Blog Articles And Comments

P3 Compliance and Constructing Policies That Hold Up in Court

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:46:00 GMT

The Department of Labor tells us they are overwhelmed, understaffed and shifting additional burden to employers for employment law compliance. This can be a great deal for the average employer to undertake. HRS has taken some time to prepare a quick “how to” blueprint for employers.

P3, also called “Plan/Prevent/Protect” or “P Cubed,” will require every entity covered by the FLSA, OSHA, OFCCP, and MSHA to make written plans ("Plan"), create processes ("Prevent"), and test the processes with designated compliance employees ("Protect").

The following guidelines create a simplified and sustainable P3 protocol:

1. Stay On Top of Changing Laws.

Review not only government postings, but also secure a 3rd party compliance expert as needed and for annual overview. Our “overwhelmed” government states outright there is no government responsibility to educate employers. Enforcement is their responsibility, however, and fundraising is high. Case precedent law is just as impactful here as statutory law. While it is necessary to be a member of the Bar to litigate or serve as “officer of the court,” it is not necessary to be a member of the Bar to be a legal compliance expert. Full-time research commitment is essential for such expertise.

2. Avoid Copycat or Adaptation of Other Employers’ Handbooks.

Beyond the immediate intellectual property law threats, other employers are not recognized as experts. “Because Company X Did It” is not a reasonable defense. There are some terribly non-compliant practices circulating out there like “old wives’ tales.” Even policies that actually work for one company may not work for yours.

3. Build Legal Arguments from Day One.

Maintain records to prove either experts consulted on or approved your policies… or if self-constructed… save expert resources and statutory evidence as future “reasonable care” affirmative defense. Use scenario planning to create and document activities which defend the company against complaint. “Willful violations” pose the greatest threat. Negligence and lack of attention can be considered “willful” acts.

4. Protect Chain of Information.

Knowing what to keep and for how long as well as what not to keep are essential. Knowing who can have access and how to use this information without breaching privacy laws or risking discriminatory complaint are equally essential.

5. Follow Policy Outcomes.

With the overuse of “cookie cutter” policies, many companies are unaware that better policy options exist. Regardless of genesis for your policy, track outcomes to ensure it is working for you and not creating adverse impact or unlawful side effects. Designate specific individuals with reasonable ongoing access, and empower them with job description authority to monitor policy success.

HRS offers extraordinary legal compliance expertise, P3 design services and further information on any topic herein. Consider an HR certification audit as proactive P3 compliance. ROI is exponential.

Employer Choices Concerning Concealed Carry Act… To Ban or Not to Ban

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:31:00 GMT

Private businesses and employers in 12 states to most recently include Wisconsin are faced with the decision to allow concealed weapons carry on company premises. The argument against banning weapons lies largely in the statistics and in the liability. The argument for banning weapons lies largely in perception of safety and in the ability to attract, retain and engage a productive workforce comprised of people unaccustomed to concealed weapons carry and its perceived threats.

Legal counsel and insurance underwriters are largely recommending employer silence on this issue. Silence allows lawful carry without interference. The US Library of Congress reports crime reduction in every state enacting Concealed Carry. Violent crimes are reduced 5-22%. The most popularly referenced FBI report utilizes a 7% reduction statistic.

As a global firm, we have had the opportunity to work with many states across the nation prior to Wisconsin’s recent Concealed Carry enactment. With a second hub in AZ and service to the Scottsdale Chamber’s Public Policy Advisory Council, we are no strangers to public weapons carry and private business rights to “Opt Out.”

Wisconsin employers are inundating us with questions, and we are pleased to provide an extraordinary knowledge base here. At the time of this report, the state of Wisconsin is not protecting employers from liability if choosing “weapon free zones.” Specifically, if an individual is harmed because he or she was not allowed to carry weapon per lawful right, the company can be held liable. Additionally, it is argued that the posting of “no weapons” signs specifically attracts crime similar to a resident posting a sign “not monitored by security system.”

The argument for banning weapons lies largely in the perception of safety and records of specific incidents. While statistically it is argued that crime is reduced by arming law abiding citizens, the fact remains that with concealed carry acts, individuals who shouldn’t be licensed still manage to get licensed. It is also evident that individuals use poor judgment in what constitutes “self defense,” improperly trained individuals gain access to weapons and accidents happen. What stings in minds are images of Columbine, Virginia Tech, “going postal” and a wealth of related tragedies. For many these images outweigh statistical probabilities and facts. Most are not aware of this report… among 25,000 2009 murders, less than 1% were committed by concealed carry permit holders.

Businesses which allow concealed carry on their property are immune from liability arising from that decision. Employers who choose to allow concealed carry without interference will adapt by removing policies and handbook language which prohibit the carry of weapons on premises. However, we recommend substituting this language with the requirement that weapons must be lawful and licensed.

Employers who choose to “opt out” will create a “weapon free zone.” Employers may choose to prohibit concealed carry during work activities, and if they do so, then language must be modified and signs must be posted. The sign must:

• Be at least 5 inches by 7 inches.
• State that concealed or open firearms are prohibited in the building or on the premises.
• Specify the area to which the prohibition applies.
• Be placed in a prominent place near all of the entrances to the part of the building to which the restriction applies or near all probable access points to the grounds or land to which the restriction applies, as applicable, where any individual entering the building, grounds, or land can be reasonably expected to see the sign.
• Businesses should consider the universal “no” symbol of a circle around a picture of a firearm with a slash across the middle of the circle, indicating that firearms are prohibited.

An employer may not prohibit an employee, as a condition of employment, from carrying a concealed weapon in the employee’s own motor vehicle, even if the employee uses his or her vehicle in the course of employment or if the motor vehicle is on company grounds. Some employers are creating a policy that vehicles containing weapons on company premises must remain locked at all times.

HRS is active in helping craft and/or review employee handbook policies on this matter. For those who wish to “opt out,” the sample “Weapons Ban” policy to follow is one of the alternatives available. Customization may be expected.

Weapons Ban Policy Sample

The company complies fully with all applicable federal, state and local laws to include the Concealed Carry Act. Weapons and firearms of any type are strictly prohibited within company premises at all times. Company premise includes property owned, leased or controlled by the company. Company premises also include anywhere that company business is conducted, such as customer locations, vendor/associate locations, trade shows, restaurants or any venue visited for the purpose of business. Weapons include, but are not limited to, guns, knives or swords with blades over four inches in length, explosives, and any chemical whose purpose is to cause harm to another person.

Regardless of whether an employee possesses a concealed weapons permit or is allowed by law to possess a weapon, weapons are prohibited on any company property or in any location in which the employee represents the company for business purposes, including those listed above.

Possession of a weapon can only be specifically authorized by a company officer to allow security personnel or a trained employee to have a weapon on company property when this possession is determined necessary to secure the safety and security of company employees. Only a company officer may authorize the carrying of or use of a weapon within company premises. Any violation of this policy or federal, state or local laws which relate to weapons shall also result in immediate discipline up to and including termination.

Can Businesses Learn From Tim Tebow?

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:57:00 GMT

Tim Tebow is becoming a national phenomenon. No matter which side of the argument you find yourself on, chances are you’ve either found yourself arguing whether he would be the greatest thing or the worst thing to happen to professional sports in some time. There are plenty of people who enjoy watching him succeed, and plenty of people who enjoy witnessing him complete only 2 passes during an entire game. However, there is one thing that cannot be argued: Tim Tebow wins. No matter how pretty (or ugly) his game is, he always finds a way to succeed.

Take last night’s game against the Jets for an example. Tim Tebow led an anemic offense through what could be considered some of the worst football you will ever watch, and it lasted for 55 minutes. However, when it became crunch time, and when it mattered the most, Tebow transformed and his Denver Broncos came away with a win. He may not have the decision making of Aaron Rodgers, or the arm strength of Ben Roethlisberger, or the pinpoint accuracy of Drew Brees, but Tim Tebow shares one thing with all of these other quarterbacks; he is winning.

Tim Tebow is 4-1 this year as an NFL starter. An ESPN article reported his teammates as saying, “We’ll take the win” and “Would you rather us look good and lose?” This brings up an excellent point. As a business, would you rather have your team look ugly and win, or look good and lose?

“Winning in business” is something that cannot be as explicitly defined as “winning in the NFL”, however we can examine this in a different angle of achieving goals. The ultimate goal of an NFL team is to win, and more specifically to win the Super Bowl. Now think about your business. What is your ultimate goal? What is it that your company sets out to achieve day in and day out? What is it in your business that allows you to feel like a success story when you leave for the day?

Is Tebow actually “winning ugly?” Would it really matter to you if you were to achieve your goals through unconventional means, or would you be more proud of it?

So what do these critics mean when they say “winning ugly?” “Winning ugly” in business can imply a lack of ethics. Let’s abandon that argument and define “ugly” as “unconventional” and “breaking normal rules.” Let’s define what others consider “ugly” as “thinking outside of the box.” Let’s define “ugly” as really not even being ugly at all. Entrepreneurial thinking is far from an ugly matter, but it is unconventional by design. Tebow can be defined as unconventionality at its peak. And while no one is likely to follow Tebow’s methods, the truth is that he is winning, and he is winning with what he has and what he knows how to do. We can learn from this directly as business people; you can win with what you have, no matter what you have, if you know it well enough and apply Appreciative Inquiry concepts.

Not all of us can have the top level of resources, so we need to win with what we have. This may directly lead to “winning ugly”. If you are a supervisor, learn about your employees, individual and team strengths, and how to maximize that potential. If you are a CFO, learn what your company has in financial assets and learn to make the most of it. If you are a Product Manager, know what makes your product unique and find the best way to allow that product to “win”. We can’t all be the Aaron Rodgers or the Tom Brady of the world, but we can beat them if we learn to succeed with what we’ve got.

Writing Job Descriptions for Legal Compliance and Organizational Development Results

Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:22:00 GMT

Templates exist for best practices job descriptions. Some templates hit the mark and others fall short. Our article outlines the minimum goals to be attained by job description creation as well as some helpful guidelines to writing a custom description. Rarely can an organization pull a job description "off the shelf" from another organization and apply it without essential modification. Consider a job description model only a starting point and invest the effort into customizing the instrument to your organization and your unique job. The exercise of doing so offers value in itself.

For starters, let us explore the goals. A strong job description will...

Serve as an effective tool for employee selection and orientation to specific position duties and evaluation criteria.
Establish a training checklist for new hires or incumbent job changes.
Provide a point-by-point quality of work itemization for performance appraisals and ongoing performance management.
Document position goals and performance standards.
Protect the firm from legal risks through written documentation of position requirements. Establish ADA, FLSA and EEOC compliance.
Benchmark the position for accurate compensation scale review.
Facilitate a merit-based compensation system by clearly identifying distinguishing characteristics between positions and position levels.
Communicate recruitment parameters to safeguard the hiring process.
Effectively distribute workload among team members to ensure organizational “right sizing.”
Manage legal risks in employment law by comprehensively documenting the position requirements and performance requirements.
Allow team members to measure their own performances between formal performance appraisals.
Establish individual accountability.
Internally market the position to each relevant team member through controlled terminology and quick communication of the “keys to success” in the position.
Enhance training and thereby minimize relevant turnover.
Validate the need for pre-employment testing/screening toward legal risk management.
Protect team members not selected for promotion from failure to understand selection decisions. Protect the company from challenged decisions.
Assist supervisors with the performance appraisal system by providing written reminders of the goals and expectations actually communicated to the team members.

Job Analysis should involve both incumbent employees and their supervisors. Not only should the tasks and position goals be documented, but in crafting and weighting such considerations, the keys to success and risks of failure should also be considered. The consideration and the documentation of facts are two different things. The final product will be edited and filtered for content and purpose. As an example, we document what an employee is responsible to do to avert problems, but we do not necessarily document the potential problems themselves.

