HR Jobs From Hell - The LOA Administrator

By now, readers of the Capitalist know that I am a HR Generalist, meaning I do it all - recruit, employee relations, benefits, performance management, etc.   I'm also a firm believer that Generalist roles span the globe of HR titles - Generalists can be found at the Rep/individual contributor, manager, director and VP levels.

One of the things that is cool about being a HR Generalist is the variety - if you're sick of doing one thing, you just need to wait about 20 minutes, because you'll get a call shifting your priorities to another area as a routine course of business.

Some people call it chaos, I call it variety...

So, for me, a HR job from hell is one that includes no variety, and resides in an area of the HR practice where little joy is found.  Here's my first HR Job from Hell - the corporate Leave of Absence Administrator.

First up, let me say that me tagging the LOA Administrator as a job from hell has nothing to do with the people in the job, but instead has everything to do with what these folks have to put up with on a daily basis.  As luck would have it, HR Wench is currently in the job market, and recently phone screened for an LOA Administrator role:

"I had a phone screen yesterday that went ok. It was for the Leave of Absence Specialist. Get this: the organization has 15,000 employees. Guess how many NEW leave of absence cases were processed last year? 4,400. That is almost a 1/3 of their workforce, yo! Geez. Anyhow the in person interviews aren't until a few weeks from now due to vacations. So, we'll see".

UGH.  That pretty much sums up why I would consider the LOA Administer role as a HR role from Dante's 9th circle.  Here's what you have to deal with in that role:

-Primary focus is interacting with folks going through very rough times.  For the right person, this would be a plus, as they could use their empathy to make a difference.  But a steady diet of this over years surely leads to burnout.

-Being the tough gal/guy regarding compliance.  Folks are going through rough times, and you're the one that has to hassle them about the FMLA certification forms even though that's the last thing on their mind.

-Deciding when to play hardball on fraud.  You have 4,000 applications for LOA, you're going to have some folks gaming the system.  You have to decide when to play hardball and go after it.  You see the 5-10% that game the system - how can you not become jaded after a year or two of that?

Let me be clear - if you are in the LOA Administrator role in your company - thank you.   You are taking multiple hits daily for the HR function as a whole, and you're likely doing it very well.  If you get burned out, I hope your company has a rotational program in place, because you have skills that are a valuable resource.

That being said - HR Wench - Don't do it!!

Will You Eventually Have a Heath Care Score Similar to Your Credit Score?....

Imagine a Health Care system that functioned like the consumer credit industry.  Scott Kornhauser has.  The CEO of Healthation thinks the system will ultimately deliver a personal health care score (like a credit FICO score) that drives what consumers pay for healthcare, complete with the ability to improve rtheir rating over time with the right behaviors/performance. 

That tidbit was part of the vision Kornhauser delivered in "Processing the New Business of Health Care in a Retail Marketplace" at the World Heath Care Congress.  Kornhauser's bigger vision is that the retail transformation of the U.S. health care delivery system is going to demand real time claims adjudication.  To make real time claims adjudication a reality, Kornhauser sees a combination of indexes and other data points coming together to make the real time claims process work.

What the heck does that mean to a HR Pro?

In Kornhauser's vision, consumers will have the ability to opt in or out of sharing their data with various types of providers.  However, to get the best health care credit score possible, they would have to share a great deal of data and then have their overall health judged - via a numerical score that looks a lot like the FICO score that drives your personal access to credit.

Ready to tell Danny in Accounts Payable he has a health care credit score of 500 and will have to pay double what others do for healthcare?

Great!

Have a bad health care FICO score like Danny?  In Kornhauser's world, you'd probably pay more for medical premiums.  But like the credit FICO score, you could improve your health care credit score by demonstrating desired behaviors - like paying your bills on time (easy for Danny, right?) or losing weight to get your BMI score within an acceptable range (harder for Danny...).

Employees Who Play "Grand Theft Auto" - Good or Bad Thing?

We've been watching the NBA playoffs over the past couple of days, and here's the challenge.  It's PRIME TIME, and when the games go to commercial, my 7 and 4 year-old sons get exposed to programming clips and ads the networks view as acceptable at 7pm.

Case in point - On the video game front, Grand Theft Auto 4 is set to be released, featuring all the vices  you can name, set to a drug running culture where shooting cops is an afterthought.  Here's a taste of what the game entails from the London Free Press:

"Grand Theft Auto IV -- or simply GTA IV -- tells the story of Niko Bellic, a recent immigrant to the U.S. from an unrevealed Eastern European country. He's come to Liberty City, the game's through-the-looking-glass version of New York, lured by his cousin Roman's promises of wealth and opportunity.

Niko soon realizes his cousin has twisted the truth like a stoolie's arm: Roman lives in a fleabag apartment, runs a failing taxi company and is in trouble with several shady people. He's summoned Niko, an ex-soldier and all-around capable character, to help extract him from some sticky situations.

So begins Niko's pursuit of the American dream, a chase that will follow the Grand Theft Auto template of having players undertake dozens upon dozens of missions to advance the core storyline, while also pursuing any number of sideline activities, like going to the bar, playing darts and driving home drunk."

Of course, if I can't change the channel quick enough (where is the @#@* remote!?), my 7 year old ultimately see the shoulder fired missile going at the police chopper and asks if we can get that game for our Xbox.  Nice.

Here's a bigger question - are employees who band together at night via networked groups on the Xbox or Playstaion to play "shooter games" good things or bad things for your business? 

On the minus side - your employees are exposed to a steady range of violence via the normal shooter games like "Call of Duty".  Add drugs and poor treatment of women to the mix for games like Grand Theft Auto.  Is there a carry-over of aggression to the workplace?  I can't say that I see it, and it's not like we have the ability to stop what's going on in society.

But here's the big plus side - for every group of 5-10 employees you have that band together at night to save the war (or Niko), you get built-in teamwork.  That group is getting together after work, and doing team-based activities that require cooperation, leadership, accountability to the team and more - they're just exploding things while they do it.

