then a Silicon Valley start-up with 40 employees. She was offered the part-time job, which started out at $450 a week but included a pile of Google stock options that she figured might never be worth a penny.

After five years of kneading engineers’ backs, Ms. Brown retired, cashing in most of her stock options, which were worth millions of dollars. To her delight, the shares she held onto have continued to balloon in value.

“I’m happy I saved enough stock for a rainy day, and lately it’s been pouring,” said Ms. Brown, 52, who now lives in a 3,000-square-foot house in Nevada, gets her own massages at least once a week and has a private Pilates instructor. She has traveled the world to oversee a charitable foundation she started with her Google wealth and has written a book, still unpublished, “Giigle: How I Got Lucky Massaging Google.”

Ugh.  I can't even follow that up with clever analysis...

Does Your HR Job Stink? Take the Quiz and Find Out...

My latest article is up at Workforce.com, entitled "Does Your HR Job Stink?  Take the Quiz and Find Out".  It's a handy quiz to help you determine if your company supports the talent function to the extent necessary to make your HR gig positive in the years to come.  Take the quiz and then score yourself according to the following scale:

"Total your score. Now determine if your HR job is a keeper:
18-24 points: Your position and company rock. If you can combine it with people you like, a career path and a manageable commute, consider putting pictures up and starting a blog.

12-17 points: You’re doing OK. If you have enough influence to implement some things to help in the trouble spots, you could be seen as a rising star and get promoted.

6-11 points: HR life support needed. The cost structure alone means you won’t be there in two years.

0-5 points: You had already scanned the jobs and posted your résumé before you found this article. Good instincts. Play on."

Take the quiz and let me know how you fared....

Do You Feel Dirty When You Google Candidates?....

Talking to a VP of HR I know and respect last week.  Topic of googling candidates to find out more about them came up.  Guess what?  My friend told me that he has instructed his recruiters not to google candidates as he feels it's an intrusion of privacy and a potential legal risk.

Guess what my response was?

Right - "You are C.R.A.Z.Y.!  Have you lost your mind?"

After diving a layer deeper in the conversation, it turns out my friend had attended a conference where someone talked about legal risks of making rejection decisions based on what you find online.  Additoinally, you wouldn't define my friend as a member of the digital revolution.  He waxes poetic about the dangers of the blackberry.  His VCR, bought in the 80's at "SoundsGreat", undoubtedly is blinking 12:00 AM as I write this.

But enough about him.  Do you google candidates?  Do you feel bad about doing it?  If you aren't doing it (time investment - 60 seconds), why not?  If you feel bad, why?

Here are my cliff notes on why you should be googling candidates:

1.  You are an agent of your company - it's your job to get the inside scoop on candidates.  The world's not always a happy place.  Put your helmet on and get in the game.

2.  The legal risk of not doing it will ultimately outweigh the risk of doing it.   Let's say you hire a stalker, who ultimately starts stalking one of your employees.  Turns out you could have seen an article with the employee's name in it by googling.  Didn't show up in your background check because it was too fresh.  Think the liability is stronger by googling or not googling?  If you said not googling, go back to the start of the article and read it again.

3.  You've got cover, my friend.  There are hundreds of reasons you might reject a candidate, and you don't tell the candidate any of them.  Does "We love your background, but we have elected to make an offer to a candidate who is a more direct match to our needs.." ring a bell?

If you aren't googling, get in the game, skippy.  Jump over to Secrets of the Job Hunt for the latest stats on googling candidates.

House Says Yes to Gay Rights in Workplace, No to Transexuals...

Admit it, you've been wondering as a HR professional when the ranks of the protected classes will be expanded to include gay rights, correct?   Look around the landscape of society, and it almost seems to be a matter of when, not if.   In addition, many of our companies have already adopted policies that mention sexual orientation - an example would be a Prohibition Against Harassment policy that lists sexual orientation on the same plane as race, gender, etc.

No matter how progressive you think you are, you can still be blown away by what you don't know.  In a former HR life, I fielded an inquiry regarding the inclusion of sexual orientation in a policy statement similar to the one listed above.  An employee who openly identified himself as gay came to me regarding the inclusion of sexual orientation in a harassment policy.  When I replied to the employee that I thought inclusion of orientation was probable, I was asked if that would include protection for transsexuals.  I had no idea what to say, but learned the topic was an important component of the gay rights movement.  Just another example of learning everyday on the job as a HR Manager...