Typical categories of information include Job Title, Immediate Supervisor, FLSA Status, Mission/Summary, Essential Tasks & Responsibilities, Supervisory Responsibility, Job Requirements, Working Conditions, Physical Demands, Skills & Learning Goals, and Disclaimer of Management Ability to Modify. Some descriptions may include Department, Pay Grade, Work Hours, Location/Site Travel and more.

When crafting language, measurable benchmarks must be present to ensure the standards are meaningful and reliable. Legally compliant language is essential to ensure compliance and perception of compliance at every stage of employment. Desirable behaviors should be documented in detailed description. While some label behaviors as"soft skills," successful leadership recognizes that behaviors drive results often more than skills do. Behaviors need to be measured both on the job and at pre-employment assessment. The HRS Assessment Center supports just that! Owning a characteristic is not as important at appropriately deploying that characteristic when it counts. In order to pay a bill, one needs not only to have the money but also to write the check.

Job analysis questionnaires, sample job descriptions, outsource assistance and more information are available from HRS. We wish you great success with your project!

Disability Leave: How Much is Too Much?

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:29:00 GMT

Fueled by ADA, FMLA and countless ever-changing statutory concerns, employer confusion has sparked over-generosity. Employers are giving against their will and caving in beyond necessity. While competitive offerings remain critical to attracting, engaging and retaining the right talent, benefits that reach the greatest number of top performers are most valuable. Disability benefits may or may not be integral to that mix, specific to the overall company offerings and keys to success. Disability leave, disability law and disability insurance are each distinctively different topics. Accordingly, we have taken time to debunk the myths and blueprint the actual requirements.

ADA Leave: Recent legal precedents validate that employers need not provide “indefinite leave” nor any disability leave that produces “undue hardship.” According to circumstance, four weeks beyond FMLA entitlements has been a typical benchmark for ADA leave.

Employee Paid Disability Premiums: Where the company does not pay premiums or administer benefits, such disability insurance plans may be exempt from company benefit rules. While it is unlawful to penalize employees for the allowable use of company benefits, benefits not provided by the company may be carved out. Written distinction is mandated through a well-crafted policy.

Advance Notice: Wage, hour and employment laws are quite clear that while an employer may be granted certain latitude in practice, advance notice to employees is critical to legal compliance. Burden rests upon the employer to provide clear advanced notification of policies. Again, a well-crafted proactive policy satisfies this requirement.

Benefits During Leave: The company needs not pay benefits during leave not legally mandated. In fact, the same is true during certain legally mandated leave. Employers may craft policies that stipulate leave to be employment separation. Such leave can then have its own consistently applied definition, eligibility for rehire and seniority recaptured, if so desired, upon rehire. Employees are eligible for COBRA as of the employment separation date, which becomes the qualifying event.

As with most employee handbook policies, one size does not fit all here and legal compliance can be complex. HRS is available to weigh situations on their own merit and customize policies to unique company practices.

2011’s Most Important Organizational Communication Lessons

Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:33:00 GMT

2011 finds employers in eclectic places, damaged by recent economic impact, confused by new legal mandates, often acclimating to corporate restructure, balancing technology’s influence and typically cautiously optimistic in a mode of strategic change… some finding great new opportunity as the dust settles. Organizational communication, both internal and external, is substantially impacted by these adjustments. The keys to success are keen skill sets in organizational communications, companywide, often at employer burden of training. The following are the 5 most commonly missed opportunities to succeed and a brief resolution theory.

1. Compliant Communications:

Anti-Harassment, HIPAA, social media and intellectual property are just a few critical learning topics of employer responsibility. While it is true employers are not always responsible to actually control human behavior, reasonable care in training, policy establishment and enforcement are essential to company success, affirmative defense and risk management.

2. Cost-Benefit Analysis:

Employers are found over-communicating and under-communicating change to the point that the cost of communication is disproportionate, upward or downward, to the actual benefit of the change. Consider the costs of employee communication including preparation, costs of miscommunication and time away from work when developing the communication rollout plan. Calculate the anticipated benefits, and weigh accordingly for your blueprint.

3. Lopsided Sales Cycles:

In the effort to find the best price point or value, employers are demanding staunch sales cycles from prospective providers. More than ever we see 3+ proposals sought for a 3 or small 4 figure acquisition…too much. If you want to find the best value, treat your “vendors” as “partners,” keeping in mind their costs become your costs. Find ways to help your providers keep their costs down. Don’t sloppily force information repeats, listen carefully, streamline correspondence and be creative. Prices are prices. Bullying is not negotiating. Together you can build collaborative strength.

4. E-mail Versus Traditional Communication:

Rules exist for communication media choice. Know them and train them. E-mail is the least invasive, most easily queued at convenient times and facilitates immediate documentation. Live discussion with or without body language, however, can be more efficient for transactional type exchange. Videoconference is a growing option. Without proper training as to when each should be deployed, debates emerge as to the media choice, further contaminating topic discussion.

5. Blameshifting:

With fear of job security alive and well, elaborate schemes are being plotted and deployed to “save one’s skin.” Sadly, the individual who best plots and conceals usually wins, and here the company loses. The blameshifting target was usually too busy actually working and owning workplace integrity to have won this nasty unproductive game. When a team member “blames” a vendor or another employee, please investigate and monitor. Your team members should be rewarded to help company stakeholders do a better job. Those willing to throw another “under a bus” are far less valuable to you than those working toward greater good.

Communication is the means of knowledge transfer and collaboration toward unified goal. When it is compromised, so are profit, growth, risk management and sustainability. Further detailed analysis and solutions on any topic herein are available through HRS.

Candidate Screening by Video Technology Reveals Mixed Success

Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:16:00 GMT

As global talent assessment experts, HRS has spent many years researching success of video technology use in screening. We’ve reviewed dozens of platforms and learned from thousands of employers. Recently, with the continued emergence of videoconferencing use in business, video skills gain importance. However, screening platforms are still showing flaws.

The first major flaw lies in the difference between skills just being on camera as opposed to actually “addressing” the camera. These two skills have little or no correlation between them. Addressing a known audience can be far more comfortable than addressing an unknown (camera) and vice versa. Even the company’s sales reps appear “frozen” and ill at ease in certain platform demos. Videoconferencing typically allows the visibility of and interaction with an audience, a different dynamic altogether. As a regular speaker, I find it infinitely easier to “come alive” with dynamics when I have an engaged and participative audience. A flat, unresponsive audience is a challenge, and often a burden, to an educator. Entertainers sometimes enjoy that challenge, yet entertainers and educators are two different characters. Consider the actual video skills requirements of the job, and align the screening dynamic with the job’s parameters.

The second major flaw lies in the platform’s validation. Some platforms align with the proven concept that the best interviewers often are those who have the most practice. Sales and substance are two different concepts, and for many, these are sadly mutually exclusive. We researched several platforms which have specifically positioned themselves to major market employers whose keys to success lie in turnover versus employee retention. Not all organizations are talent based. In fact, many large organizations rely upon “plug and play” capabilities which create sustainability without reliance upon specific talent. The important takeaway here is to find a platform which aligns with your corporate goals for talent lifecycle. You may adopt more than one platform if you do not find an integrated solution.

The third major flaw is legal compliance. While the federal and state governments are mandating appropriate timing to potentially discriminatory data collection, inappropriately deployed video screening can heighten risks of noncompliance. Structure a program consistent, compliant and true to the job description for best protection. These are the same risks discussed in our teachings on social media use in screening.

The fourth major flaw lies in BFOQ test of reason. Unless a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) is prominent, the screening technique is at risk. If video skills are not necessary to the job description, do not consider video skills in the screening. How people present in person, in writing, via telephone and via camera are all unique characteristics independent of one another.

HRS has pioneered telework principles and use of global technology for decades. We understand the benefits and the risks. Many technology options are available, appropriate to individual job requirements. Video may or may not be the solution, and please adopt the platform which truly represents your best interests. We use video technology often… but selectively according to the actual job requirements and career path lifecycle. Detailed research is available from HRS.

Top 2011 Initiatives for HR Risk Management & Cost Savings

Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:21:00 GMT

This year’s most popular goals of employers large and small are to manage new legal risks, reorganize staff for best efficiency/future growth, and manage human capital for improved cost savings. The following checklist provides framework to suggested 2011 initiatives.

1. Identify and control emerging legal risks.

More than 20 areas of statutory and case law have changed in the last year alone. Government audits can newly be random rather than triggered solely by complaint as before. Fines are a vehicle for government fundraising. Employers must not only get compliant as cost control but must also gain reasonable care certification from 3rd party expert analyst. New ISO practices are emerging for HR. Discreet compliance reviews are available to provide essential investigation plus affirmative defense certification. Avoid using non-profits in this role as they are not lawfully eligible to advocate on your individual behalf and can only advocate for their memberships on the whole.

2. Reassess HR needs.

With the wealth of HR/OD resources available, the best way to safeguard your HR initiative is to ensure no idle time and to ensure you have secured the appropriate change management resources. This is not a time for old school thinking and rote maintenance behavior. This is time for invention and transformation. Have full time resources for full time needs maintenance. Draw upon external experts to suggest and design change.

3. Enjoy the ROI, cost savings and future planning benefits of employee assessments.

Deploy testing that predicts employee performance and learning needs throughout the life cycle: pre-employment, advancement, change, trainability and exit, at a minimum. Personality profiles do not get that done. In baskets, role plays and job simulations provide meaningful data. Expect at least a 100:1 return on your investment. Reject instruments that fall short.

4. Create and enforce a lifelong learning culture for leaders.

Leaders who burn out or who miss opportunities to transform others are toxic to your environment. Leaders should be seen learning. Trainers should be seen learning to train. Leading and training are not “common sense.” Commitment to external education sources is critical, but speaker seminars are the least effect learning venue. Consider learning workshops in your environment at which real-time case studies can be explored and resolved to better apply learning and safeguard time away from work.

5. Stay in touch with employees to monitor engagement, troubleshoot, facilitate and be proactive.

Proactive solutions are typically 5-10% the cost of reactive solutions. Accept that what is past may or may not be prologue.

External resources can provide outstanding facilitation to these action items, and please think of HRS during your proposal process. 3rd party objectivity, specialist research, multi-employer relevant case studies and flex talent bring value added your internal time simply is not licensed to bring, no matter how competent and no matter how dedicated. The collaboration between internal and external talent is a powerful force.

Sensitivity Creates Results In Business… Don’t Misinterpret It

Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:18:00 GMT

Old school culture teaches us to toughen up, be impersonal and stay objective. All of these behaviors remain critical to business success provided we do not overlook the value of passion, deep analysis, empathy and unwillingness to fail. These are characteristics of sensitivity.

The team member who overanalyzes, scrutinizes intention, predicts behavior and takes it personally can be the team member who serves as a predictive bloodhound for business problems and who goes the extra mile to get results. Lack of sensitivity often leads to lack of creativity, mediocre effort and lack of foresight. Resilience is key to sustainability. The hypersensitive can be extraordinarily resilient. Coping with sensitivity requires enormous strength.

In the popular de Bono Six Hats Thinking model, four of our six problem solving hats require sensitivity, “gut” reaction and emotional posture. Understanding perspective of others is recognized as a key concept to negotiation, leadership, motivation, customer service, sales and comprehensive business communications. Your company’s performance feedback system needs to appropriately value these organizational toolsets.

The next time a member of your team misinterprets sensitivity as a business weakness, set them straight. Success is a longshot without it.

