Posts by :
- Start a performance review program by sitting down with each employee once a year and reviewing the job description to discuss changes, perceptions of the job and expectations, all the while keeping the discussion focused on the job.
- Then establish goals for the coming year that reflect priorities for the organization. Set timelines, and target dates to report on progress.
- Finally, keep a record of summary comments by supervisor and employee about the outcome of the interview.
- Develop internal mentoring relationships to promote informal coaching and feedback.
- If possible, provide formal coaching by an external person to help supervisors follow a more structured development plan.
- Provide an outlet for employees to report problems with supervisors (this is where a good HR person is vital).
- Focus on leadership coaching; start at the top and make sure your leaders have what they need to lead in these times. Assess competencies and give them strategies to build on their strengths, give them follow up with a coach or mentor, teach them the skills to coach others.
- Embark on process improvement to keep employees engaged and actively involved in contributing to positive changes in the work environment. Give them a task/challenge that is urgent and important, ask them what they think is important about the work, what they would do differently and let them participate in setting goals and measuring progress around budget, quality, timeliness and customer service.
- Recognize the need for encouragement and support; this is the time to reach out and build bridges and mend fences. Make a special effort to reach across the divide where acrimonious relationships have taken hold. Now is the time to think about bringing in motivational speakers or adopting wellness programs. One innovative program I recently learned about is mPRW10 which helps employees develop healthy habits with a 10 minute a day program.
Early Salary Budget Increase Forecasts
July 12th, 2010Hay has provided early salary budget increases. The average has nudged up from 2.6% in 2010 to a projected average increase of 2.9% Salary structure increases are projected at an average of 2.3% View the summary and more information about merit increases at Hay Group.
Moments like these…the World Cup
June 18th, 2010
Today the U.S. emerged from its 2nd game in the World Cup Championship with a 2-2 tie against Slovenia. While this is not a bad showing, no one is likely to soon forget the spectacular goal made by the U.S. near the end of the game, which was never counted because a referee called a foul against the U.S. when by all accounts it appeared as if a U.S. player had been fouled and a penalty kick should have been awarded.
It is moments like these that test leaders and champions. When the stakes are high and the subjective nature of referee calls introduce a level of uncertainty, players and coaches must keep both focus and intensity. While we, the viewers, bemoan the unfairness of it all, champions understand that this is part of the game and play on.
Rafael Nadal, the Spaniard who won the French Open recently, spoke in an interview about how he developed his professional demeanor during big matches. He said he once had an uncle who purposely introduced every kind of injustice into his practices, to test his tolerance, endurance and focus through all types of trials, whether just or unjust. While unconventional, the tactic made sense in a real world context.
Today, both coaches, Matjaz Kek of Slovenia, and Bob Bradley of the U.S., exhibited contained excitement when their teams scored and reserved aplomb when the calls went the other way. They appeared to be more concerned about what they were going to do next. Therein is a grain of wisdom we can embrace for our leadership strategies as well as our own personal development. In order to rise to the heights of our potential, we must accept uncertainties we cannot predict and rather than waste energy fighting perceived injustices, we can call up the champion in us, keep our eye on the horizon and play on.
In memory of my father who taught me all I know about playing on through adversity. This Father’s Day, may we remember great fathers everywhere; those who are here with us, as well as those who have gone but remain with us in spirit and those we hold in our hearts as father; may their light keep on shining brightly in our life.
How many HR Staff should you have?
June 10th, 2010The Institute for Corporate Productivity has recently published study findings which include an interactive graph that reveal the current benchmark for full time staff dedicated to human resources based on size of the organization and whether the organization is measured as a “high” performing organization or a “low” performing organization. Overall, the data reveals that 1.97 FTE are dedicated to HR for every 100 employees in high performing organizations while it is only slightly lower for low performing organizations. However, the difference between “high” and “low” is much greater when the results are narrowed down to specific sectors.
For example, if you are a non-commercial employer (this category includes public sector) in the US with less than 100 employees and measure yourself as a “high” performing organization, you report on average 1.08 full time HR employees. However, if measure yourself as a “low” performer, you report an average of 5.56 employees for the same size organization!