That's got to be good for retention, right?

I think the group gamers are a good thing for your company.  It's also an area that's full of opportunity from a recruiting standpoint for those willing to step outside the box - what better way to recruit the gamer generation than to invite them to join the "Call of Duty" team for an evening of fun?

Of course, you would have to accept that your recruits are going to be exposed to cursing, violence and overall aggressive behavior. 

And that will keep most of us from capturing the promise - we can't accept the liability that goes along with it from a HR standpoint.... 

Steve Roesler - Performance Management and Change Truthteller....

Have you seen the work of Steve Roesler at All Things Workplace?  If not, you need to check it out.

Here's the 3-second elevator speech on what Steve does in his practice:  He specializes in communication training and development with an emphasis on improving systems, relationships, and large-scale change.

He's also a deep thinker about the elements of his practice, which is reflected in his blog.  It's a must read for me, even if Steve goes deeper into his niche than I feel like I have time for on certain days.

Of course, that's not his problem, that's mine...

The reason I read it is because he's good.  Case in point, this post reminding me that if you try and spare someone's feelings from a performance perspective, you may be hurting the long-term viability of their career.  Read the whole post here, and here's a clip:

"There is an admirable and desirable human tendency to not want to hurt other people. Thankfully.

At the same time, there seems to be a misunderstanding about what is hurtful and what is helpful. Wouldn't you think that a career filled with performance appraisals  might have surfaced this earlier?

Let's face it: in addition to not wanting to hurt someone's feelings, we also don't want to be seen as ogres. So we often hold back the part of the information that is the most serious and, therefore, potentially the most helpful.

Ask yourself this: Who in your life do you trust the most? The people who give you mostly 'yeses' or the people who say 'no' and then explain why?"

Read the whole thing.  If I ever need an executive coach (does that mean I have to be an executive first?), I'm asking my company to call Steve.

Steve - thanks for the great work and the reminder.  I'm skilled enough to deliver this type of news with directness and compassion.  Thanks for reminding me that's my responsibility....

Can You Get A Non-HR Job In Your Company?

Michael Haberman recently threw up some excerpts from The HR Scorecard: Linking People, Strategy, and Performance, by Brian Becker, Mark Huselid and David Ulrich, at HR Observations focused on Competencies for HR Professionals.

My eyes always get a little glossy when I read Ulrich - but I know I should - read him, that is.  Here's the rundown of the five competencies from the book (in order of importance), as outlined my Michael in his post:

1. Knowing the business
2. Mastering HR practices
3. Managing culture
4. Orchestrating change
5. Demonstrating personal credibility

Not a bad list, even if managing culture and orchestrating change are hopelessly broad for the average HR Pro.  As an HR pro, I know you are going to try and master HR practices, so that leave us with "knowing the business" and "demonstrating personal credibility".

How are you doing on knowing the business and personal credibility as a HR pro?  Here's the one question test you need to give yourself:

Could you get a non-HR job in your company?

If you've worked at learning the business and demonstrated that knowledge to the non-HR world in general, then chances are you could get a non-HR job in your shop.  Nothing builds personal credibility faster with your non-HR peers than you knowing the business. 

What about it?  Can your company see giving you a rotation into Marketing, Finance or Operations?  If not, you probably don't have #1 and #5 covered to the extent you need to...

Square Peg, Round Hole - Can The Traditional Organization Afford to Focus on Strengths?

Is performance management upside down in Corporate America?  Here are a couple of quick observations:

1.  Jobs are structured for the company, not the employee.  I'm not saying that's wrong, just outlining the facts.

2.  90% of the time we spend talking about performance is about how to manage negative variance.

3.  We don't spend a lot of the time evaluating how we can continue to maximize a person's strengths.  We'll tell them they are doing great, give them an "exceeds", then move on to how they can improve their "areas of opportunity". 

4.  The combination of those competencies that create "jobs", are pretty inflexible in corporate America.

With that in mind, it should come as no shock that while we love to read books like "Now Discover Your Strengths" and nod accordingly when discussing, we pretty much go back to the coal mine and expect people to fit in the traditional spaces we've defined.

Scott McArthur recently talked about the power of positive, strength-based psychology in the workplace.  From the sweet rundown at McArthur's Rant:

"Positive psychology suggests that by focusing on people’s strengths rather than on their development needs we can transform wellness at work and as a consequence improve organizational performance.

The notion behind the work that is being done under the banner of Positive Psychology is to enhance our experiences of love, work and play and by doing so encourage wellbeing. This is in contrast to the traditional ways of thinking in both psychology and business where the focus is on finding what isn't working and trying to fix it.

Techniques such as Appreciative Enquiry and Strength finders (Gallup) as well as writers such as Csikszentmihalyi in Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience have been extolling the value of adopting this approach for some time. In Gallup’s case they have produced some strong statistical evidence that it works.."

Scott acknowledges in his post that while focusing on employee strengths is a powerful tool, it's problematic for the traditional organization to figure out how to do it.

Here's my take.  The power of focusing on strengths in corporate America is probably best used in a combination of performance management and engagement.  The smart managers know that they can't adjust a role to fit the employee's strengths with a 100% match.  But with the right amount of praise, coaching and organizational flexibility, they can create an environment where the employee understands that the more efficient they are in their formal job, the more they can chase what they really love to do, and maybe even innovate and create stuff on the way.

And that would be a pretty cool thing... 

This Just In - Eye Exams Stop Amputations (Seriously!)

If I asked you to list 5 things you could do in your benefit programs to identify disease and reduce avoidable costs, I'm guessing most of you would stay on the medical insurance front.

Would anyone think of Vision Care?  Not me.

Good thing I took in a session at the World Health Care Congress led by Rob Lynch, President and CEO of  VSP (Vision Service Plan).  As most of you know, VSP has the largest network of providers under contract in the vision field.  Their network and systems are so strong that even if you choose to contract with another provider (like Guardian, who's been in a dental and vision care market share push as of late), odds are those other providers are simply "reselling" the VSP network.