Social Media Investigations May Be Essential to Hiring and Can Be Conducted Lawfully

Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:13:00 GMT

Some attorneys will advise employers to avoid using social media as a recruitment and screening tool. The caution is wise; however, avoidance may be impractical, and the proper use of social media can most definitely pay off. In many cases, we consider it actually necessary. While risks of unlawful use exist and need be avoided, bona fide occupational qualifications can be investigated through proper methodology. The following 3 rules are set forth to simplify legal compliance.

1) Timing is everything. The EEOC is often more concerned about the timing and outcomes of collecting data than the collection of data itself. That is, we know certain visual characteristics when we interview or videoconference a candidate, yet premature collection and use of this data is considered unlawful “profiling.” The investigation of social media after interview is typically safer than prior to interview. A company that shows reasonable care and great diversity in demographics and advancement provides substantially stronger affirmative defense than a company with insufficient diversity and/or without reasonable care compliance. Protected characteristics are found not only in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but also in the legal changes and state regulations emerging ongoing.

2) Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQs) are still considered a lawful job requirement subject to reasonable investigation. How a candidate presents his/herself to the general public and company stakeholders is a legitimate public relations and credibility concern. While off duty behavior may or may not be appropriate to monitor and discover as a BFOQ, how a candidate chooses to be known on the Internet as searchable by customers, co-workers, competitors, associates, vendors, investors and other stakeholders, is certainly a BFOQ. Such a presence affects on duty performance, especially when easily detected by search engine or links to professional or company presence. A great job description and strong company policies will validate social media investigations.

3) Outsource investigation and/or control consistency and chain of information. HRS policy establishment, training and candidate investigation services are currently booming. While we are biased that no competitor meets our standards, please know resources abound for outsourcing implementation or procedural design as risk management. If choosing to insource the effort, control documentation and custody of information. Appropriate policies and disclosures should be considered. One size does not fit all here. Social media usage and monitoring policies should match the company’s unique practices. And, although the candidate may choose the “world wide web” to air private and personal information, the employer must remember to not further the information distribution except on a “need to know” basis. Use of search engines to collect data is recommended. The method of collecting data should align with reasonable access to information by company stakeholders.

The appropriate use of social media in hiring provides cost-effective recruitment, often with cost savings or targeted candidate access impractical to ignore. However, the very nature of recruitment via social media could grant us access to candidate social media profiles too soon. To use only social media for recruitment, in certain cases, may in itself be considered discriminatory. Audience demographics should be considered to both control costs and to also ensure abidance with Affirmative Action Plans where they exist.

It is difficult to investigate certain social media sites, especially those of a personal rather than professional focus, without receiving information regarding age, race, nationality, military, family status, sexual orientation, religion, or some combination of the many, many lawfully protected characteristics. Pictures, comments, links, interests and profile page data cannot be reasonably avoided. To better manage risks, we suggest directing the candidate to the company’s own application system rather than linking the recruitment response with the candidate’s social media profile. Such a step allows the company to broadcast the recruitment via social media but to collect responses through traditional methods discouraging profiling.

Upon reaching the correct stage and method of data collection, be certain to avoid risk of error and falsehood. Identities can be confused, and inaccurate information may be collected. Be certain you have the correct individual, and be certain the information is true. Background check permission forms should collect necessary data to validate identity. HRS recommends and designs a sequential plan of using social media investigations lawfully, consistently, with proper timing and privacy controls toward the appropriate evaluation of BFOQs. As an added safeguard, it is popularly recommended to involve an outside firm or an individual not participating in the employment decisions. That individual or firm should then be in position to report only on job requirements and BFOQs, thereby inherently controlling the distribution and use of data.

Is the Boss at Fault for the Blame-Shifters?

Wed, 26 Jan 2011 23:09:00 GMT

Blame-shifting in an organization is typically a barrier rather than a conduit to problem solving. Playing “Where’s Waldo?” with blame or finger pointing to another target can be effective diversions strategically deployed by those afraid to accept the blame. Often, unwillingness to accept blame can be a character dimension based on intrinsic motivation and longstanding experience. In other cases, unwillingness to accept blame is situationally dependent based upon immediate leadership and company behavior. The following 3 steps are a quick assessment and blueprint to resolution.

1. Objectively evaluate the company’s role in behavior modification. Has leadership at all levels properly rewarded truth, or are employees afraid to admit their roles in an obvious problem? Problems are opportunities and risks create inventive greatness. Has the company paved the road to quality without jeopardizing the road to problem solving?

2. Which employees are most likely to shift blame? Is it by department or reporting relationship? Is it individual or company-wide? Patterns are clues to the motivation behind blame-shifting.

3. While blame-shifting is in itself unacceptable, remember that those unwilling to accept blame are afraid to be wrong or at fault. These can also be powerful motivators to positive productivity, something to be salvaged. Teach employees that accepting ownership in a problem is the first step to being the problem solver. Transformation may follow.

At the end of the day, we are likely to find a combination of variables attributing to the blame-shifting. Some good information is likely to result, so keep listening. Personality types of both leaders and those being led contribute to the dynamic. At the end of the day, however, it is the boss’s job to create an environment which applauds ownership, truth and lifelong learning.

Employment Law Compliance: 6 Steps to Risk Management

Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:57:00 GMT

1.Stay Informed via Reputable Experts

There is no acceptable plea of ignorance. Laws are constantly changing and it is the employer’s responsibility to stay on top of it. Government sites are improving, but state and federal governments often do not accept responsibility for creating clear communications via websites. The courts look to reasonable care and actual workplace outcomes; however, complaints can be costly. Secure a source of compliance updates reasonably considered compliance “experts.”

2. Choose the Right Expert Source

Subrogate liability: find an expert willing to “take the fall” and back you. Compliance experts need not be legal counsel as long as they remain committed to advanced legal studies and ongoing compliance research. HRS has proven it possible to attain 100% success in avoiding legal argument when compliance is deployed at the proactive stage. Reasonable care and due diligence are key. If you determine to use legal counsel as your “experts” and they have pulled you into the fire only to bill you going in and coming out, find new legal counsel or find an alternative remedy. Insurance brokerages, payroll partners, TPAs and other HR related vendors offer valuable templates and perks for their customers. Most, however, do not profess themselves as “experts” and non-compliant information potentially coming from them is on your plate, not theirs. Several of these firms are proven to circulate bad information because it’s just not their problem. If you grab a tax advice flyer at the grocery store, you shall be challenged in holding the store accountable for bad information. Several HR industry vendors hire HRS and other accredited experts to provide deeper quality risk management for clients.

3. Reject Cookie Cutter Advice

Compliance is more about judgment than templates. Non-profits can be a great source of templates and education; however, by the nature of being non-profits, they are ineligible to advocate for any individual client and can only serve the “membership as a whole.” Although we’ve caught one or two professing themselves in the “management consulting” field, please know this is categorically impossible. Take their information as one component of your research and adapt it to your company’s unique variables. Call upon experts who can bring widespread case studies where you prefer assistance. There are some valuable non-profits, they can be highly beneficial; however, they cannot be a “one stop shop” for your compliance needs.

4. Document Policies and Incidents

Do not let deniability work against you. The courts look for evidence and reasonable care in forms of currently compliant employee handbooks, related documentation and proof of receipt. For top risk management, an employer needs to prove the employee knew what was expected, received no confusing/contradictory messages, was capable of meeting expectations, knew the consequences of failure and chose to fail. Consistency of enforcement without discrimination is critical. Incident reports, valid job descriptions and clear compliant performance appraisals are each contributory toolsets. Legal postings must be up to date and accessible to employees. (Flat annual fee poster services can be a great partner here.) Maintenance and access to employee files must be controlled on a “need to know” basis according to HIPAA, EEOC, DOL, GINA and countless other emerging and ever-changing standards. Consider a voluntary compliance review for risk management and to build “affirmative defense” through reasonable care. Non-profits are ineligible by status to protect individual members/customers, so please do not deploy a non-profit organization in this capacity.

5. Train, Train, Train

Enforce a culture of lifelong learning and properly train employees not only in operations procedures but also in legal compliance to include anti-harassment, risk management, liability aversion, documentation and diversity. While the employer is not ultimately expected to control each and every workplace action, the employer is held accountable to “reasonable care.” Proper training averts risks, and the act of training builds “affirmative defense.” Training by 3rd party experts brings additional reasonable care and promotes exceptional questions and learning. Remember most people are not classroom learners and bear learning threshold of 2.5 hours typicalmaximum. Consider kinesthetic learning bullets. (Hint and shameless plug: contact HRS!)

6. Stay Current and Prepare for Change

The employer who has been non-compliant and has “never had a problem” is probably due. Granted those employers are probably not taking the time to read this, invulnerability is a myth. Everyone is vulnerable. Don’t waive it off. The government is fundraising. Many people would rather fundraise than work. Some lawyers are fundraising. Insurance companies, like any businesses, will protect their interests. It is your responsibility to protect your own interests as an employer. Stay up to date with regular compliance reviews for practices and policies. The right 3rd party expert partnership is excellent “reasonable care.” Secure updates and review for compliance regularly.

Please contact HRS for more information regarding answer desk, compliance review, handbook services, kinesthetic learning bullets to include anti-harassment, referrals to HR partners who rely upon actual experts and other risk management reasonable care programs.

Employers & Employees Agree to be Rightfully Cautious of Holiday Expenditures

Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:47:00 GMT

Employees continue to be skeptical of lavish employer holiday parties, and employers find opportunity in containing holiday costs. With the economic damage of the past several years, cutting back and cautious spending is greatly appreciated by all. Employees who have suffered economically do not wish to see their rewards sacrificed for a holiday blowout.

75% of employees tell us they’d rather see bonus or investment into their advancement/security. 80% of employers tell us they are holding to the same cost-wise practices with no more than modest increase over the past few years’ practices. Some are even cutting back further after learning past years’ efforts were not as appreciated as hoped.

The days of the “boss” calling employees onto the carpet to “kiss the ring” are over, and employers of choice recognize that employees want holiday celebrations that actually provide reward and appreciation. Mandatory participation can be a deterrent from perceived value. Allowing employees to plan their own rewards is the most appreciated choice. To facilitate good sense outcomes, guidelines and budgets need to be set for employee committees. The employer needs final control to ensure risk management and organizational goal attainment. Structured properly, employers earn great ROI and everyone prospers.

Lavish expenditures are often resented by employees who suffered pay cut or layoff. A sensible demonstration of company pride, forward movement, optimism and team appreciation is, however, a wise investment. Safety and liquor liabilities remain primary concerns. Depending upon team demographics, popular substitutes to parties include bonus, gift certificate or “your choice” menu items. The latter two offer repeat value. For many, cash disappears as it hits the pocket, creating only single impact of reward. Certificates can have more lasting and/or multiple impacts of reward. The reward comes not only in the receipt but also in the use. If the use is a lasting experience, the employee enjoys a more lasting reward.

One year ago this month we commented our findings as the expert source to The Business Journal. The topic was so well received and the findings so valuable, that the article was quickly globally syndicated with a cover bullet. The popularity of this topic has not wavered, so we have accordingly provided this annual update.

Don’t Be Fooled by Salary Negotiation Strategies Generated by the Unemployed: 6 Rules to Success

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:52:00 GMT

Countless unemployed individuals with plenty of time to write are emerging again with salary negotiation strategies. While it is true that strategies should change with market conditions, in many cases, negotiation should disappear completely. While many form their viewpoint based upon experiences with one or a few employers which eventually “outplaced” them, our analysis is based upon statistical knowledge working with thousands of preferred employers plus extraordinary research concerning hundreds of thousands over three decades and adapted to present conditions.

The following is a proven 6-rule blueprint to getting the most from “employers of choice.” Sure, there are plenty of bad bosses and exploitative companies out there who do not follow appropriate protocol. However, if you are a candidate worthy of a top employer, ignore what happens at substandard employers and subscribe to what works at top companies.