Contrast this with organizations with between 100 and 1000 employees; high performing organizations report on average 2.51 FTEs dedicated to HR for every 100 employees and low performing report on average 1.74 FTEs for every 100 employees.
Even larger organizations, with more than 1000 and up to 10,000 employees, show a leaner number and smaller gap. They report on average 1.24 FTEs in HR for every 100 employees in high performing organizations and 1.38 FTEs in low performing organizations.
How do we interpret this data? First of all, the category of less than 100 employees does not contain enough data points be valid, and undoubtedly contains an outlier or two, but even as anecdotal information, it points out that the HR function must be performed in every organization, regardless of size, and the scope of concerns which must be addressed may create inefficiencies. Therefore, organizations that report 0-1 dedicated staff likely outsource at least some of the HR function and those that report upwards of 5 or more are doing it all without sufficient resources and skill. The streamlined effect occurs when the organization is much larger and perhaps (we might speculate) dedicates more resources, i.e., technology and professional staff, to improving efficiencies.
How much is education and experience worth?
June 10th, 2010
Photo by Rundstedt B. Rovillo
How Much is Education and Experience Worth?
Clients often express a desire to pay for exceptional education and experience and want a policy to support this approach. But the caveat is usually that this wish is only for some, but not all, jobs. What to do?
The answer may depend on whether the organization emphasizes external worth (as measured by the market) or internal worth (as measured by job evaluation).
A market approach relies on the dynamics of the market to determine whether pay should be accelerated or decelerated to keep pace with the value of experience and education. Due to the availability of sophisticated pay databases, an employer may target a market level, e.g., five years of experience, and pay all job incumbents in a similar range, or allow for pay adjustments based on individual measures of education and experience. (The latter would be typical in a highly competitive market.)
But most organizations rely on a combined approach and build a pay structure that reflects external and internal factors, such as job evaluation. When jobs are evaluated internally, required education and experience is typically acknowledged in the system and a new hire is paid a rate that is in part, based on that internal valuation. Pay, from that point forward, is based on a combination of factors related to performance, market, and yes, another year in the job. The point is, most employers who use the combined approach do not examine pay through the lens of education and experience after hire.
However, the truth is, not all jobs need to be treated equally. Employers can determine which jobs need to be paid for exceptional education and experience. It is a matter of determining which jobs fall in a highly volatile or otherwise tight market. Look at your recruitment and exit data and job availability and turnover data by industry (see resources below). Another reason to pay differentially is the difficulty in recruiting to a particular geographic location. Some job skills may be readily available in the areas, others may not. There are, in fact, a number of reasons that constitute a sound basis for policy exception. But whatever the reason, it is important to rely on good documentation of the reasons why the jobs are different, as well as the market data on which decisions are supported.
By the way, two here are excellent sites (free) to explore if you are valuing jobs using the market or job evaluation. You will find detailed job analysis for many jobs as well as market information.
BLS Wages by Area and Occupation
Call me if you have questions or need assistance.
Performance Reviews and Workplace Stress
May 21st, 2010
Performance Reviews and Workplace Stress
The NY Times Health section recently reported on workplace studies that show the negative health effects of stress at work and in particular, cited performance reviews as a cause. Although performance reviews are necessary to separate the high performers from the low performers and provide adequate documentation, most of us also acknowledge the difficulty in delivering effective feedback and even those of us who agree they are necessary, cringe at the thought of giving reviews.
So is anyone surprised at the link between performance reviews and workplace stress? In fact, this finding relates to a much broader area of research which links high stress levels, low productivity, low engagement and low morale, to one major factor: the relationship with and/or perceived competence of the front line supervisor. The Conference Board research cited in this article is only one among many studies showing that employee satisfaction is greatly impacted by the quality of managers.
Two important lessons can be taken from these findings: In brief, there is no one-size-fits-all and a performance review system does not need to be overwrought. Oftentimes I consult with organizations that do not have the will or the means to develop a system that integrates performance with competencies, pay or organization-wide goals. In such cases, I stress the following:
This type of review process steers away from judging attributes or personal characteristics which often give rise to the perceptions of unfairness, especially where trust is in question. Rely on a well drafted personnel policy with a discipline policy to address problems that disrupt business and relationships at the workplace.