That conversation prepared me well to understand the issues related to the House passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act last week, where businesses with 15 or more employees would be prohibited from discriminating in hiring, firing or promoting individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.  From the coverage of the Dallas Morning News:

"The House voted Wednesday to extend the nation's employment discrimination protections to gay workers, the first time the long-proposed measure has passed either chamber of Congress.

In the debate, which lasted more than five hours, some members of Congress referred to the historic civil-rights fight against racial prejudice while others appealed to the Democratic majority not to infringe on the rights of Christians who consider homosexuality an affront to God.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a longtime supporter of gay-rights legislation, said he would move swiftly to introduce a similar measure in the Senate, and some Senate Republicans said that, if worded carefully, it would have a good chance of passing, perhaps early next year.

President Bush had threatened to veto an earlier version of the bill, but a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said the administration would need to review recent changes before making a final decision. Few Democrats expect Mr. Bush to change his mind.

Under the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, businesses with 15 or more employees would be prohibited from discriminating in hiring, firing or promoting individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. The armed forces, private clubs and religious organizations would be exempted.

The 235-184 vote came after Democratic leaders, following weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations, opted not to include transgender individuals in the bill for fear that the inclusion of gender identity would cripple the coalition supporting the measure. That decision led to a bitter split among the bill's backers, leaving advocates for transsexuals and transvestites angry."

So it's Gay Rights yes, Transsexuals/Tranvestites no for the group backing the bill.   Based on my experience, I think I'll just say I'm an advocate for no discrimination/harassment in the workplace and leave it at that.  With that said, it will be a difficult day for any HR Pro, if a workplace version of Dennis Rodman shows up in a dress with a boa, sits down in your cube, and you have to tell the business owners to tread lightly due to employment law. 

Keep your eye on the bill in the Senate and the potential veto/backlash to the veto...

Attention Superstars: If You Have More Than 25 Resume Keywords, I'm Hitting "Delete"

Harry Joiner over at Marketing Headhunter has a sweet post on something I've seen, but not every day like he has to contend with it.  The topic?  Turning your resume into a piece of spam by adding a "keyword" section to make sure it is picked up in as many searches as possible.   Here's Harry's definition and an example:

"Keyword spam is a long string of words at the end of a resume put there by the job-seeker with the intention of improving his chances that a recruiting researcher will find it.  For example, here are the keywords at the bottom of a resume I just pulled up ...

RESUME KEYWORDS: online, on-line, interactive, ecommerce, e-commerce, ebusiness, e-business, marketing, internet, web, executive, COO, CEO, CMO, Chief Marketing Officer, CIO, EVP, SVP, Senior Vice President, VP, President, GM, Managing Director, multichannel, multi-channel, retail, retailer, etailer, e-tail, e-tailer, online retailer, product, product management, brand management, online marketing, SEO, search engine optimization, SEM, search engine marketing, paid search, affiliate marketing, email marketing, merchandising, merchandise, catalog, cataloger, direct marketing, direct marketer, six sigma, 6-sigma, business-to-business, B2B, B2C, business to consumer, CRM, education, content, strategy, business process, public relations, media, French, international, multinational, apparel, clothing, fashion, jewelry, accessories, luxury, designer, branding, finance, bank, banking, home furnishings, private sector, not for profit, nonprofit, non-profit, environment, new media, entertainment, vision, leader, innovate, innovative, innovator.

Here's what I see as a recruiter at a software company.  Lots of technical resumes with about 50 technologies listed on each, and having to decide, based on the information shared, whether they are worth a call.  Additionally, I also love the candidates who list 50 pieces of technology, then act put out when they answer the phone, like I should have figured out that they haven't really used Cold Fusion that much.  Was it listed?  Sure... But I should have known that it is really not their strength...

Harry goes on to make a great point in his post.  Keywords are fine, but as a high-end candidate, you have to have a special competency that you can prove and create a niche in.  Similar to many of the theories of Seth Godin, who also encourages you to "specialize and dominate" (Harry's words, Seth uses similar theory).

If you haven't plugged Harry's blog in your google reader, do it NOW.  Harry's got some great insight into the deep science of the recruiting world, which is why I read him and why he's even been a part of the HR Blog Power Rankings as a marketing pro.

Work/Life Balance, the NFL and Bereavement Leave....

Unfortunately, it's happened to all of us.  Loved one passes away, and we need to break away from work to be with the family.  Bad stuff.  The silver lining for you and I working in corporate America?  The support of our co-workers, companies and the time to take care of our family business via the concept of bereavement leave.