Rule #1: Top employers offer compensation based upon compensable factors, internal/external equities and merit-based performance proven within the organization. For top employers, the base compensation component is non-negotiable at organizational entry, except possibly at C-level.

Rule #2: Top employers do not pay you for what you did for someone else, but rather what you will do for them. Success in one environment is not necessarily transferable to another. Top employers know this. Top employers also know that overall organizational development is optimized by practices which favor merit advancement from within.

Rule #3: Top employers request salary histories up front not to set your pay accordingly but rather to evaluate equities and expectations before continuing the very costly pre-employment screening process. Failure to provide history when requested risks indication of unwillingness/inability to follow direction and/or indication of something to hide.

Rule #4: Salary negotiation is effective in a very limited sector. It can be effective only when handled correctly and in cases where the job description requires heavy amounts of negotiation implementation. Time, place and audience are paramount. Don’t be the first to bring up money, and don’t wait too long after money is mentioned to reveal that your requirements are higher. Attach compensation requests to your delivery of quantifiable results to the new employer. “I respect that the company has valued this position based upon specific metrics and expected outcomes. Based upon my history of success, extraordinary knowledge and my determination to succeed, I expect to deliver outcomes beyond those benchmarks. Is there opportunity for me to share in those financial successes? Can we set my quotas higher?”

Rule #5: Attempting negotiation risks the entire deal. It expresses discontent with the company’s existing practices and with the immediate job. Just as a counteroffer constitutes an offer rejection, negotiation of any types constitutes rejection of the “as is” opportunity. There is usually another candidate right behind you who is appreciative of the opportunity to earn rewards without staunch demands.

Rule #6: If the relationship begins with negotiation, expect that you have set the tone for continued negotiation. Rather than being awarded what you have earned, expect that you shall need to always negotiate for it. The best way to avoid constant negotiation with your company as an “opponent” rather than a “teammate” is to negotiate all at once a gain-sharing program with pre-determined financial rewards for the outcomes and results you facilitate.

When an offer is presented, please know that taking time to consider may risk the opportunity. Some companies will volunteer a proposed timeframe for your decision. Many will not. It is a myth that immediate acceptance makes you look “desperate.” Actually, failure to immediately accept makes you look “hesitant” and possibly “disinterested,” either of which can immediately sandbag the relationship. If you believe it is best to take time to consider, state your unwavering interest up front. Consider a safe explanation of the rationale behind your decision delay. If the screening process was thorough and involved multiple steps, you should have entered the offer stage ready to accept if offered. Your questions should already be answered and your interest should not falter.

Company cost control, lifelong learning, succession planning and sustainability are key organizational goals. Age discrimination can be a factor, and advancement from within is typically a preference. Employers are reluctant to pay you for what you did for someone else, because too many over time have “rested on laurels.” Employers typically have more leverage than employees in this situation. Know your power. Evaluate the dynamics of your specific situation and reject “cookie cutter” advice.

Social Media Etiquette & Tips

Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:07:00 GMT

For most, social media is no more complex than any social or communications event. Many find it easier. All rules of kindness, diplomacy, message, audience and delivery apply. Used properly, social media can teach, make you laugh, improve social skills, reconnect with long lost friends, find a job, grow a business, explore new cultures, build relationships, enhance wellness, save time and save money. It is not only a “real life” but can also enrich your life and enhance productivity. As with everything in this world, not everyone “gets it.” It is a complete myth that you don’t have time for social media. Used well, social media creates more time in your busy day. Used improperly, the same facets to life can be adversely impacted.

We recently addressed this topic at Loyola University, and it has become popular at our own newly emerging facebook page. The following guidelines are offered to ensure getting the best outcomes from the social media experience. These are relevant to both users and to employer training in proper etiquette.

5 Rules to Getting the Best Out of Social Media…

Rule #1 – Be discrete and filter your comments. Remember it is the world wide web, and privacy controls are not 100% effective.
Rule #2 – Learn and use the privacy controls. They help substantially. Understand privacy limitations and the licensing you authorize by using a certain site. It’s very easy to protect your privacy but only if you invest the 5-10 minutes necessary to research and apply knowledge.
Rule #3 – Research the topics, guidelines, options and expectations to a certain site before you participate. These are available at each site and differ from one site to the next. Knowing helps you select the right forum and keeps your experience on track.
Rule #4 – Understand that each social media site or application is a business in itself, creating jobs with need for compensation and need for sustainability, job security and hopefully job growth. It is easy to anticipate what will happen next if you understand the objectives.
Rule #5 - Apply the “golden rule” at all times. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Kindness and courtesy are expected. Respect others’ privacy. Stick to the site’s guidelines and respect how others’ use the site if within guidelines. Avoid or be careful with controversial subjects including but not limited to politics, religion and sexual innuendo.

Do Not Insult or Attack

When you befriend or connect with someone, you imply a social contract of mutual respect and courtesy. Negative energy is now out of bounds. Insulting and attacking your friends in social media not only results in the insult/attack itself, but it catches them with guard down and in a highly public forum. Re-read your comments to ensure they are not misinterpreted. Trust shall be difficult if not impossible to recover. Delete, recant or apologize if something gets by that you regret or did not intend. Understand that de-friending can be an insult. Should you de-friend someone due to corporate policy, tell them why to avoid insult.

Control Privacy for Yourself and Others

Remind yourself constantly that it is the Internet, as we all forget from time to time in the comfort of it all. If you don’t want everyone to know, don’t post it. Without full use of privacy controls, social media posts are likely to land at or around the #1 ranked page for you or others on the Internet. Search engines can then link to employer, family, schools, charitable causes, other people and organizations. Guide yourself accordingly. Privacy controls are extremely but not entirely effective. Every individual has a right to privacy… controlling the perspective of his or her employer, family, neighbor, banker, pastor and any other stakeholder who can form a bias or purport action based upon social media.
You are legally responsible for any damages incurred by others due to your actions… on line, in person and through any form of media. Without specific permission, any information, name reference or pictures/videos of others are both illegal and unethical. This concept is by no means limited to social media… but social media can have immediate widespread distribution. While a site will protect itself through disclaimer, you are still responsible and can be sued for damages when tagging or posting photos, videos or content. Create notifiers or prohibit altogether others’ ability to post/tag photos of you.
Don’t be intimidated by these potential problems, but don’t take unnecessary risk either. We don’t stop crossing the street because there is traffic, but we learn to look both ways beforehand and we learn to not push others into a vehicle’s path.

Observe Topic Boundaries and Avoid Frequent Complaint

While you cannot create change without stirring the pot at least a little, constant complaining and negativity will hurt your relationships and ability to succeed with audience and credibility. Additionally, respect how others use the social media site. Embrace differences. Keep politics, religion, negativity and all controversy off of sites not specifically targeting to those topics. Keep business on business sites, personal on personal sites; stick to specific topics and/or causes in their respective forums. Avoid crossing boundaries. Universal charitable causes are typically welcome in any general forum … just don’t wear out their welcome.

Follow the Money for Answers

Nothing in this world is completely “free,” and this is no exception. Each of these sites is costly to develop and operate. Advertisers, membership fees and specific application/gaming fees are popular revenue sources. Ownership of content, development, features control and level of advertising is dictated, of course, by the sponsors of these platforms. Arguments are emerging regarding free vs. paid membership. You may wish to entirely avoid sites pretending to be entirely free, as you are likely to expose yourself to spammers, malware and/or sale of your personal info. We’d rather know who is getting paid while safeguarding our systems and privacy.

Choosing a Social Media Forum

The primary consideration to site choice is the intended use. The first choice is “business” or “personal.” It is easiest and safest to draw a line between the two, although great advantage can be realized by those who learn to successfully mix the two. It is essential to know and adhere to topic boundaries at each site. Blindsiding others with topics they don’t want will create failure. With appropriate judgment deployed, random and creative banter can be the most interesting, desirable and memorable content you deliver. A little consideration goes a long way.
We use each of the following for different reasons, audience and with different approach/expectations. The writers herein have no affiliation with any social media site or vendor. While this white paper is complimentary, our business interest is ongoing education and consultation with companies. One of many hot topics right now surrounds social media. Our firm encourages employers to address social media, creating policies and encouraging practices which protect everyone’s interest, company-wide.

facebook
Originally targeted to college students, then high school students, facebook is intended to reconnect or maintain connections otherwise difficult to manage in a busy world. No longer strictly by invitation, features have been changed, removed and added over time. Not originally part of the fabric, businesses are now present, primarily as advertisers to consumers. This site is used for personal relationship building, socialization, reconnecting, reciprocity, a sense of community and meeting new people through gaming, common interest and mutual friends. Age range is unlimited and multi-generational. Social sites such as facebook can provide a forum for busy productive people to enjoy positive energy, wellness and socialization without abandoning a productive life. As with everything, abuse is of course alive and well.

LinkedIn
Used entirely with a professional business focus, LinkedIn also began building by invitation only. LinkedIn is designed for business promotion, professional networking, job search, discussion forum and to use business “connections” as a toolset. Specific connections are visible or invisible to others as a matter of individual strategy and privacy setting. Currently both paid and unpaid memberships exist. The extent to which you post on LinkedIn is directly proportionate and related to your professional position. Additionally offering opportunity to showcase company websites, blogs, publications and twitter accounts, LinkedIn currently holds more than 60 million registered users in more than 200 countries.

Twitter
Used for both personal and business purposes, Twitter ignores relationship building and succeeds or fails based entirely on the quality and keywords of information. “Tweets” are text-based posts of up to 140 characters delivered to “followers.” Account holders can “lock” their timeline for privacy to only followers with some but not entire privacy. Without such lock, a “tweet” can immediately find itself the #1 ranked item by search engine for the author. Re-tweet exposure can be substantial. Twitter offers both facebook and LinkedIn interfaces.
Blogs (Weblogs), Discussion Boards, Forums and More
Endless and constantly emerging/disappearing, the Internet is full of opportunity to comment, blog, post, vote, upload and express yourself. Each individual site is likely to offer description of topic, questions controlled by the site or existing discussion threads to follow. Choose accordingly and stick to the format for the site. Each will likely offer legal disclaimer and instructions. Read them and comply.

What You Should Post/Not Post

Ask 10 people and you shall receive 10 different answers. This is a draw for most social media users and an advantage to the concept. The differences between the posts of one and another users is a matter of among others… personality and timing. Witty banter that insults no one is always welcome. Do not expect to interest everyone with a post and do not expect to be interested with every post you see. Attempt to avoid repetition. What would you say at a party? Who is your audience? Same considerations apply. Be yourself at your best whenever you can. Sites will typically provide discussion forums, content, games and/or applications that are good points of exchange. Most social media is not about the conversation but rather a more brief exchange of ideas. Chime in only as you wish. Sound judgment will help you. If people are interested, they will typically let you know. If not, find something else to say or a new room/time to say it.

Boundaries: Business vs. Personal

Actively mixing business and personal relationships is always a risk and warrants consideration and boundaries. Social media is no exception. The ability to successfully mix the two, however, can be your greatest advantage. What if your boss, client or investor befriends you on a social site? This problem is largely solved by rule #1. If you are concerned about its visibility, do not post it on the world wide web. While it is extremely beneficial to use privacy controls and selection rules, again these are not entirely effective.