The second important lesson is that while after years of research, we now know that leaders with emotional competence (“people persons”) create less toxic, less stressful workplaces. What is becoming more evident in the research is the stronger link between first line supervisors and stress. So we need to think more about assessing people skills in lower level supervisory positions as well as assessing and coaching in this area. Some specific suggestions include:
Good relationships lend themselves to productive feedback. So leaders who hire can, and should, place a premium on people skills. Also, use performance reviews sparingly and consider all the various ways to deliver feedback. The main idea is to communicate what is important in the job, both short term and long term. So, conduct mini-reviews everyday on yourself and your staff and then ask yourself, “what important conversations do I need to have today?”
OTHER NEWS AND UPDATES OF INTEREST
Save the Workplace and Fire Bad Supervisors and Managers This blog post continues the discussion on supervisors and performance evaluation.
Another piece that compliments today’s topic: How to spot a liar and why it might be harder if he’s the boss.
Be aware! One of the proposed amendments by the DOL for the Fair Labor Standards Act is that all employees will be considered non-exempt unless proven exempt. In order to “prove” exemption, the employer will need to show that a position has been analyzed, that the job incumbent has reviewed the analysis and that the analysis is kept as a record for review by wage and hour in the event of an investigation.
Did you know? Employees harassed by Third-Parties: Male Prisoners Harassing Female Correctional Employees In this case, the employer was responsible under Title VII for harassment.
Inability to get along with co-workers can be sufficient basis for adverse employment action – from Employment Law Matters – note that this case highlights the importance of good documentation.
Are you in a Transactional Relationship?
April 19th, 2010
Various theories in psychology suggest that we make choices in life based on the perceived cost/benefit ratio of a particular situation and this is true of our relationships, whether at home or at work. Is this relationship costing me more than I are getting back, emotionally, physically, or financially? Is it reciprocal? Am I getting back what I am putting in?
Of course we usually don’t think about this in an intentional way, but if we were to take a time out and examine our life relationships, it is the exact route we would take.
According to motivation theory, we are constantly adjusting our behaviors based on our calculation of a cost/benefit ratio, and a fixed reference point that determines how we rate our current lot. We may compare ourselves with others who are similarly situated, or we may choose to compare ourselves with others in a much different realm. (Why we would do the latter has to do with other interesting psychological factors!)
So, transactional relationships refer to this baseline rate of exchange which is ongoing as we negotiate life turns and make choices based on cost/benefit ratios. But in some cases, and for reasons that are important to consider, we begin to think less about the transaction, and more about ways in which the relationship represents an aspect of who we are, the way we think and how it serves to fulfill a deeper sense of self.
Whether it is a car that we purchased that now represents our frugal, earth-friendly selves, or the company we joined that puts resources behind us and gives flight to our ideas, or the friend that overlooks our missteps, even when we lose our heads, we make life choices that move us beyond the transactional mode. Once we cross over into an “engaged” mode, we do more than transact, we invest. We bank our resources with someone or something because of a feeling or belief that is intangible but affirming just as if it was tangible.
The crux of the matter is why do we cross over from a transactional to a more engaged mode? Recently I gave a talk on employee engagement in the workplace, and for this reason I have been thinking about the meaning of the term. It seems to me that while we may debate and discuss the definition of employee engagement, what really matters is what employees tell us! What, in fact, engages them? And while there are some common denominators among organizations, no doubt, more important are the responses that point to what is distinct and unique. Only by intentionally asking, listening and doing, will an understanding of engagement emerge within a particular culture.
No doubt we are always in transactional relationships somewhere in our lives, but if we want to become more engaged, we might begin to think intentionally about allows us to be ourselves more fully and leads us to a deeper sense of living.
Coaching Toward Competencies
March 29th, 2010David McClelland’s early work in competency development led to large scale efforts in the 1990’s toward developing competency models for various employee groups. I was a part of that movement and worked with a number of organizations to develop competency models from the ground up to energize and engage employees around what is most critical for success. One of the underlying premises of competency modeling can be found in the now accepted adage that identifies the problem: we hire based on qualifications, we fire based on competencies.