VSP is rapidly becoming the "Kleenex" of Vision Care.

But back to how VSP is linked with identifying disease and reducing cost.   In a strange benefit twist, only 14 percent of Americans with funded health insurance will get a physical in a given year.  But, as it turns out, almost 61% of those covered by a funded VSP plan will get an eye exam.  Nice stat.

Eye exams are key to catching one key disease early - diabetes.  Lynch quoted the cost savings associated with early detection of diabetes at $4,300 per year, per diabetic.  As horrific as it sounds, there are hundreds of serious procedures daily in the US related to diabetes, including unthinkable items like amputations...

If that's not a call for multiple insurance providers sharing information with each other toward the common good, I don't know what is. 

If I Had a Few Million Dollars - I Would Aggregate References of Candidates...

Thought for the day.  If I had a couple of million lying around and wanted to do a startup, I'd do some type of data mining play to aggregate references off of resumes, applications and the web.  That's right, references off of the candidates who are rolling into your careers site daily.  I know LinkedIn sort of does this, but I am talking about focusing WAY in...

What's the big deal?  If you think about it, you'll agree that references are an underutilized resource of candidate flow for key positions in your company.  Let's think about references and what they bring to the table:

1.  A trusted pool of professionals, so much so the candidate is willing to make them a part of their personal brand.

2.  Often have served as mentors for the candidates who have cited them as references.

3.  Usually bring greater experience to the table than the candidate who cited them.

4.  Known to be "stable", meaning the citing candidate knows they're going to be around for awhile.

5.  Self selected by the candidate pool for their communication skills.  They'll be expected to pop a 2 minute elevator speech on demand about the candidate in question, and this is who the candidate selected for that task.  Have any jobs where you need a filter for the ability to communicate on the phone or via email?  Ever come to the conclusion that people who can communicate can also generally perform at a high level?

So I've got the idea.  Now I just need a VC to step up during a mild recession and give me a couple million to pay some developers and get the product crackin.  Who's it going to be?

Obesity Surgery and Notre Dame Football - While Insurers Don't Automatically Approve...

Every time I think of obesity surgery, I think of the risks - see this article about Notre Dame football coach Charlie Weiss, who almost died on the table...

I took in a session at the World Health Care Congress led by James Roosevelt, the CEO of the Tufts Health Plan.  While the session focused on Tools for Consumer Engagement, Roosevelt focused on the Tufts strategy for Obesity/Bariatric Surgery.

Here's the definition of Obesity/Bariatric Surgery from Wikipedia:

"Although diet, exercise, behavior therapy and anti-obesity drugs are first-line treatment, these forms of medical therapy for severe obesity have limited short-term success and almost nonexistent long-term success.  Therefore, obesity surgery (or bariatric surgery for the professors reading this) has been a popular treatment in the war against obesity. Weight loss surgery generally results in greater weight loss than conventional treatment, and leads to improvements in quality of life and obesity related diseases such as hypertension and diabetes."

Several readers took exception to that definition, and I have to agree.  To say diet and exercise have non-existent long term success is clueless to say and the piece sound like it was written by a lobbying firm.

Roosevelt's rundown of the Tufts approach to Bariatric surgery was interesting in several ways.  First, Tufts gates access to the Bariatric program through BMI limits - including limits on the high side.  Have a BMI that goes over the acceptable threshold, and you can't get in the program due to the relative health of your body.  With the related stress that morbid obesity can cause, it's thought that those with super high BMI's were at the highest risk of not making it through the procedures.

Additionally, Tufts requires anyone entering the program to do a 6-month behavior modification program, where they get education and have to set and achieve two behavioral goals, such as to stop drinking soda.  So much for the Wikipedia definition from the Bariatric lobby... 

It's interesting stuff, as were the stats Roosevelt quoted regarding obesity surgery.  229 covered individuals have been accepted into the obesity surgery program, and at this point, 119 have graduated.

The education regarding alternatives to obesity surgery during the program must be working, as 17% of the graduates opt to forego or defer the obesity surgery they originally sought.

Estimated lifetime savings to the plan according to Roosevelt - 4 Million, or over 17K for each covered individual who's opted into the plan.

Big Bonuses - Good For Driving Everyday Performance?

Do Big Bonuses drive performance and behavior in general?  I've always broken this question up into two camps: the sales and non-sales camp. 

First, the easy one - Sales.  We can split hairs and argue whether commission to salespeople is a bonus or part of an incentive plan that's expected, but isn't that what bonus plans are supposed to do - drive behavior?  For me, the sales angle is the purest play in bonus and incentive pay.  You make enough sales, you get paid for your performance, usually monthly, which is also key. 

The harder call for me is for non-sales positions.  A big bonus is certainly attractive and desired by all of us in the workforce.  The real issue for me is the timing of the bonus and how the plan is structured.  Is it monthly, quarterly or annual in nature?  My guess is that most companies still work on the concept of the annual bonus, and most let company performance drive the majority of the payout. 

A focus on an annual payout, based on company-wide performance, seems pretty macro to me, meaning while it's expected and desired, it may not drive day-to-day performance of non-sales types, with the exception of causing employees to be careful spending money.

More from Paul Hebert at Incentive Intelligence:

"Here's the I2 spin - if the bonus is sufficiently large, participants in the program will behave in a way that reduces their risk of failure thereby reducing their desire to work in a way that might cause that failure.  In other words they start working much more "safely."  They start to think about each individual step in the process, instead of getting into the "flow" of the process where work becomes fluid and easy.  Too big a bonus and the idea of trying something "new" goes out the window in favor of the tried and true.  A pretty big problem today where innovation is the new black.

Therefore, if the bonus is big enough, the participant actually increases their chance of missing the goal by increasing their focus on not failing.  Counterintuitive, eh?

The key point in this is that there is a balance between the objective and the reward.  We need to look at business performance problems from a behavior point of view and not a results point of view. 

Break down the chain of behaviors that lead to a result and rewarding ongoing mastery of the few important behaviors in that chain - with smaller, more frequent rewards.  This will allow participants to focus on those important few things.