Preparing for and Handling Abuse or Disagreement

The rules for social media are the same as for any communication, in person, written, electronic, or telephone. One great thing about social media is that you can more easily avoid, delay or rehearse your response. Use these opportunities to ensure your message is exactly how you want it before it is out there. When you build quality relationships through social media, you have also likely improved or practiced certain aspects to in-person social skills as well. Be nice, don’t attack or insult. On the Internet as in all phases of life, communicate with the assumption there are no bad people, just bad acts. Social media should not be anti-social. It will work best for you if you stick with positive energy. Be careful approaching controversy. It is controversial because people disagree passionately. You will undoubtedly insult and aggravate at least some of your friends… so be prepared for the fallout. People disagree on how to “keep it light” and as always, “teasing” and thoughtless communications are inconsequential to some, the “end of the world” for others, and somewhere in between for everyone else. Controversial communication creates conflict including disagreement on severity, how to interpret and how to handle. Be nice and remove the point of conflict.

Social Gaming Etiquette

Gamers provide a great deal of revenue to social sites, and their contributions to subsidizing everyone’s use should be respected. At current time, facebook gaming posts are extremely easy to hide if you do not wish to see them. A simple hover and click on the hide button (currently immediately to the right of the post) will hide every post to an entire application. Therefore, etiquette between gamers is more essential for discussion.

Gamers - please consider that your gaming friends have little or no opportunity to hide your individual posts without hiding you or the game altogether. Peppering the feed with low value posts impedes another’s ability to find the posts actually necessary to gameplay. Additionally, monopolizing the feed with items of little or no value/interest to others creates the same social impact as monopolizing a conversation. Often, less is more… and quality here typically outweighs quantity.

Game developers – remove the temptation to destroy gaming experience by removing the options to do so. Consider controls on frequency and volume of such posts per user. We know you need to promote your game, but you probably wish to keep gamers playing, too, right?

Social Applications, Groups, Polls and Gifts

These items can be great “ice breakers” and turnkey socialization tools. With these items you can reach out to someone without other consideration as to what to say. What users rarely consider is the extent to which profile information is accessed and shared with undisclosed recipients. Consideration should also be given to system performance when these applications are allowed, as they may be running in the background while not visibly in use. It is typically quite easy to de-authorize these applications when no longer desired. It is important to read the disclaimers before using these applications, and it is important to courteously understand why someone may not accept your gift or invitation. This decline is not an indictment of friendship gesture but rather a de-selection of the system performance impact invited by the application. Choose applications carefully, enjoy those you choose, respect others’ rights to choose for themselves, and remember… nothing is free.

Please visit AskHRS.com or contact HRS for employer tips in creating social media policies to include anti-harassment and intellectual property risk management.

Being a Leader is a Trained Skillset, an Innate Talent and Definitely a Practice

Sat, 02 Oct 2010 16:16:00 GMT

Contrary to what temp services and unemployed consultants are currently blogging about, it is essential to understand that while being a leader requires consistent practice and execution, effective leadership is also both innate and learned… nature and nurture.

Make no mistake. Effective leaders need a deep understanding of the discipline, tasks and environment in which they lead. Those who believe a management degree or diploma somehow qualifies them to lead in an unfamiliar environment are sadly mistaken, likely BS’d by their college recruiter. Simultaneously, great implementers are not necessarily great leaders. The most common mistake in business is empowering the wrong leadership, either promoting implementers without leadership skills or hiring great sales artists with no leadership substance.

Good advice is hard to come by. Bad advice is abundant. With advancement the #1 workplace motivator, promotions from within not only best engage the whole team but allow leaders to have deep understanding of that which they lead. Nonetheless, self-starters and independent achievers typically do not “get” the average worker and do not know without formal leadership training how to effectively motivate and modify behavior in others. If others do not become better performers directly due to those who lead, the leaders “lift right out” as ineffective.

Your Consulting Firm May Be the Very Last Job on Your Resume

Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:54:00 GMT

Some believe filling resume gaps by labeling or creating a “consulting” firm is a positive resume builder. More often than not, this adversely impacts one’s ability to be re-employed. To set oneself apart as a freelance “consultant” or company owner can be synonymous with setting oneself apart as averse to taking direction from another… a statement likely to create de-selection from employment opportunities. Top employers will also investigate the legitimate success in engagements during this “consultancy” time period on one’s resume.

When choosing to be a consultant, know beforehand it is not all glamour and glitz. A corporate career as an internal key member dedicated to one corporate environment at a time is NOT preparation for consultancy. Successful consultancy requires the proven ability to simultaneously serve multiple unique organizations through analysis and adaptation... and deep knowledge of multi-employer case studies. Serving one or a few selectively chosen organizations is not necessarily preparation for consultancy. Conversely, consultancy is not necessarily preparation to become an internal expert. Deep knowledge of that organization is the only preparation for that role.

Consultancy requires reporting to many “bosses.” It is a myth that one can succeed in consultancy without subordination. While it is true that many employers are drawn to candidates who have demonstrated the responsibility and ambition of starting a business, employers of choice will carefully screen this situation and select/de-select candidates accordingly.

If not prepared to forever risk livelihood, think twice before abandoning the safe route of remaining steadily and stably employed, creating documented successes as an employee. Embrace consultancy for what it truly is and understand that a great consultant is never “in between jobs.”

Great Consultants are Never "In Between Jobs" and HR is Never Part-time: When & How to Deploy Insource & Outsource Toolsets

Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:24:00 GMT

With a wealth of auxiliary talent options available to company business plans, employers too often miss the mark in deploying the optimal schemata. In any organization, flexible utilization of experts can create cost savings while simultaneously adding new problem solving opportunities. Statistically, the most common related employer mistakes are either stagnation or selecting the wrong remedy. The four primary categories for flexible talent utilization are each unique. These are consultants, outsource firms, part-time managers and non-profit memberships, and in their uniqueness, these are not to be deployed interchangeably. The following analysis is a blueprint to determining where to plug and play each option. Let us start with definitions.

Consultant: “an expert who charges a fee for providing advice or services in a particular field.” Expertise relies upon extraordinary knowledge relating to a magnitude of employers and third party objectivity. A consultant advocates specifically for and tailors programs on behalf of the retaining employer.

Outsource: “to buy labor or parts from a source outside a company or business rather than using the company's staff or plant.”

Part-Time: “working less weekly hours than the company’s typical hourly requirement for full-time.”

Non-Profit Association: “tax exempt organization serving the membership as a whole without individualized attention… prohibited from advocating on behalf of or representing private interests” or, in other words, an intended “greater good” concern which is the exact opposite of consulting. Non-profits are expected to substitute general population betterment in consideration for taxes not paid. Non-profits by nature make great networking and collaborative organizations but cannot legally participate in the act of private interest consulting.

Clearly, these definitions describe uniquely distinctive situations, at times mutually exclusive, yet many still erroneously use these ideas interchangeably. The following is a breakdown of where to deploy each option and discussion of expected value provided. The examples herein focus upon the field of HR Management and Organizational Development.

Non-Profit Associations can be a great source of access for publicly available information, to consolidate and discuss without concern for private interest and individualized attention. Customization is limited but open door networking is high. With the exclusion of private interest, members must take on their own responsibility to screen and select only applicable offerings and talent provided by such greater good organizations. Especially in HR/OD, what is appropriate to one employer can be entirely irrelevant and inappropriate to the next employer. Classroom learning, written publications and networking access are expected to be among top offerings, and these can be offered at great prices given the tax exemptions and other fiscal advantages awarded to these entities. Individualized workshops, private employer advocacy, targeted strategic planning and custom programs are largely if not entirely prohibited. Liability is more difficult to subrogate to a non-profit; therefore, reliance upon non-profits as "experts" can be challenging. Where customization and private interest is desired, the following 3 options are better suited.

Part-time Managers can be an outstanding remedy to those disciplines which are not required full-time by an employer. Depending upon organizational structure, examples may include Training, Compensation/Benefits and Talent Acquisition. Smaller employers without the headcount to support 40 hours weekly work in these disciplines can divert these activities reasonably to a smaller time increment per week. Certain activities are more spontaneous in emergence and can be scheduled with less ease, making part-time management less appropriate. These include legal compliance, performance management, employee relations and safety. While a certain percentage of these disciplines can be compartmentalized to a part-time schedule, the organization needs at least a backup “go to” during all operational times. Where part-time managers are utilized, there is typically opportunity to choose consultancy or outsource instead. A challenge with finding a part-time manager is finding someone willing and able to consistently work only part-time and during the employer’s required hours. Turnover can be high, jeopardizing the learning curve and cost efficiencies. Semi-retirees can be a great option, provided they are still ambitious to learn proactively and do not demand to be paid for what they did well for a prior employer.

Outsource can be a great option where better efficiencies and/or outcomes are gained by using another dedicated entity’s site and resources. Depending upon the company’s existing resources, possible examples include Employee Assessment, Training, Benefits Administration, Payroll and Talent Acquisition. The most common outsource mistake is where labor intensive organizations rely inappropriately upon PEOs (professional employer organizations), temporary help services or RPOs (recruitment process outsource) for talent acquisition. Used well, quality outsource companies in these fields can control costs and streamline efficiencies. Used poorly, these methods can create barrier to attracting, selecting, engaging and retaining the right talent. Appropriate outsource of candidate assessment not only streamlines efficiency and allows expert input, but also very importantly allows third party unbiased objectivity, which is especially essential when incumbent talent is being evaluated.

Consultants and non-profits cannot be used interchangeably and by nature are mutually exclusive. Consultants are entirely devoted to private interest concerns. Top consultants understand that each employer is unique – in culture, brand, labor intensity, business plan and comprehensive operations. “One size fits all” solutions do not exist in consulting. A great consultant knows the difference and how to apply the other 3 options and will work collaboratively on that team, also offering his/her own resource team. A great consultant works with and works for the employer, drawing upon multi-employer case studies without betraying any company’s intellectual property. When selecting a consultant, it is critical to understand that consultancy is NOT the natural evolution of the seasoned professional who created success during internal corporate life… or was formerly entrusted by a successful corporate entity. Successful consultancy requires the proven ability to simultaneously serve multiple unique organizations through never-ending research, analysis, adaptation and deep knowledge of multi-employer case studies. As what works for one company need not work well for another, success for one or a few corporate entities is not necessarily transferrable predictive success for your organization. Great consultants are never “in between jobs.” They are constantly in demand, loyally retained, adaptable, and they stay busy in any economy. They do not rest on laurels and they hone their salesmanship… needing to constantly promote change and inertia.

September and January are Best Times to Attract Working Talent

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:47:00 GMT

Year after year we statistically validate that applicant pools shrink during summer and holiday seasons. Working candidates find these times the least attractive for job change. As a direct result, the best times to gain recruitment attention are September, January and Springtime (with the exclusion of Spring break).

The factors that will affect this phenomenon related to any individual employer include geographical seasonality, workplace demographics, employee retention and labor market pressures.

Working candidates under normal circumstances do not wish to give up paid time off accruals during typical vacation and holiday times. Back to school, summer plans and holiday pressures can also overburden the personal tasks in a working family, deferring job change to a time where appropriate time and attention can be devoted.

Although even in recessionary times certain market sectors continue to experience talent shortage, extreme recessions outplace otherwise employable candidates. When these fine people are seeking work during these less popular times, we can expect the existence of an above average work desire. Keeping in mind that desire for work does not necessarily translate into better work habits, the desire is still considered a positive attribute.

Under typical conditions, please expect longer talent acquisition lead times during summer and holiday seasons. Given that each employer is subject to unique talent needs, offerings and market conditions, please consider all applicable variables when planning. HRS is enthusiastically available to provide further insight, custom design and/or implementation assistance.

Choosing Employee Assessments … Hand Scoring Still Safeguards Findings and ROI!

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:49:00 GMT

With a wealth of employee assessments emerging, the right assessment can seem as elusive as the proverbial “needle in a haystack,” yet absolutely worth the diligent hunt. Best practices deployment in this specific arena increases human capital ROI by tenfold plus. The bottom line results of assessments gone right is not contested, and we stand firm that every candidate hired, trained or promoted without this proper intelligence is a profit opportunity missed. And coming from staunch advocates of progressive technology… computers are no replacement for hand scoring. A five criteria process, the following roadmap guarantees ROI and avoids common pitfalls.