A person may have knowledge, aptitude and skill, but successful job performance requires a much broader range of characteristics, motives, traits and other aspects of self that are brought to bear in a job. The movement brought about many changes in the field of HR as professionals learned how to investigate what a person actually does rather than what they look like on paper or would do “hypothetically”. Organization development professionals developed organic models to help organizations uncover what distinguished successful performance for that particular organization.
Today, competency modeling lends itself well to the field of management and leadership coaching. As organizations are faced with the need to re-direct resources and change course, leaders must be the key to guiding change. Middle managers are challenged with keeping employees engaged and positive in the workplace and must possess the necessary competencies to manage up as well as to manage down during this time of unprecedented change.
So, a focus on coaching is relevant and important today, and the added dimension of competency development will provide vital links between personal strengths and organization goals. Here is a brief overview of the particular way in which I have brought coaching and competency development together. I am excited by the possibilities and look forward to learning what other ideas are out there.
Create an individual competency profile
To begin the process, I use an assessment tool that is quick, easy to understand, and allows the employee to select competencies that are best self descriptors. The self profile does not provide a complete picture, but by all accounts in research, it is more reliable than observer profiles. It also reduces resistance that one ordinarily encounters when a supervisor or manager provides the sole source of data.
Provide coaching feedback
A coach will typically be given enough information to understand basic areas of development that are mutually understood to be a priority. With a profile in hand, the coach can now begin to dialogue around competencies with the client using descriptors which are defined and lend themselves to shared understanding. The initial coaching session is ordinarily about gathering information from the client about what “fits” in the profile, and what does “not fit”.
The same skills used in developing competency models can be applied over time with clients to build an understanding of how they actually behave in various situations and then looked at through the lens of the initial profile. Eventually, additional feedback from other sources helps to shape a more realistic profile and deeper understanding of when a client might operate with a new set of competencies, and when he or she might have a tendency to fall back to a “default mode” of behavior.
Development of personal strategies
As soon as the client has a good understanding of how his or her actual behavior falls on the competency scales, and most importantly, the coach has gathered enough information to know which competencies are most critical for success for the client, the next step is to develop personal strategies. I like to remind clients that this is about expanding one’s professional repertoire and also bringing success strategies from life outside work, inside the workplace. When a client talks about the exhilaration and confidence he feels while coaching his son’s softball team, I get him to talk about what he does to make the experience successful and challenge him to turn this into a strategy he can employ at work. I encourage clients to experiment, and remind them it is like action science, we test and measure as we go.
I have only scratched the surface here, but hope to generate more posts in the future about the ways in which coaching can bring great new rewards to your workplace, and with relatively modest investments.
You can find out more information about my approach here.
Leadership in Down Times
March 29th, 2010Not that it makes us feel any better, but according to the Towers Watson 2010 Global Workforce Study, we in the U.S. are not the only ones to be faced with an anxious, stressed out workforce. According to the study findings, “From the global recession, to financial defaults, to changes in business models, both employers and employees are being forced to revisit some fundamental assumptions about their implicit and explicit ‘compact’ with one another.”
More than ever, events happening outside the workplace, such as financial woes and job losses for other family members, are impacting life inside the workplace. We do not need to look far in the world around us to see how fear translates into anger, withdrawal and mistrust. Our workplaces are easy targets for misplaced fears and as a result leaders have an even greater challenge in getting people focused on organization goals.
Three Key strategies that you can employ now …
The Towers Watson Study offers the firm’s insights about the unfolding employment relationship in this new age. The study cites the need for organizations to foster self-reliance in employees, align people’s work with what really matters to allow them to contribute more value, and strengthen agility and flexibility in structures, processes and styles of work.
But the bottom-line is that employees first need to experience a readiness to change and an awareness of why change is necessary. When they see the importance and the urgency, as well as a willing leader, they will be more likely to take the necessary steps.
We too can beat the odds!
March 10th, 2010
If the current state of our workforce is an indicator of how well equipped we are to respond to the difficult challenges of an economic downturn, then, we have some work to do.