I agree with Paul's analysis, and think the best thing to do to truly engage non-sales professionals with a bonus program is to make it monthly in nature.  That would keep everything laser-focused.

Of course, the reason sales commission can be monthly is because it's the one area where performance is unquestioned.  You either made the sale or you didn't.

Measurement can be very messy for the rest of your key spots in the company.  The one set of numbers that never lies for the rest of the company?  Revenue and Cash Flow.  The combination of measurement being problematic and Revenue and Cash Flow being king means the annual bonus is probably here to stay for the rest of us....

Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em - German Company Fires Non-Smokers....

Has there ever been a harder transformation in societal expectations than the one that has occurred in the last 30 years regarding smoking?  I was raised in a family of smokers, and in the 70's and 80's, as a kid, it really never occurred to me that the whole habit was dangerous.  In a weird twist, it also never occurred to me that I should smoke. 

I hear I beat the odds...

Then, society got cracking and made all who smoke a little uncomfortable.  Don't smoke here, here or here, and just so you got the message, here's a fishbowl to smoke in at the airport with your friends.

Of course, the whole thing has been good for our health care plans.  Fewer people smoking is good for what ails your PPO.  I'm channeling John Lennon when I say "imagine" if the U.S. made the same shift with Crisco.  Now that would really help the PPO trendline.

Of course, smoking is now seemingly uncool in the U.S.  Other countries however, like Germany, would like to thank you for smoking:

"The owner of a small company in Germany fired three workers because they were not smokers. It seems that their boss (evidently a smoker himself) felt that they were “disturbing the peace” in the workplace by being vocal about their smoking colleagues.

“I can’t be bothered with trouble-makers,” said the boss. “We’re on the phone all the time and it’s just easier to work while smoking. Everyone picks on smokers these days. It’s time for revenge. I’m only going to hire smokers from now on.”

Of course, being anti-smoking doesn't fall in a protected class.   Here's my ridiculous list of other things that are easier while smoking:

1.  Filling out a health history at your local doctor's office.
2.  Helping your son bat during a father/son baseball game.
3.  Engaging a fire extinguisher.
4.  Typing a Blackberry message while driving, and smoking...

Hat Tip to Andrew Scott-Holman, keeper of the best blog in Kiwi-land....

Dealing With Employees Who Are "Strapped" - Guns in Cars...

Guns in the workplace.  Interesting topic among HR pros, in that everyone agrees you can't bring one on your person into the building, but there's a lot of confusion on whether you can enforce a policy that says employees can't have a firearm in their car while on company property.

Here's what I hear when I talk to other HR pros about the topic:

1.  "We have the right and need to ban firearms on company property, including in employee vehicles in our parking lot."

2.  "You can't ban it - they have the right to have that firearm in their car as long as it is not on their person."

3.  "You could ban it, but then to enforce it you would have to do an illegal search and seizure of their car if you had suspicion they were packing."

4.  "I know I can ban, but if I clarify the policy, I'm going to upset a lot of people who are currently packing in their cars.  So I'm going to leave it alone.

My take has always been you need a policy that says firearms are never OK on company property, including locked, parked vehicles.  I always figured I would work through all the issues related to a search if I got to that point, which I hoped I never did.

Now comes Florida Governor Charlie Crist, signing a law that protects the right to keep a loaded gun in your car, as long as it's locked up:

"With the stroke of a pen, Governor Charlie Crist has made it legal for Floridians to take their guns to work and keep the weapon locked in their car.

Crist signed the bill into law Tuesday, and it will go into effect July 1st.

The law says businesses cannot stop employees or customers from keeping a gun locked inside their car.

Some places, like schools and prisons, are still off limits."

Welcome to America.  I'm a big constitutional rights guy, but clearly businesses need to have the right to require workers to leave the guns at home . . . if for no other reason than to diffuse the crazy situations that come up at any business. 

HR Capitalist Goes to D.C. - World Health Care Congress...

As a part of my ongoing role to figure out the whole health care cost thing for our company, I'll be taking a trip to the 5th Annual World Health Care Congress ,in Washington, D.C. 

While there, I'm serving as a featured blogger for the proceedings, a part of the cast that includes:

-Lola Butcher
-George Van Antwerp - PatientCentric Health Care BLog
-Jennifer McCabe Gorman - Health Management RX
-Joe Paduda - Managed Care Matters
-Vijay Goel - HealthShopper

Wish me luck!  I'll post my top couple of observations daily here, and you can check out all the think-tank observations at the live blog for the conference here...

Candidate Profile on MySpace - "Smoke #@$@ All Day"....

By now, we know there's a lot of information, some of it very damaging, about candidates on social networks like Facebook and MySpace.  If you want to see a decent legal rundown, check out this recent article from The Alabama Lawyer.  The article does a pretty good job of establishing some talking points about all the legal issues (candidate selection - and how you can use it - to reject candidates being the biggie) and what's still to be resolved legally.

Didn't click through, did you?  That's OK, it's tough to muster the energy to read the legal eagle's take.

Still, two legal friends referred me to the article (one being my wife), so I thought I would share.

If you didn't click through, then check out this story from another friend of the Capitalist, regarding research he did on a youngster who rear-ended him on a vacation trip:

"Here is an example. I got rear-ended on the way to my daughter's sports competition in Florida. I was hit in FL by a 21 year old girl who had insurance. She did not report it to her insurance company like she was supposed to, so I had to do it. She was very nice and apologetic last Friday, so I was a bit surprised that she failed to do what she was supposed to do.

As a result, I thought that I would check her out on the Internet by running a google search on her full name, <Name Redacted> all in quotes. What I got was her younger, 16 year old sister's myspace page that is titled "Smoke Weed All Day." According to the myspace page, all the family kids do is drink and smoke all day. My driver is listed as her sister's "hero" on the page..."

Quick - the 21 year old sister is a great candidate who you're getting ready to hire, and you googled her as part of your reference check.  What do you do?