Bereavement leave is a given for most of us in working America.  Three (3) days off seems to be the standard in corporate America, and it's paid leave time in most employment handbooks, but not mandated by any law on the books.  It's a basic statement of work/life balance provided by your company.  Take care of your family and we'll see you when you get back.

Of course, from time to time I'm reminded that not all employees in the USA are afforded benefits many of us consider entitlements.  The Minnesota Vikings have docked wide receiver Troy Williamson one game check for missing the 11/4/07 game against the San Diego Chargers to attend the Monday funeral of his maternal grandmother.   From ESPN:

"Based on his 2007 salary of $435,000, the action by the Vikings will cost the three-year veteran $25,588. Williamson has 45 days to appeal Minnesota's decision to withhold his pay, and NFL Players Association sources said he will do so.

Coach Brad Childress told Twin Cities-area media following Thursday's practice that the decision was on a "business principle" of the Vikings organization.

"He had a family obligation that he had to see to," Childress said. "We sat down and talked on it before he left. ... He had to do what he had to do. Everybody handles that differently. [Williamson] had to do what his family situation called for."

Childress cited the cases of two players, Minnesota defensive tackle Pat Williams and Indianapolis wide receiver Reggie Wayne, who appeared in games shortly after the deaths of family members.

Williamson's maternal grandmother, who helped to raise him and with whom he was very close, died last week and he returned to South Carolina, where he played a large role in arranging her funeral. He also had to make travel arrangements for several of his siblings, some of whom are in the armed services. He returned to the team on Wednesday as the Vikings began practicing for this Sunday's game against Green Bay.

The team apparently apprised Williamson on Wednesday that he would not receive a paycheck for the game that he missed."

Nice, but not unexpected for those that follow the NFL.  Reaction has been harsh - read more here and here... 

Couple of notes to put the stance of the NFL into context.  First up, the NFL, unlike its pro sports counterparts in baseball, basketball and hockey, operates with relatively few performance dates.  16 games constitute the results for the regular season, and if a player misses one of those performance dates, he's lost 1/16 of his ability to contribute to the regular season results.  Few of us face the same pressure in taking bereavement leave for the year.  So the NFL is different from most workplaces in that regard.

Finally, the NFL has a collective bargaining agreement with the NFL Players Association (the players union).  Bereavement leave, like 100s of other benefits and conditions of employment, is a negotiated topic.  To secure this benefit for the players, the NFLPA must bargain and then negotiate the benefit.  If they didn't do that on behalf of their membership, then that's part of the deal in being organized.  It's the NFLPA's responsibility, not the NFL's.

Still, it looks pretty bad on the front page.  Be interesting to see if the Vikings flip and pay him for the game.

UPDATE - The Vikings caved to public reaction and announced they would pay Williamson for the game missed.  Williamson immediately took the high ground and flanked their PR move by announcing he will donate the pay to charity.   

Apple - Firing Retail Workers for Theft at a Store Near You...

It's easy to romanticize the workplaces of the companies with products we evangelize.  You know the brands - Google, Starbucks, Wal-Mart and yes, Apple.  Free backrubs, great compensation and great morale.  What's not to like, right?  It's got to be great working for the man in those cultures...

There's just this one little thing that serves as an equalizer.  Just one little thing....

People can be nasty.  And greedy. 

Case in point.  Apple is reported to have recently fired 800 of its employees for stealing. They were caught grabbing $100 rebates on the iPhones Apple had given them for free.    So they get a free iPhone worth $500-$600, and then cash in the rebate coupon that was off-limits for employees.  That's a no-no.

Human nature - it's ugly.   Even in the cool cultures everybody wants to be a part of.  Must have felt like just another job to those 800 employees when they made that decision.  Makes you go hmmmmm.

Here's another question.  It sounds like the presence of a rebate coupon wasn't addressed that clearly when the free employee offer was circulated.  What would you have done as the VP of HR when someone runs a report and indicates that 800 of your employees cashed in the rebate?  Do you make them pay it back and hit them with a final warning?  Or fire them on the spot, as Apple is reported to have done?

Before you answer, here's another business snippet.  Let's say Apple's cost per hire is a lean $1000 per hire.  That's $800,000 out of the staffing kitty if you decide to fire them all...

What's makes the bigger statement to the employee base regarding what Apple stands for? The terms of 800 employees for theft at the risk of very poor PR, or the stellar ads you see every day (like the one below)from Apple?

Love the ads.  The terms are probably more important in sending a message to the employee base.....

Wal-Mart - So Flexible They Provide a 1-800 Number to Call In Sick....