1. Tailoring instrument selection to specific job requirements.

Ensure the assessment criteria are documented in the job description itself. Consider both the immediate position and requirements along the progressive career path. Separate the two, and consider realistic expectations for advancement. Creating a business model where every team member is worthy of quick advancement can be risky and inappropriate unless your business can keep each of them advancing swiftly. Most organizations are pyramid shaped where not everyone can move up… accordingly, too many advancement worthy candidates creates damaging turnover. Additionally to ensure legal compliance, give greater weight to characteristics validated BFOQ’s (bona fide occupational qualifications) to the immediate job, without disparity. To safeguard meaningful interpretation and to prevent legal challenge, strictly avoid personality profiles and psychological profiles. Steer clear of interest-based surveys, as results are tainted by the human flaw of erroneous self-perception. We recommend job-related in-baskets and business simulations which specifically showcase and predict results-oriented business behaviors.

2. Controlling environmental variables for meaningful consistency and reliability.

Deliver assessment in an environment which corresponds to assessment norms as well as the actual job environment. For example, online delivery is best when measuring computer-based job performance. Online delivery falls short of measuring in person performance. Online and written instruments presuppose communication skills using those media. Multiple choice vs. essay, written vs. verbal, time limits, noise factors, environmental conditions, fatigue, comfort, and stress levels are all further examples of variables which affect assessment performance. Allow the assessment organization to create and/or control the assessment environment and its variables. A distinguished partner will have this automatically safeguarded, but please inquire.

3. Ensuring validity.

Gain confidence in the business results and overall organizational development success of your assessment team and assessment developer. Validating scores against existing organizational top performers is not enough. One of the most common pitfalls, this says absolutely nothing in validation of the elimination rate. Many instruments are currently circulating at which your top performers will always perform well. Be certain those you eliminate have been eliminated for good reason. Creative thinking and unconventional ideas are the cornerstone to progress and competitive edge. Do not keep these attributes excluded from your organization.

4. Hand scoring and personal feedback are still preferred.

Again addressing the need to engage progress, invention and creative problem solving… computer and/or empirical scoring just does not cut it. Exploring rationale and allowing interpretation are critical to meaningful methodology. Simply stated, there is nothing less common than sense. Valuable creative thinking is often specifically excluded from organizational entry unless expert multi-rater hand scoring is involved. Hand scoring and personal feedback each explore rationale and trainability, while exiting the candidate with a blueprint for advancement and improvement. Personal feedback is best delivered by an external assessor expert.

5. Using organization-wide assessments in consideration of unique independent job descriptions.

Selection by assimilation is rarely the goal. A glut of like-minded people does not typically foster progress or invention. Embrace differences and deploy them to the correct opportunities. There are a few assessments, the SR2 for example, which can be gainfully implemented organization-wide; however, we recommend weighting mechanisms and scoring norms to consider job relatedness. Validation to both external and internal norms is to be ensured.

In the quest for cost containment and convenience typically achieved through progressive technology, one can be quick to overlook the occasional “old school” best practices. The cost of employee time and the likely payoff of increased productivity with waste avoidance need be factored into assessment ROI. Look to the substantive results and know-how, not glitzy sales, of assessment experts. Pursue experts offering a healthy catalog of instruments tailored to unique job descriptions and criteria, and you shall find experts committed to valuable guidance in pinpointed assessment selection. The sustainable success of any talent-based organization relies upon correct, comprehensive and consistent deployment of employee assessment as decision tools.

How to Choose a Low Cost, Highly Effective Training Method: Forget Seminars!

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:45:00 GMT

Auditory or speech-based learning is validated as both the least effective and least preferred training method, yet we overuse. Adults cannot absorb more than 2.5 hours new information at a time, yet we pay for full-day seminars. Keep seminars as networking events and perks for team members who need an outing… but do not expect substantial knowledge transfer. When learning is critical, remember that 92% of individuals required a three-fold approach to learning… and the most effective three are visual demonstration, participative discussion, and hands on learning. As it takes 3 instances of learning to create long term knowledge – and long term is only 20 minutes or more – ”trilogy” training is essential. Employers of choice recognize success relies upon the right people doing the right things. This rests heavily upon training effectiveness and cost efficiencies. The old days of the “talking head” at the podium are phased out.

In a recent survey of more than 3000, 60% of respondents tell us “Kinesthetic” (hands on) is their preferred learning style and auditory learning is by far the least preferred, coming in at only 8%. Visual training is more than twice as effective as auditory. Learning professionals suggests a blend of participative workshop and video training.

Video training is best used in the procedural “how to” instructions which can be represented visually. As trainers find burnout, distraction and inconsistency in the act of training, a standardized video allows us to ensure every trainee receives the complete message and the same information. Think about how many times you left for work wondering if you locked the door, turned off an appliance, or could not specifically remember performing some other routine auto-pilot task. Invariably, trainers miss opportunities to deliver consistent messages from one training group to the next. Without knowledge that each employee received the same completeness and quality of training, we have no reliable basis of evaluation or comparison. Video training is the demonstration that sets up kinesthetic learning. We see how to do it, and then we try it ourselves. The margin of error in video training is negligible because the message is consistent. Video does not have a bad day. Video does not argue with a spouse or significant other. Video doesn’t miss its morning coffee. Video’s transportation does not fail, and video does not get the flu. Video is reliable, convenient and completely consistent. Done well, the return on investment is quick and strong.

Participative Workshops are necessary in all training regimens, at a minimum, as the checkpoint and validation of learning with long term sustainability. As a component to trilogy training, these kinesthetic participative workshops are to be inserted where problem solving, judgment and deep topic understanding are essential to goal attainment. While it is far more common to find a speaker with podium skills and a well-rehearsed presentation, audience adaptation and the ability to provide meaningful answers to spontaneous questions is more effective to this exercise. Top universities inject kinesthetic learning into the classroom and assignment activities. Participative discussion is where transformation happens and learning is validated. This is also where we increase employee engagement, morale and motivation.

Workshops delivered by internal personnel can be inserted as a component, but due to fear of reprisal and perception of company bias, third party professional trainers can accomplish training and secure employee buy-in otherwise impossible for the internal key team. By experiencing it go right as validated by outside experts, trainees also feel more relaxed… and a relaxed mind enjoys a much greater potential for learning than a panicked mind.

Memory is largely a component of attention and interest. Seminar learning depends entirely upon a highly memorable performer using highly visual speaking tactics as “grabbers.” Humor is participative, so that works… to a point. The best podium performers, however, are not cost effective for everyday organizational learning, and most are rarely effective in transferring memorable content other than jokes and antics. Pure entertainment only goes so far in expediting and safeguarding learning. Entertainment can be a tactic but should not overpower the presentation. An outside trainer expert with audience adaptation, learning assessment and train the trainer technique is the company’s best cost-efficient and reliable methodology. Surveys repeatedly reveal that lack of confidence in a supervisor or trainer is a primary reason for resignation. Training flaws create unnecessary turnover and loss of training investment. Company time is company money.

For additional details on learning survey outcomes and examples of training videos, please visit AskHRS.com/learningsurvey09

Stop Saying “Work Smarter, Not Harder” and Great Things Shall Happen!

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:17:00 GMT

Emerging from a recession, grabbing opportunity and surviving intense global competition, we cannot be fooled by the dangerous and misleading propaganda... "Work Smarter, Not Harder!" Statements along these lines when misinterpreted can only lead to disaster. The blueprint for success requires balance.

Agreed it can be more effective to work smart than to work hard, in most cases both are necessary. In addition, “smart” can be a matter of misinterpretation in itself. “Smart” can only truly be judged by one who is “smart” in the capacity and criteria to be evaluated. “Smart” can be ill defined. Nonetheless, "Work Smarter" should remain our dedicated target, we just need to lose the "Not Harder" component.

Through study of human work ethic, it is undeniable that many top performers equate “working hard” with “doing your best.” Anything short of doing one’s best is less than adequate. Therefore, working “hard” is always one of the goals. Where and how we channel our energies and how we balance and care for ourselves is a matter of personal choice and commitment.

Nations rich in socialism and suppressed middle class existence present global competition of both working hard and working smart in tandem. Those who wish to compete must rise to the occasion or lose the opportunity to fight another day. While the U.S. is not easily adaptable by history and infrastructure to the socialist principles which have been embraced by other nations, Americans must not think they can exist in a vacuum, especially after centuries of global involvement.

Those proven to offer judgment, accomplishment and commitment to excellence effectively draw upon the “Work Smarter, Not Harder” mantra with astute understanding that successful results require efficiency and sound judgment. These toolsets can lead to quicker, easier and more accurate positive outcomes, freeing our resources to accomplish more in the end. The mantra works best for those already working hard. Those, however, lacking necessary work commitment are adversely impacted and misled by this mantra, using it as an excuse to retract effort.

This is an essential organizational development topic to be safeguarded by employee education, policies, practices and daily performance management. The ambiguity of related remarks is polluting team members’ understanding of workplace expectations and the blueprint to security and advancement. Consider this both a “call to action” and an opportunity of betterment for organizational leaders at all levels.

“If I’m a Self-Starter, Why Aren’t You?”... Team Members High in Initiative are Challenged as Coaches

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:26:00 GMT

Until we learn otherwise, we tend to believe others think and behave as we do. Sometimes that learning comes with a thunderbolt and leaves us with our “jaw on the ground.” Pillared on more than 30 years experience in leadership coaching to a wealth of Fortune-rated and emerging employers alike, this evidence does not falter. Consequently, it is easy to conclude that common sense does not actually exist. Coaching requires understanding motivation, capability and learning style. Without these, the ability to transform is challenged.

If you ask a self-starter why he or she is a self-starter, you shall often encounter uncertainty. According to Bob Galvin, retired Motorola chairman, self-starters and leaders can be spotted by age 14. Being a self-starter derives from intrinsic motivation (coming from within), not nearly as easily influenced as extrinsic motivation (impacted by external variables). Self-starters rarely understand those who are not self-starters, and most individuals are not self-starters. This lack of understanding creates a barrier to audience adaptation and coaching effectiveness.

Employers tend to promote top performers, usually self-starters, to leadership roles. These promotions often occur for the wrong reasons. A self-starter with the right leadership training can lead by example and deploy certain tactics, yet he or she can be challenged in ability to understand and coach those without intrinsic motivation. Leadership is a lifelong learning commitment. Without learning and adaptation to new audiences, we stunt company growth and can only hire a small percentage of the available applicant pool.

Those who study leadership recognize leadership is not a natural progression, but rather a distinctive and precise skillset. Many self-starters are completely disinterested in coaching; however, they accept the role as a title award and advancement strategy. Self-starters are often admittedly more interested in managing processes than people. Employers who create advancement ladders not necessarily tied to supervision are able to truly gauge commitment to coaching and creating transformation. Self-starters often view themselves as self-transformed and therefore may not be inclined to transform others. A supervisor, trainer or coach who fails to create transformation also fails to provide betterment to employee productivity. If the employees are not better for the supervisor’s impact, why is the supervisor retained? Assuming the talent acquisition process is doing its job, successful coaching creates transformation and improves workplace productivity through improved employee performance.

By its very definition, extrinsic motivation is volatile, affected by the employer. Motivation is, in its simplest terms, a reason. Understanding what transformed you to improved performance is a valuable toolset to transforming others. This means looking beyond intrinsic motivation. Those who were “transformed” can be highly influential and motivational success stories for others.