OK - maybe throwing the article in a folder is not such a bad idea....

Should You Reward Managers With Low Turnover?

I know, you look at this one and automatically say, "of course"!!  After all, low turnover is good, high turnover is bad.

On second thought, maybe rewarding low turnover isn't such a great idea.

I was prompted to pop a post on this topic because of a line I saw in the whitepaper recently released by The Workforce Institute on the role of Front-line Managers in retaining hourly workers.  Here's Action Item #2 from the paper:

"Action Item #2 - Penalize or move managers who generate excessive turnover"

Now, I'm going to agree with part of that statement - you should find a solution for the manager who is clearly generating excessive turnover over time due to his or her style, issues, etc.  If you can't coach them up, or develop them, then you probably need to get them out of that role.

But penalize managers/departments who generate light turnover?  That sounds like you are ready to reward managers with low turnover.  That's the wrong way to go, and here's why:

1.  All Turnover is not created equal.  Some is good, some is bad.

2.  Low Turnover doesn't mean your employees are engaged, care about your mission, or are contributing to the cause...

3.  Penalizing or rewarding turnover stats is a sure way to make managers manage the stats rather than their teams.

4.  When managers try to appease employees who shouldn't be driving the agenda, guess what happens?  Your best employees see it, get appalled, and start looking for other gigs,  which means the turnover you do have may be the worst possible kind - your stars leaving you....

Those are my reasons not to penalize or reward based on turnover stats.  I'm all for managing someone who has a problem, but systematically rewarding or penalizing based on voluntary turnover? 

That's an agenda that has a lot of holes....

I'm Stealing Your Talent With Cold, Hard Cash....

I love stats on what it's going to take to steal your talent from a comp perspective.  Latest data is from Salary.com via the Working section of the Washington Post:

"If you're like many employees, you'd expect at least 16 percent more money to jump ship. 

More than one-third of workers would move for a 16 to 30 percent raise, according to a Salary.com survey. Another third would walk for 8 to 15 percent more in the pay envelope. And one in six said it would take a raise of 31 to 50 percent.

Oddly, most employers think it would take less -- 15 percent or less -- to lure away talent.

And employers offer, on average, only 7 percent to persuade a valued employee to stay. Half of employers said they sometimes make counteroffers, but more than a third said they never do."

I think those numbers ring pretty true.  Here's how I get my head around it:

1.  The chronically unhappy or those in danger of losing their job will leave for a lateral pay move or a very small bump.  This number is broken out in the above numbers, but based on the other figures, this is about 20% of the average workforce.

2.  Those who are at least somewhat content by open to hearing the message from recruiters?  The bidding starts with the equivalent of a promotional pay bump, which is the 8 to 15% group.  That's a third of those surveyed...

3.  Those who are happy and content?  They're still willing to listen, but like the Godfather, you'll have to make them an offer they can't refuse - a 16 to 30% bump in pay    (33%) or maybe more than a 30% increase (16% of those surveyed).  So that equals 50% of the workforce.

So the bottom line for those of you following at home...  About 50% of workers are available for the equivalent of a promotional increase.  The rest will be more expensive.

Of course, as with all data coming from Salary.com, it's self-reported data.  Raise your hand if you've ever had an employee print out data from a job that didn't match the one they were in and present it to you as scientific comp data showing a pay issue on their behalf....

CEO's on the Cursing, Yelling "Straight Talk" Express - Leaders or Liabilities?

A lot's been written about the rantings of Sam Zell, the real estate billionaire who recently became a media magnate when he bought the Tribune Co.   If you're late to the game about who this guy is or what he's done, here's all you need to know:

1.  Zell became a media tycoon when he bought the Tribune Company, which means he bought a bunch of newspapers and assorted media companies.

2.  Zell went on a straight talk express, where he did a tour of the newspaper newsrooms and tried to shake things up.

3.  Zell's approach includes, a) cursing, b) yelling, c) telling people to stop spending time on being politically correct, and d) challenging a lot of conventional wisdom in the newspapers he owns.

Which begs a question.  Are CEO's and owners who engage in a profane, animated discourse with employees leaders or liabilities?  Is it possible they can be both, with the scales tipping one way or the other based on the overall circumstances before them and facing the companies they manage?

I'm conflicted on when the approach is warranted, although there are certainly industries and workforces that are more open to the message than others.   The rationalization is usually the need for a "sense of urgency".  Is that a good reason?

Take a look at this latest clip (running time - 5 minutes, warning PG-13), where Zell explains his approach to some folks at the Chicago Tribune, and decide for yourself.  If you want more Zell, go to YouTube.  It's not hard to find...

(Hat tip on video to Erik Berggren at Success Factors)

Employee Engagement 101 - Can Frontline Managers Impact Voluntary Turnover?

The answer is obviously yes, but as with many obvious answers.... the question is how?

Especially if you have a wide range of talents and capabilities among your most entry-level supervisors. Which most of us do.  Some managers naturally have the gift that comes with instincts and experience, while others struggle.

So how do you help maximize retention and reduce voluntary turnover with your group of front-line supervisors?

The Workforce Institute recently released a whitepaper with multiple takes on the role of Front-line Managers in retaining hourly workers, including:

• Refusing to accept that there is nothing you can do to improve voluntary turnover;
• Measuring the performance of front-line managers with respect to their management of turnover;
• Ensuring that corporate issued policies and procedures don’t undermine the field manager’s ability to retain staff; and
• Understanding that hourly workers vary in their motivations and needs to work for your organization - the retiree will be engaged by different management practices than the high school student.

It's a good read, so you should take a look.  I'm not sure that there are any "ah-ha" moments, but it's a solid place to start in terms of having the conversation with the groups you support as a HR pro.

Hate to throw out the buzzword here, but reducing voluntary turnover while keeping pay and benefits the same probably comes back to whether you create high levels of engagement within your workforce.

For engagement, I read Zinger and Wright.   One of the things I learned from Tim Wright on engagement was that in the average workforce,  29 percent of employees are engaged in their work, 54 percent are not engaged, and 17 percent are actively disengaged. 