I can't believe I missed this nugget last year.  It's a shared services best practice right out of The Empire Strikes Back... Let's get warmed up with a little skit with a Star Wars twist....

-C3PO - Calls 1-800-IAM-SICK
-Underutlized Storm Trooper in Shared Services Call Center on Death Star - Sick Time Request Hotline, how can I help you?
-C3PO - uh, hi.  I'm sick today and was told to call this number.
-Storm Trooper (without a hint of compassion) - What seems to be wrong?
-C3PO - My legs won't move...
-Storm Trooper (following script provided by center on PC) - Did you do your weekly maintenance as suggested by the empire?  Wellness is the best way to reduce sick time regardless of your location in the galaxy....

Most of you have handbooks that cover how employees report out when they are sick, right?  Sure you do.  And your idea of getting hardcore is making sure your employees "speak directly with a supervisor" instead of dropping a voice mail or email to them.  That makes the problem children have to confront a supervisor head-on with the expectation they won't be in.  That in itself can put pressure on employees not to take sick days when they aren't really sick.

Think you're tough?  You are S.O.F.T. my friend.  Wal-Mart is tough.  Here's what the gang at the capital WM rolled out last year across the Empire (from the WSJ):

"Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has enacted a new attendance policy that penalizes workers for multiple unexcused absences and requires them to call an 800 number whenever they get sick, changes critics say are part of a bigger effort to nudge out unhealthy and long-tenured employees...

The policy change comes at a time when some of Wal-Mart's 1.3 million U.S. workers are riled by fears that the retailer wants to cut costs by attracting healthier employees and a greater percentage of part-time workers. Some employees and Wal-Mart critics decry the new policy as a way for Wal-Mart to discourage unhealthy employees by tracking sick-time use more closely, setting stricter guidelines for authorization and making the process of applying for sick leave more onerous.

Wal-Mart's concerns about its soaring health-insurance costs came to light last year, when an internal memorandum authored by a top Wal-Mart official was leaked. The memo offered numerous suggestions for corralling benefits costs by luring healthier workers."

The memo referred to can be found here - take a glance if you haven't already, it's a fascinating read.  The highlight?  Proposed job redesign to make sure that everyone retrieves carts in the parking lot, regardless of title.  The goal?  To encourage less heathy workers to find other employment...

That's playing in the big leagues, my young skywalkers. 

How Scarce is the PHR/SPHR Among HR Pros?

How scarce is the PHR/SPHR among HR professionals?  A student in a PHR/SPHR class asked me that after we completed the module I was teaching last weekend.   Pick the best answer from the group of potential answers I could have used below:

A.  Very scarce...
B.  You're like a snowflake, you'll be so unique...
C.  As unique as a Crimson Tide T-Shirt on Iron Bowl Weekend in Tuscaloosa, AL...
D.  The PHR/SPHR pin is included in all displays of flare at Fridays (see photo to right)....
E.  I have no clue...

My answer was E.  But I told her I would find out, so here's what my back of the napkin research indicated...

The HRCI website shows that there are a total of 89,170 Certified Professionals, including the following:

-PHR: 50,174
-SPHR: 38,531
-GPHR: 826

With that hard fact in hand, I next needed a total number of HR professionals in the US to determine how special the certification makes you.  Here are the two big numbers I looked at:

-Per their website, SHRM has aound 225,000 members.  That number obviously doesn't capture all the HR pros in the U.S., so I looked for another number to get a ballpark figure.

-Workforce Week lists a total distribution of roughly 445,000 subscirbers to their print version and website combined.  I liked that number better for my rough math based on the fact that not all HR pros are SHRM members.  This number seems as reasonable as any I could find to base my math on...

Using the Workforce Week number, I estimate that around 20% of the HR professionals working across all positions, industries, etc. are certified with the PHR/SPHR/GPHR.

So you aren't a snowflake if you are certified.  But you much rarer than anything on the menu at Fridays.  So put on your PHR/SPHR flare and show your skilz!

Other certification articles:

-Are the PHR/SHPR Worth The Paper They Are Printed On?
-How much do you have to study to pass the PHR/SPHR?
   

Ask the HR Capitalist - Is a Benefits Manager Worth More Than a HR Manager?

From the mailbag:
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Kris - I'm a HR Representative who has always loved being a generalist, to the extent I have not looked to take a tour of duty in the Compensation or Benefits section of our HR department.  In this month's HR Magazine, SHRM released their annual HR Salary Survey and it looks like Benefits and Comp professionals earn more than HR generalists.   What's up with that?  Should I get on the benefit track since I am still early in my career?