HRS deploys these validated studies in globally recognized assessment and kinesthetic coaching programs, serving employers in more than 100 countries plus world respected academic and certification institutions. Programs are augmented through learning style surveys having earned more than 3000 global responses to date. Typical program methodology includes leadership assessment to pinpoint coaching style, transactional/transformational effectivess and learning opportunities. This analysis is most frequently followed by audience adaptive kinesthetic workshops proven highly successful in transforming leaders, entry through CEO and BOD, into transformational coaches. Please visit AskHRS.com for more information regarding learning survey findings, validation studies, leadership assessment and kinesthetic workshop offerings.

Private Sector Solution to Health Care Industry Problems

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:20:00 GMT

If you want to understand why anything happens in health care simply follow the dollars.

After having spent 35 years in the health care cost management field I am convinced that this is a true statement. The dollars influence and in some cases dictate hospital expansion, physician carrier choices, additional technology, administrative systems, insurance company plan designs, employer benefits and any other aspect of the health care field. This being the case, influencing the dollars will drive solutions to the industries problems.

As evidence of this, look at the expansion of PPO type plans over the past 20 years. Offering employees a benefit incentive to use one doctor or hospital over another has resulted in the largest change in buying habits ever recorded, with over 90% of today’s health care being provided through PPO type plans. Even HMO’s have re-packaged their services into PPO type plans.
There are three changes that can be made to the existing system that will reduce costs, significantly limit cost increases, improve quality, improve access, streamline administration and expand insurance coverage. All three changes are made in the private sector and require no government intervention or additional taxes.

1. Price Transparency:

Today we do not know the true cost of even the most routine procedure (normal deliveries). As a result of multiple PPO, HMO and government contracts the price has been distorted. In Milwaukee 38 procedures represent 65% of the dollars spent at the hospital. The price range of each procedure among Milwaukee hospitals is at least 100%, with 300% and 400% variances common. Each hospital should be required to disclose the average private sector revenue for the top 20 procedures. Because this is an average confidential contract pricing is not disclosed.

2. Change the PPO and HMO contracts:

In the mid 1990’s most hospitals were reimbursed a set dollar amount per day of hospital stay. As a result the cost increases for benefit plans in 1995 and 1996 was virtually “0” according to the Mercer study on health care costs. In the latter 1990’s competitive pressures and improved hospital negotiating skills resulted in a move to a percentage off billed charges. The control of the cost of health care was turned over to the providers. From the late 1990’s to about 2006 cost increases were in the low to mid teens each year. A return to fixed pricing is essential to controlling costs. Both hospitals and physicians should be reimbursed according to a fee schedule.

3. Change Benefit Plan Designs:

Price transparency and a change to schedules under contracts allow the designers of benefit plans to create plans that embrace the schedules. The cost of this service ranges from $1000 to $4,000. The benefit plan will pay $2,500. These are the providers who will accept this price or less.

4. Create Global Services:

Fixed pricing allows the formation of Global Services. Under these services all of the parts of a procedure are contained in a single contracted price. For example a Global surgery would include the surgeon’s fee, assistant surgeon (if necessary), anesthesia, radiologist, facility, drugs, tests and any other items required to provide that service. This is the way that health care is provided when benefits are not involved. Most cosmetic surgeries are presented to the patient set fees are patient (who is going to pay the bill) as a single fee with all the necessary parts included.

These four changes would result in an immediate cost reduction (fixed prices are used and providers have an incentive to control costs since it will increase their profits), improve quality (the main differentiation factor is now quality of care and patient satisfaction), improve access (if providers know they will be reimbursed they are more likely to offer services in areas they might otherwise ignore), streamline administration (more efficient administration increases profits) and expand insurance coverage (better priced insurance products can be afforded by more companies and individuals).

These changes can be implemented by the end of this year with no government intervention or expense. If consumers demand better benefit plans they will be delivered.

On the flip side the current proposal of a government sponsored “public plan” will increase Medicare taxes by 20% to 30% within two years.

The “public plan” is based on fees that Medicare has negotiated with hospitals, physicians and other health care providers. These rates are often 60% below billed charges and according to a recent study 20% to 30% below provider costs. The only reason that the provider community has been able to tolerate these low reimbursements is because they can increase their costs to the private sector. A study by the Lewin organization estimates that if the “public option” were offered 85% of the private sector would move to this option within two years because of the lower cost to companies and individuals. This would effectively kill private sector helath benefit plans.

If there is no private sector there is no one to whom costs can be shifted. Medicare would have to increase reimbursement to at least cost or hospitals and doctors would go out of business. This would require a 20% to 30% increase in Medicare reimbursements and a similar increase in Medicare taxes. It would also result in limitations on services available and probably result in hospitals and doctors opting out of the “public” plan with their services being available to only those who could afford to bay the bill.

We have the ability to control health care costs in a fashion that benefits patients, providers and payers. The question is do we have the resolve to implement the changes.

This article was contributed by Richard L. Blomquist, Esteemed Member of the HRS Advisory Board
Mr. Blomquist's Bio and Contact Info

The Antisocialism of Socialism

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:28:00 GMT

Sending wholehearted gratitude to those and their families who paid the ultimate price defending their country against socialism, the false propaganda in this country threatening blind allegiance and subserviance to socialist principles needs also to be defended against. Some proponents of the universal health care movement are now using socialism labels… and this is an unnecessary extreme to create the much needed change. Nations choose their political systems carefully and defend them tenaciously. The US has fought tenaciously as well and shouldn’t easily abandon longstanding beliefs.

Those who think they understand socialism need to visit a socialist nation and spend time truly analyzing its affects. Socialist principles can be altruistic and often attractive in theory. Like many political systems, the rollout of socialism yields outcomes completely contradictory to its perceived intention. In the US we are entitled choice, and in that, let’s please remember that for which our founding fathers and millions of US military have shed blood. Hitler and Mussolini also are also connected with socialism. Think carefully.

In the US please consider rejecting all programs cloaked with the word “socialism” and “socialized” unless you really believe pure socialism is the answer... and you believe the US needs to reject its longstanding principles and overturn that for which many have given their lives. There are many things to attempt here in the US short of socialism before overturning our guiding principles in such an extreme. Many believe through research that true socialism simply eliminates the middle class… making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Whether you are for or against more government intervention in our BIG health care problem, socialism is not the next step in progression… and please don’t let much needed hope for betterment allow such a tricky movement to sneak past the great people of this country.

Getting the Right People Doing the Right Things with Safeguarded Precision!

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:50:00 GMT

Amidst organizational change employers deploy a wealth of employee assessments in a scheme of cost-benefit analysis. Some overspend the outcomes and then don’t even understand the data. Some sales-based assessment organizations inundate prospective clients with “high brow” tricks while brow-beating them into pretending they understand. What’s just as important as data integrity is simplified and universal buy-in… and the ability to attach meaningful cost saving action. Crazy labels and “smoke and mirrors” are not the keys to predicting success. If you don’t understand, your employees won’t either!

Employee assessment, training needs analysis, legal compliance and leadership development remain at the forefront of today's critical employer issues. Employees and leaders at all levels must be ready to adapt quickly and assume responsibilities, potentially for the first time with limited up front training. Employers can manage 5-7 figure risk with a 2-3 figure implementation before the change. This awareness continues to expand, and the demand for the right employee assessments explodes!

As a follow up to our research essay published by SHRM in 1999 and countless essays since including a Forbes interview a few years back, let’s review the changed environment. A wealth of assessment exercises is now available on the open market, and we endorse some but certainly not all of them. While HRS proprietary instruments are clearly our favorites (shameless plug), we have welcomed the most valid, reliable and meaningful instruments of other vendors into our catalog. Those we exclude and caution against are the many, many instruments that fall short of data integrity, legal compliance and assessor/assessee buy-in. For instance, validity does not exist if you cannot prove test performance directly correlates, within acceptable statistical margin of error, to workplace performance. This includes both positive and negative performance. A common pitfall here is to sample assess your top performers against the instrument and be fooled that good performance on both test and appraisal constitutes validity. That’s only part of the argument. Before assuming complete validation, test your poor performers and potentially those who weren’t selected for hire.

Why Assess?

According to recent survey (to which 3000+ responded), advancement is the primary employee magnet and motivator, yet nearly half of incumbent managers miss at least 45% of the opportunities to be successfully transactional or transformational in leadership tactics. Self starters are proven not naturally inclined to transform others, and are therefore challenged as leaders. Incumbent call center employees are proven to miss more than half of follow through opportunities when presented with task to resolve rather than route. Nearly half of those excelling in external customer service roles underperform with internal customers, creating disharmonious team environments and unnecessary efficiency waste. In the HRSAC SR2 simulation, analytical adaptability consistently reveals itself as the most challenging criteria when employees are asked to assume a changed job condition. In short, job knowledge can hide logic, problem solving and trainability. Change for some can create disaster. Assessment results should pinpoint the “why” and the learning goals behind the performance ratings, present and future. When top performers are competing for promotion, 3rd party objectivity and buy-in are essential to ensure every top performer walks away feeling valued and empowered with tools to win that promotion next time.

What Can Be Assessed?

Leadership Styles/Tactics, Customer Service, Critical Thinking, Analytical Adaptability, Multi-Tasking, Attention to Detail, Problem Solving, Group Presentation Dynamics, Teamplayer Orientation, Time Management, Workflow Planning, Conflict Resolution, Change Advocacy, Negotiation, Persuasion, Natural Abilities and Natural Roadblocks can be measured at a minimum, and are certainly among the most popular. Some erroneously call these the “soft skills.” While there’s nothing less common than sense, I attest these are the “hard skills.” Crafted reliably, in-baskets can predict job success according to any identified job description. Skills tests are available with endless functionality.

Selecting the Right Assessment Instrument(s)

Examining validity and reliability is not as complex as it sounds. The assessment administrator who has an instrument of meaningful integrity will proudly take you through this explanation and may demo the instrument for you. Ask the following questions when choosing the instrument…
1. Inquire regarding validity and reliability studies. This includes pass-fail and/or both positive and negative ratings.
2. Investigate margin of error and resolution thereof.
3. Be convinced the instrument and its scoring report will be meaningful and gain buy-in from all parties. Be convinced the outcomes point to meaningful action.
4. Ensure the instrument’s content, delivery method and criteria support the job description for both meaningful information and legal defensibility.

Delivery Method

On-line assessment grows in popularity due to convenience and has its important place, but for those not required to deliver such communications on the job via Internet, validity and data integrity are compromised. The testing environment should relate to the work environment. For those allowed to deliver key communications on-the-job in discussion, why force only Q&A or multiple choice based tests? Allow essay and/or conversational feedback modules. Such modules should not be computer scored. In short, the testing method and environment must be consistent with the job conditions.

In labor intensive or talent based organizations, success is largely impacted by human accuracy or error. Advancement is a key motivator, and a blueprint is essential. With the appropriate tools, employers can maneuver the right people doing the right things. Employers still promote great implementors into leadership, assuming this is the natural progression. Management is not natural progression but rather its own professional skillset and a lifelong learning commitment. The same is true for project management. For those who already buy in to the assessment center method, it remains challenging to differentiate between assessment instruments.

Having endured great cost in creating and validating precisely job specific instruments so obviously on the mark and easily understood that even assessees immediately buy-in, it’s difficult to watch others throw some meaningless crapshoot of a “smoke and mirrors” tool onto a website and pummel advertising at the public held hostage.