That suggests that one of the best ways for organizations to reduce voluntary turnover is to figure out a way to engage the 54 percent who aren't currently engaged.  Here's the Gallup G12, which lists traits of engaged employees:

• Consistent levels of high performance.
• Natural innovation and drive for efficiency.
• Intentional building of supportive relationships.
• Clear about the desired outcomes of their role.
• Emotionally committed to what they do.
• Challenge purpose to achieve goals.
• High energy and enthusiasm.
• Never run out of things to do, create positive things to act on.
• Broaden what they do and build on it.
• Commitment to company, work group, and role.

Which ones can you impact as a company to help reduce voluntary turnover?  I bolded the ones I thought might be possibilities, through better performance management, communication, etc.

The ones that aren't bolded?  You probably need to figure these out at the point of hire, because they seem difficult to impact once the person is in your workforce....

Superbad Graph - "Total Odds of Dying, Any Cause: 1 in 1"...

Sometimes you run across a graphic that says it all - and this one (pictured below) from the WSJ journal does just that. 

We're all going to that "big records retention facility" in the sky at some point.

Want to make sure you have the longest period possible before your "records" go to deep storage?  Then take Bob Coffield's advice on the Health Care Law Blog and do the following:

"the graphic highlights advice from my dad, a retired physician in West Virginia, who always warns us of such risks. He says, "eat better, eat less, take small bites, drive defensively with two hands on the wheel, don't climb ladders and be careful with guns." Looking at the graph if we listened to this advice we would take care of most of the larger circles"

Good advice.  But what about death from hot weather? (odds of croaking from that - 1 in 13,000) 

I gotta get out of the South.  I don't see cold weather on the chart....

   

New Healthcare Issue - The Stressed Blogger...

We bloggers are a passionate bunch.  Most of us do it for professional development, to stay on top of our trade, etc.   A good cause and, once you get started, the writing cycle times go down and it's managable.

A note to my blogging friends on the blogroll to the right and at Fistful of Talent.  Don't go pro.

Why not?  Go pro, and the love for the game subsides.  You start eating too many twinkies, drinking too many cokes, maybe even taking No-Doz to stay alert during prime blogging hours. 

Don't believe me?  Check out the following story from the NYT:

"They work long hours, often to exhaustion. Many are paid by the piece — not garments, but blog posts. This is the digital-era sweatshop. You may know it by a different name: home.

A growing work force of home-office laborers and entrepreneurs, armed with computers and smartphones and wired to the hilt, are toiling under great physical and emotional stress created by the around-the-clock Internet economy that demands a constant stream of news and comment.

Of course, the bloggers can work elsewhere, and they profess a love of the nonstop action and perhaps the chance to create a global media outlet without a major up-front investment. At the same time, some are starting to wonder if something has gone very wrong. In the last few months, two among their ranks have died suddenly.

Other bloggers complain of weight loss or gain, sleep disorders, exhaustion and other maladies born of the nonstop strain of producing for a news and information cycle that is as always-on as the Internet."

Stay in school kids!  Don't go pro...

When You're Ugly But Digital - The VisualCV

I've been on record for not being a fan of video resumes or any depiction of your physical prowess when it comes to your initial resume going to a company.  The reason?  Simple...  All the momentum you can create with a kickin' resume or initial phone screen can come to a screeching halt when someone sees what you look like.

If you aren't attractive, that hurts your chances.  You can fall victim to what I call the "visioned" approach to hiring.  The hiring manager can't really say what they expected (along the lines of, "I was looking for someone who looked more like John McCain"), but they can say that you just don't look to be a fit for the position in question.  Vague, but you're out. 

If you can wait to spring your looks on them until after you've done the phone interview with them, you're usually in better shape.  Once they've fallen in love with your qualifications, project work and rapport-building skills, it's easier for them to get past your glass jaw. Or big feet.

One approach that might change my mind is VisualCV.  It's a resume that becomes a live Internet document with built-in company and university research from your background.  More importantly, it allows you to deliver the equivalent of a portfolio of your work to the employment/networking targets of your choice by enriching your resume, making it a proxy for that first interview. You can add video, audio, charts, graphs, work samples, presentations, scanned documents and much more.

And yes, it has a picture of you as a part of the platform.  It's going to look weird without it, so you probably need to include it.

I'm on record as saying the leave-behind portfolio of your work is a great idea, and that idea is something only about 1 in 100 candidates actually do.  With VisualCV, you've got the chance to do that before the game even begins, which is very cool.

And that game changer, my friend, can even overcome looks like mine.....

(PS - Check out Guy K's VisualCV here.....)

The Fanny Slap - Not Everything in Sports is Transferable to the Workplace...

You know you wanted to read this when you saw the title - that's OK - it's my job to make the title appealing enough to get you to click through...

So here's the connection to HR - I've been accused in the comments of my recent post about salaries in baseball for being too sports-focused (my average is a post tying sports and HR once every two weeks).  The commenter in question threw up the following quote:

"The sports references are interesting to sports fans, but unfortunately more than 60% of HR professionals are women, many of whom don't know what you are talking about when you, for example, reference Dick Vitale, cross-over dribbling and moneyball.

In my diversity training classes, we were advised to not use sports references to avoid alienating women. And women were told to limit the conversation about Dooney & Boorke handbags to avoid alienating men."  (from "Ed")

My response was pretty predictable.  I politely told "Ed" that a blog is a blend of professional development and personal style. I'm not trying to be everything to everyone and water the product down - I'm just being me.  I also told "Ed" that I didn't think he was giving my female readers enough credit..

Here's where it got interesting.  I gave a hat tip to the person who referred me to the article in that post - and that person happened to be female.  As you might expect, she came in and dismantled "Ed", in a nice, workplace-appropriate fashion.   I guess "Ed" doesn't speak for women everywhere.

So "Ed", if you're out there, sorry you got knocked down on your way to the hoop in the comments section.  While I'm sure I can't water down the site enough for you to be comfortable using it in your diversity sessions, I'm still enough of a teammate to give you some encouragement after getting knocked down.