Janet from Chicago
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Janet -

Fair question.  The SHRM Annual Salary Survey is always full of good info, but it's one data point of many to consider as you try to map out your career.  The big data point for me out of the SHRM survey was the Total Compensation for Select HR Manager-level positions, which includes both Generalist (HR Manager) and Specialist (Benefits Manager, Compensation Manager, etc.) positions at the manager level.  Here's where the survey had some commonly found manager-level positions for 2007 Total Comp:

-Compensation Manager - $98,600 (up 6%)
-Benefits Manager - $89,200 (up 2%)
-Training Manager - $85,100 (no change)
-Employee Relations Manager - $85,300 (down 4%)
-HR Manager - $80,700 (down 4%)

Make your decision based on that info alone, and you'd probably jump off the generalist track and become a specialist.  Pay no attention to the fact that average comp went down for the HR Manager position - that's reflective of a new batch of respondents, and also the wide variability of what the title HR Manager actually means, which I'll talk about in a second.  Before you jump off the generalist track, however, there are a couple of other considerations you need to make.  Among the factors are:

-What are your long-term career goals?  Do you want to run an HR shop? Do you like being a generalist or are you prone to enjoy specialization?  While a stint as a specialist is helpful, most Directors and VPs of HR come from the generalist ranks.

-If you jump into the Comp, Benefits or Training arenas and stay, you'll effectively shrink your opportunity pool.  Almost every company of any size has HR Managers and up, but only the largest can afford to have a Comp or Benefits Manager.  Stay a generalist and you'll find it easier to move among companies and across industries.

-The tag "HR Manager" has a lot more variability in it regarding relative level of position.  The HR Manager title can mean a one person HR shop in a very small company earning 40K, or a Fortune 100 HR Manager earning 110K.  Based on the number of small companies having a HR Manager position, there's no doubt a downward drag on the total comp average for the title.  A similar drag doesn't exist for the Benefits or Compensation Manager title, because the definition is more consistent.

-The Generalist "HR Manager" title has other levels that aren't likely represented in the data above, like "HR Director".  With this and the previous point in mind, the size of your company and the relative size of your client group will drive your compensation when you become a HR Manager.

A quick look at your title of HR Representative suggests you're probably an individual contributor on your way to becoming a manager of some type.  With that in mind, now is the best time in your career to experiment with a tour of duty in the Benefits or Comp department as an analyst, especially if you can come back to being a generalist later.   If you think the content interests you, take a tour and find out more - but if you like being a generalist, only do it if you can come back later on.

The explosion of medical costs to be managed on the Benefits side of the house means benefit professionals will continue to see growth in their compensation moving forward, probably growth that consistently out-paces that of generalists.  However, go too deep into the benefits career, and you'll likely find it hard to get back to the generalist role.

Above and beyond all else, figure out what motivates you and follow it.  If you rock as a generalist, you'll make more than the average throughout your career! 

They Still Hate HR - Another Study To Kick You In The Teeth...

Remember that Fast Company article entitled "Why We Hate HR"?    Man, did we talk a lot about that one.

Guess what?  They are still less than enamored with us.  So says a new study from Vertitude entitled, "“Working Together, Working Apart: When It Comes to Workforce Planning, HR and Business Leaders Agree Their Working Relationship Needs Work.”.

You can read the study or just bounce over to John Hollon's blog at Workforce, where he's broken it down for all of us.   The study contains all the normal hand-wringing buzzwords, including Strategy, a Seat at the Table and not to be forgotten, Change Management.  The study says HR's not meeting the expectations in any of them.  Got it...

Just click to John's blog and read the rest, as well as the 38 comments from a nice little cross section of the HR DNA pool.  There are all the normal people - those who are angry, the whiners, etc.  All the stereotypes.  My favorite part of Hollon's coverage?  The following statement from John:

"We’ve written here (on numerous occasions) about the change management skills HR people need to be effective in today’s fluid and frenetic business world. I can only wonder when the HR profession finally will find the means—and moxie—to fight back, rather than absorbing a new pummeling every few weeks."

Word up, John.  Let's stop wringing our hands and start acting like we belong.  Please.  Every time you comment on a story like this one, you guarantee five similar studies/articles will come along in the next year.

So be different - don't comment, don't lash out.   Put your energy into cramming the stereotype down the world's throat by being a different type of HR pro.

Performance Scoreboards - How Ricky Got Fired...

The Issue - Performance Motivation by Using Public Scoreboards

Regional Director- "The environment is a little stale lately.  We need to invoke some