The best assessments gain buy-in upon inspection and discussion of scoring outcomes. The HRSAC has validated our proprietary assessments over 26 years working with hundreds of organizations from 10 to 100,000+ employees including global operations. Baselines have been established over these years for job-related criteria across countless demographics and fields. The scored analysis of the job-specific instrument reveals more precisely how behavioral traits would actually manifest themselves in a specific job setting. Probabilities for successful corporate training efforts coincide with these baselines. As interest surveys, personality profiles and integrity questionnaires continue to move out of utilization, job-predictive assessments continue to move in. Reputable assessment instruments come with validity and reliability studies, so don’t hesitate to ask! Sample reports should be proudly presented. Both employer and employee should be convinced. The key to success will be actionable findings, easy to understand with trust that ratings are accurate, job-related and meaningful in career-oriented decisions without bias. If your assessment doesn’t meet all the goals described herein, you haven’t found the right tools. Contact HRS… we’ve got them!

Staying Up in a Down Economy

Sun, 24 May 2009 21:42:00 GMT

With all of the negative media and statistics out there, it’s become more and more difficult to rise above and find the good. When negative information is flying at us via internet, e-mail, television and radio – motivation can quickly dwindle. So how do we lift our team’s spirits and powerfully press on? Find the good, create the good, be the good!

We all know negative energy radiates and quickly creates potential for a domino effect to all those exposed. The same holds true for positive energy and uplifting motivation. Now is the time, maybe more than ever, to find team building opportunities and the “silver lining” in all possible.

Find a cause that’s important and get your team excited about making a difference! It’s typically the result that those who volunteer their time and resources determine that as much or more of a positive difference has been made in their own lives as those they’ve helped.

To help your team find, create, and be the difference in the lives of others as well as their own is certainly one of the most amazing benefits a company can provide!

Article contributed by Jodi Rasmussen, SPHR
HRS Assistant Director of Professional Service Operations

Three Steps That Will Control Health Care Costs

Sat, 02 May 2009 03:21:00 GMT

We have the tools to effectively control excessive health care costs and improve the quality of health care. In order to address the damaging impact of these costs it is necessary that we understand the underlying cause of the problem and implement three fundamental changes. The goal is to have health care services of acceptable quality, reasonably priced and available to our citizens.

Where We Are...

Health care costs are one of the largest expenses of many families. In the past few years they have risen to represent the largest source of personal bankruptcy.

For corporations the cost of health benefit plans typically represent the second or third largest expense after payroll and raw materials. Today GM, Ford and Chrysler would not be facing potential bankruptcy if they did not have to sustain health benefits for employees and retirees.

For local, state and federal governments these expenses are forcing the increase in taxes and limitation of other services.

In all cases these expenses represent the most inflationary expense typically increasing from 8% to 15% or more. They are several times the increased cost of other goods and services.

Why The Problem...

Volumes have been written in an attempt to identify the reasons for health care cost increases. Technology, malpractice insurance expenses, defensive medicine, aging population, administrative inefficiencies, the uninsured, insurance company greed and a medical arms race among integrated health systems have all be advanced as the culprits. These are all symptoms of a deeper and more pervasive underlying situation.

At the core of our health care cost dilemma is an economically dysfunctional system. This system has evolved as a byproduct of employer based health benefit plans and government social programs. These two systems today represent about 95% of health care purchases in the United States. They have resulted in a system where those who need the service are different from those who order the service and both of these groups are different from those who pay the majority of the bill. Each of these groups has different needs and incentives which results in a dysfunctional system.

Let me present an example. Discretionary cosmetic surgery is typically not covered by benefit plans. The doctor presents the services, the risks and the cost, "That nose job will be $5,000." All services, surgeon, assistant surgeon, anesthesiologist, pathologist, lab work, facility cost, pre-surgery care and post-surgery care are included in one "Global" fee. The patient makes the final decision to have the surgery and pays the bill.

This is a normal customer – provider relationship. The patient can compare costs and through references obtain quality information.

If a health benefit plan is involved, a dramatically different presentation occurs. The patient may elect to have the surgery and select the surgeon but the other components are independent and are factored in as the system requires. Each will result in a separate charge which may be aggregated or submitted separately. The patient and the patient’s insurance will not know the cost of the service until the end of the day when all the bills have been submitted. This system has been driven by the nature of the health insurance contract where each component of health care is treated separately.

This is similar to the difference between buying a dinner and purchasing each component of the dinner separately. With the latter the steak is one charge, the potato another, the peas are a third and determined by how many peas you want, if you want a plate… that is additional, as are the knife and fork. The napkin is considered unnecessary and will not be covered by insurance.

Add to this confusing system two other elements. First, each service is subject to a discount which will most likely vary between insurance company, PPO, HMO and government contracts. A service may have a 60% discount from billed charges for Medicare, a 50% discount for one HMO and a 40% discount for a PPO. Even patients without insurance get a discount. No one pays billed charges anymore.

Second, the price of a single service will vary widely from provider to provider. In 1984 prior to the Medicare program moving from cost plus 5% to Diagnostic Related Groups (DRG), the price variance was about 10% in a given metropolitan area. Today, of the top 38 hospital procedures the variance is at least 100% and can reach 400%. A $2,000 service at one hospital will cost $8,000 at another.

What Can Be Done...

There is no other industry in the world where a dysfunctional system of this magnitude occurs. No individual, corporation, industry group, consumer group or government can effectively address this problem. Changing the underlying economic model, however, will result in a thousand responses by the market that will effectively address the problem.

For this to occur, three steps must be taken.

1. Health care costs must be made transparent. In order to not violate private confidential contracts between the health care provider and the payer, an initial report of the average revenue received by a hospital for the top 20 procedures will identify those hospitals that are doing a good job of controlling costs and those that are abusing the system.

2. Where possible, services should be offered on a "dinner" basis. These "Global" fees can be developed for about 85% of the services American’s purchase annually. Their development will encourage the medical community to improve efficiencies and develop mechanisms to report on quality.

3. Insurance plans (both through insurance companies and self-insured) and government plans like Medicare can then be modified to embrace the Global fees. This will result in greater cost control and more efficient payment systems (pay one Global fee instead of 12 smaller bills).

These three actions will change the economic foundation on which we as a society provide and purchase health care services. Costs will be contained and reduced and quality will be emphasized. If quality care is more affordable it will also be easier for various programs to provide care in more challenging inner city and rural areas.

The first step is for state and federal governments or corporations through existing contractual relationships to require average price disclosure (net of all discounts) by each hospital.

This article was contributed by Richard L. Blomquist, Esteemed Member of the HRS Client Advisory Team
Mr. Blomquist's Bio and Contact Info

Team Motivation Principles: Debunk the Crazy Propaganda that All CEOs are Greedy!

Sat, 02 May 2009 20:22:00 GMT

With a small percentage of “hired gun” CEOs being called out for ridiculous greed… and flaunting it, our legislative and media communities are creating a dangerous misperception which threatens not only the immediate workplace but also the US’s global position. Simply stated, so many CEOs are not greedy, and these are the people who can really impact the economy. So, why do we rake them over the coals? Having devoted my career to advocating sharing wealth among team members… proportionate to results contribution… I see how wrongful mistrust of the right CEOs negatively impacts workplace results.

This ivory tower perception of “me against you” in the employee-employer relationship tears down employee confidence and teamwork necessary for corporate bottom-line success. While we all know, “if it bleeds, it leads” in the press, this concept sells publications only because people buy in to this concept. Blame the media all you want (and I can be heard griping often), the media sells only what the public buys.

Successful corporations are those that have endured hardship, challenge and downturn. Discussing the resilience of corporate leadership can lead to positive outcomes. Without discussing concepts the employee isn’t qualified to process, keep it audience adaptive. Frame these discussions to build confidence, and don’t present them in a manner which presents weakness or creates fear. We know overcoming adversity depicts strength while dwelling upon and empowering the obstacles depicts weakness. The target is not to whine.

The problem is that most people are not the risk takers of entrepreneurism, so if we divulge hardship to those while we’re in it, they may become fearful to buy in and contribute when needed to do so. There’s nothing wrong with being more conservative here, so we don’t wish to lose the engagement of this audience. Risk takers “suck it up” and keep their sacrifices private. When they don’t take a paycheck, when they mortgage their home to pay employees, and when they make lifestyle choices which sacrificed personal or social time, it’s typically not visible. Later on, the Mercedes-Benz is visible and some people complain of greed. Those who complain are those who didn’t make the same sacrifices and don’t get it.

Many CEOs are not "silver spooners." The plain truth is that most Americans have opportunity to be CEOs themselves and they choose not to. They choose against the start-up risk, they choose the bar over the office or maybe they have family needs needs which become rightfully prioritized. To choose not to be a CEO is not wrong. Personally, I find the “pillow test” the ultimate test of success. If you’re comfortable with what you did that day when your head hits the pillow, you are successful. Yet, while emerging CEOs are choosing work over party time, the bars are filled with people complaining about their bosses. Backstories are emerging right now, illustrating the personal sacrifices made by some of the great US CEOs who have created jobs, shown philanthropy and endured hardship which benefits us all. Let’s not lump these good people in with the greedy few.

There are some amazingly great employees out there! It can be just as difficult to take direction as it is to give it, especially from some of the bad bosses out there. Amazing employees will probably never realize the benefits of the new COBRA subsidy, as they will probably never see “involuntary termination.” In most reasonable estimations, over time less than 1% of corporate downsize decisions are not directly attributed to employee poor performance. Most downsize decisions are selective. Employees do have a choice. Absent union protection of service length vs. merit or bad management, top performers typically keep their jobs. In many cases, better employee performance would have saved the company that need to downsize. That being said, we hold this to be true: it is the supervisor’s direct responsibility to ensure the right people are doing the right things. It’s not a blame-shifting game. Everyone has a role.

Right now we’re living in a country that penalizes those who create jobs and rewards those who are terminated for cause. Many believe we live with an administration that seeks to deny free choice under the disguise of the Employee Free Choice Act. Surely this is no way to compete. Keep this discussion on the table without creating destructive conflict. There are facts to be shared and teamwork to be built. Clearly, government and media are tearing down this important sense of capitalism. CEOs and organizational development leaders must counteract with the right amount of information needed to restore faith in organizational alignment. Chances are, the employees who don’t currently buy in are not reading this, so they need to hear it from you!

"What Happens in Vegas..." is No Way to Run a Business

Sun, 24 May 2009 20:54:00 GMT

Although this is a legal minefield, when employees know their bad or good acts won’t follow them, they become de-motivated on the job. An employer who wants the best of employees knows this and reinforces accountability through both seeking and providing employment references.

Especially now where we are providing incentive for employees to be terminated in order to collect COBRA subsidies they can’t get through resignation, we need to protect both our immediate workplaces and our ability to compete globally as a nation. If we take the approach “What happens in Vegas…” with our employees, there is too little motivation for them to give us their best.

So many employers have a “right to privacy” extend to employment references, even when laws clearly protect the employer when information is factual, non-subjective, and used in no discriminatory or otherwise unlawful manner. It is essential to work with legal counsel and/or expert third party background investigators to make the most of this initiative. Employers need to train managers at all level in legal compliance and rely upon HR as a gateway. Failure to do so can result in legal consequences. When seeking references, professional third parties can be far more effective, as the employer can trust information will be used within full legal compliance. Sure, there are questions you shouldn’t ask, but the information gained by asking the questions you can is so valuable, it’s irresponsible not to.

Until the over-used, and quite frankly abused, right to privacy acts among employers, employees worked with the incentive to avoid “burning bridges” and leave “on good terms” with hopefully a recommendation. We’ve de-motivated our workforce by the wrongful thinking that references shouldn’t be given or sought. While providing a written letter of recommendation is ill-advised for many legal and practical reasons, a legally compliant initiative of verbal communication is highly advised. Leading a successful company offering reference checking partnership, I guarantee the effort is fruitful.

Contact your attorney or expert third party provider to ensure your employees are worth your employment offer and accountable while in your employ! HRS would love to assist!