Just imagine that I'm Roberts and you're Green in the picture below .  Keep sliding with the cleats up, big guy.

P.S. - for anyone who hasn't been in "Ed's" diversity sessions, this is a sports-related reference that doesn't transfer well in the workplace.  Don't be like Roberts in the hallways today, or as people leave your training session.

Recognition and teamwork - Good... Recognition involving non-handshake touching - Bad...

I'm out... Have a great weekend....

Taking a Job In Another City - Cool, Unless You Have to Sell a Home...

Had dinner last Friday with a good friend from a company I worked for in the past.  He's moving on to his next challenge and GET THIS - the company is offering the holy grail of relo - the home purchase program, if he doesn't sell it after 90 days.

That's increasingly unheard of these days, so my friend is fortunate.  The list of companies that will do the home purchase thing has been steadily shrinking over the past decade, and if recent numbers are any indication, the current economics of selling a home in America will surely push the final ones out.  From last week's New York Times:

"The rapid decline in housing prices is distorting the normal workings of the American labor market. Mobility opens up job opportunities, allowing workers to go where they are most needed. When housing is not an obstacle, more than five million men and women, nearly 4 percent of the nation’s work force, move annually from one place to another — to a new job after a layoff, or to higher-paying work, or to the next rung in a career, often the goal of a corporate transfer. Or people seek, as in Dr. Morgan’s case, an escape from harsh northern winters.

Now that mobility is increasingly restricted. Unable to sell their homes easily and move on, tens of thousands of people like Mr. Kirkland and Dr. Morgan are making the labor force less flexible just as a weakening economy puts pressure on workers to move to wherever companies are still hiring."

A telling chart to the right, perhaps a chilling one when you compare it to the last slowdown in the early 2000's after the dot.com crash. 

What about the consequences for HR and recruiting jockeys?  If relo becomes even more problematic than it has been in the past, what's that mean?  Settling for a candidate who's not a perfect fit?  Expanded time to fill stats?

Any way you shake it, the numbers and the consequences are ugly. 

It's a poster child for remote work with periodic travel, whenever and wherever possible.

Skycaps - Now earning 60K at an Airport Near You....

A couple of weeks ago, Starbucks was in the news, ordered by a California judge to cough up a bunch of cash related to practices surrounding tips.  The hits keep on coming for companies who compensate a portion of their workforce related to tips.

Today's jury verdict related to tips?  American Airlines was ordered to pay 9 skycaps in Boston 325K for lost tips when the airline imposed a $2 per bag surcharge for curbside check-in.  From the Boston Globe:

"A federal jury yesterday ordered American Airlines to pay nine skycaps at Logan International Airport a total of more than $325,000 for tips they lost when the airline began charging passengers $2 a bag for curbside check-in service in late 2005.

In what is believed to be the first legal challenge of baggage fees imposed by several airlines in recent years, the jury in US District Court in Boston found that American Airlines violated the state's tips law by keeping the $2 fees. The jury also found that the airline had made it harder for skycaps to earn a living.

"We're very pleased that the jury saw what American Airlines is doing here, which is digging into the pockets of some of its lowest-paid workers to boost its own profits," said Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represented the skycaps, several of whom hugged one another and brushed away tears after the verdict.

Since the fee went into effect in September 2005, skycaps testified, daily tips have plunged because many customers mistakenly thought the workers keep the $2 fee charged for handling bags at the curb and were reluctant to tip on top of it. One of the skycaps testified that his daily tips fell from about $200 to about $70 or $80."

Interesting verdict.  Solid comp professionals keep an eye out for the impact of business decisions on total comp, but this is the first decision I can recall that questions a company's ability to establish prices for services.

Also - by my math a skycap earning $200 a day in tips with a $5.15 hourly rate is earning about 60K a year.  WOW - I didn't expect that.   Shout out to all my peeps with multiple degrees who aren't earning that... Once you cut it to $80 a day, I come up with total comp in the 34-35K range, which still seems OK... But $60K?

My standard for the skycap tip was always a buck a bag, minimum of $5.  That's how I roll.  Of course, I never saw the surcharge....

Who's next?  Doormen?  The Valet? 

Ann Bares of Compensation Force Joins the Workforce Lineup...

Ann Bares has a post up announcing the fact that her blog, Compensation Force, is joining the lineup at www.workforce.com.

Congrads to Ann, who is the best interactive brand available in the critical world of compensation.  It's good to see her join the team at Workforce, bringing the stability and measured approach long lacking in renegades like this blog, also featured at Workforce.

If you haven't checked out Compensation Force, subscribe via email or add to your reader today.  It's all you need to stay on top of trends in compensation, which is critical to recruiters, HR pros and corporate types - and anyone else who has to figure out how to value positions and people in any type of organization.

Ann Bares has a post up announcing the fact that her blog, Compensation Force, is joining the lineup at www.workforce.com.

Congrads to Ann, who is the best interactive brand available in the critical world of compensation.  It's good to see her join the team at Workforce, bringing the stability and measured approach long lacking in renegades like this blog, also featured at Workforce.

If you haven't checked out Compensation Force, subscribe via email or add to your reader today.  It's all you need to stay on top of trends in compensation, which is critical to recruiters, HR pros and corporate types - and anyone else who has to figure out how to value positions and people in any type of organization.

A World Without HR - Who Cares?

Admit it - you've had one of those days before where you wondered if you were making any impact at all.  Easy to get caught up in transactions, and like any else who's "living the vida-corporate", it's easy to wonder if anyone would miss you if you went away.  Or if your function went away...

What about it, Sparky?  Would anyone miss you?  If the HR function at your company went away, what would they miss about not having you around?  That's what the Happy Employee recently asked.  Take a look and ponder..

From the Happy Employee:

"Without any HR professionals around the economy wouldn't fall apart, but in the first weeks I assume there would be problems with salary payments and nobody would know where to find the templates to issue employment contracts to new hires. Of course, it wouldn't take long for finance to step in with payroll and legal would take care of contracts.

And here's the challenge
The worldwide fraternity of senior executives meets 6 months after the HR rapture to discuss why they miss HR. What would they say?"

The analysis provided is straight up money.  You think Finance couldn't figure out a way to get the transactions done?  If anything payroll related was your answer, don't pass go.  Walk straight to the outsourcing center.

My take?  I can't get in the minds of the people I work for, but I think they would point to three areas - maybe not in the first day, or the first week.  But when week #2 rolled around, I think they would say they miss the competent HR team in the following areas:

-Recruiting - "Moving through hundreds of candidates, or doing a passive search when we don't is a lot harder than I thought.  What am I supposed to say when I do call someone for the first time?  Let's just hire some headhunters - the unbudgeted 6 figures is easier than doing it ourselves..."

-Employee Relations - "I wish we still had the HR team to block and tackle this EEOC charge.  Man, is that messy.  Did we have these when they were here?  Seems like the responses and the adjustments we had to make just kind of happened.

-Coaching - "I wish we still had the HR team so we could bounce things off them in a confidential manner.  I don't have anyone I can talk to about my team and how to handle different situations.  Who am I supposed to talk to?  Chuck?  He's a walking harassment claim..."

Those are my first takes to what would be said.  What are yours?

Dropping Some Science - the Merit Matrix...

Ever had someone ask you for a reasoned explanation of pay for performance and the standard merit matrix?  I think I do a pretty good job of explaning it, but the esteemed Ann Bares of Compensation Force rocks out this topic over at her site.  Check it out and throw the link into a folder.  I guarentee you'll use it in the future.

Ann's nickname - "The Foundation" - she's solid....

I can't resist the tease with a quick chart from Ann's post.  See below and click through....

Can You Improve Service by Firing HR People? Home Depot Slashes Field HR Staff...

The economy's bad, you can't find anybody to mix your paint at Home Depot, and the housing market stinks.  What should you do if you're in charge at Home Depot?

Apparently get rid of a bunch of HR folks.  From the Wall Street Journal:

"Home Depot Inc. is restructuring its human-resources department in an effort to cut costs and put more workers on the sales floor.

After the changes, there no longer will be a human-resources manager in each of the company's 1,970 U.S. stores. Human-resources-supervisor positions at U.S. stores also will be eliminated.

The Atlanta-based company said it notified this week about 2,200 employees who will be affected by the changes, which will result in about 1,000 job cuts. The switchover will be completed by May 1.

"We have an 'Aprons on the Floor' program, and this is part of it," said company spokesman Ron DeFeo, referring to the people on the sales floor, who wear bright-orange work aprons. "The goal of the program essentially is to add three full-time associates to the sales floor in each store."

Home Depot will create 230 district teams that will each have a district human-resources manager and three people reporting to that person. "We go from a structure with 2,200 employees to 1,000," Mr. DeFeo said."

OK - I don't mean to go off on a rant here, but I offer up the following observations to the slashing of field HR people at Home Depot:

1.  When it comes to service in the stores, the start of the slide is widely held to be the arrival of past CEO Robert Nardelli from GE, not the HR folks who tried to hold it all together when the productivity metrics starting raining from the skies (not that there's anything wrong with that).

2.  The former head of HR, Dennis Donovan, got a golden parachute worth 19 million in 2006 to go away.  Nice.  Guess what?  He wasn't at the store level.

3.  I've been asked to refer people for the store positions before, and was told the HRM slot pays around 50-60K a year.  With that in mind, the reductions are worth about 1.5 FTE in staffing.  Hardly enough to save the day, from a customer service standpoint, in your standard big box, Home Depot.

So, if centralization is the new thing, call it that.  Don't tell me that cutting the HR presence is key to putting aprons on the floor. 

If only Donovan was around to help with the outplacement of those affected... Surely Tony Stewart will weigh in with his thoughts...

Lower Turnover Doesn't Equal Employee Engagement...

First up, all you wise guys and gals, don't ask me to define engagement in the comments.  I'm pleading the fifth, then citing the G12 and Zinger and Wright to get you off my freaking back...  It's like art, OK?  I know it when I see it...

Here's something I can talk about - employee turnover.  I've had my share, as has anyone who has lived in the mosh pit called HR.  In a rare upside in a slowing economy, employee turnover usually goes down, which makes sense.  Fewer jobs equals less total opportunity to change gigs, which equates to many of your employees hunkering down and trying to get through the slowdown.

Of course, just because your peeps aren't leaving you doesn't mean they are engaged.  To the contrary, they may be chronically tuned out to what's going on around them, feeling no link to theompany mission, their supervisor, etc.   In short, they aren't that into you, but they're not going to leave.  Add weak performance management to the mix, and you've got a recipe for a stale workplace, stale energy, and most importantly, stale performance.  Blah...

So don't think because people aren't leaving you in droves that they are engaged.  Like Peter Gibbons once said, "it's not that I'm lazy Bob, it's that I just don't care"...

Starting Quickly - The Holy Grail of Performance.....

Anyone out there have a secret for getting a team to start quickly?  In the workplace?  On a baseball field?  Anyone?  Bueller?...

I've got two sons.  I coach their baseball teams.  My oldest is 7 now, and I've learned that's the time that youth baseball leagues start getting competitive (I know, 7!...).  My 7 year old's team had a good start to their season, winning their first two games.  Then we came out late last week, and..... STARTED SLOW....

It was 8-1 before they knew the game had started....

You've seen it before with important projects, with individual employees in your workplace, and of course, in every team sport.  The goal is to win (or to perform at a high level), and everybody gets that.  You've laid out the goals, practiced the skills you need, and talked about the importance of starting quickly.

Then the lights go on, and your team/employees have zero momentum.  They are behind from the start, which history tells us dramatically reduces the chances of winning, however defined. 

The first inning of the game, the first 3 months of your job, doesn't matter.  Start slow, and you are in trouble...

Let me