The Conference Board recently reported that U.S. job satisfaction is at its lowest level since they began tracking two decades ago[i]. Talent Management magazine[ii] reports that research generally finds that 75 percent of employees in organizations are not engaged in their jobs, and of this group, some 15 to 20 percent are “so disconnected they work against the organization’s interests.” And this state of affairs is not confined to any particular group. According to TM, Research by Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries at INSEAD finds this disconnect in the executive suites as well.
And we are talking about people who actually have jobs!
We know we are in trouble, but are we aware of how our management model impacts the ability of the organization to regroup, rebound and reconnect people to the core mission?
Yesterday I participated in a webinar sponsored by Orgdyne (www.orgdyne.com) and led by Dean Robb, PhD, of the Center for Corporate Renewal[iii]. The topic was organization renewal, or the way in which organizations can continue to build and renew through periods of difficult challenges. One of the key points of the presentation delineated the differences between linear and the cyclical models of growth which impacts the way management responds to challenges from the environment.
In a linear model, management envisions a straight path of growth. The model supports “capturing” and institutionalizing what works. As the organization matures the focus shifts to preserving structures and processes to support a steady path forward. Unfortunately, this mental model is not only unrealistic, but has many hidden traps, one of which is that any deviations from this straight path caused by difficult challenges are viewed as threats and the typical management response is to hunker down and “protect the castle”.
The cyclical model differs in that the path forward looks more like a series of loops that move the organization back and forth between performance plateaus and adaptive periods where performance dips to re-adjust and re-organize structures and processes to meet shifting demands. It resembles the natural flow of life where we encounter mini cycles of birth, death and rebirth in marriage, jobs and family relationships. We have our peaks, but also valleys in which, ideally, we discern the way forward.
You will know if your organization is working from a linear model because you will feel the tension from the “survivor” or “defender” mode. As Dr. Robb says, the castle defends its position, erects walls, and this has the effect of disconnecting the organization from the challenges it must face. People are less engaged and connected when they are required to “freeze” their creative, innovative side to conform to a rigid structure imposed on them. Think of the strategy the Chinese used when fighting Ghenghis Khan. Rather than adapt new strategies to overcome a mighty foe, they were forced to build bigger and bigger walls and moats and each time Ghenghis cleverly found ways to penetrate them.
If your organization is working from a cyclical model, you will notice a sense of urgency and focus around task and purpose in order to spur the community to innovate, pull together, and give one’s best to navigate out of the woods. People are more engaged and connected because they are part of a community around which processes and structure are built. Think of the classic movie Zulu, the account of the 1879 Battle of Rorke’s Drift, when 3000 Zulu descend on 119 Englishmen. Not only does every person in the community give his best, innovate and rise to meet the challenge, the final respect shown by the Zulus to the victorious English, as illustrated in the movie, confirms the wisdom of innovating and imagining new possibilities, instead of giving up. It also shines light on the courage and character of those who respect their enemy even in the face of defeat.
Whether it is our personal spheres, or our work spheres, once we identify the ways in which we impose linear models on our organizations, how do we begin to work from a more cyclical model? ln the coming days, I will be writing about some of my experiences with using group process and management coaching to shift organization thinking. Supporting strategies include the development of competency models to expand personal repertoires, employee engagement tools to create feedback, and process improvement tools to connect people to their work.
I am most interested to hear what works for others and hope we can learn from one another.
[i] U.S. Job Satisfaction at Lowest Level in Two Decades, Press Release/News, The Conference Board, www.conference-bard.org January 2010
[ii] The Science of Engagement, Talent Management Magazine, February 2010, www.talentmgt.com
[iii] CtrForCorporateRenewal.com
DOJ, Title VII and Relationships
February 16th, 2010In my recent newsletter I reported that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice issued a report to a House Subcommittee on December 3, 2009 outlining a number of efforts to renew enforcement efforts in the area of Title VII and Disability Rights. Here are two excerpts from that report that have particular relevance to public sector. I will continue to follow the reports and activities from this department and keep you informed.
Title VII
Restoring vigorous enforcement of Title VII, including pattern and practice cases, is one of our highest priorities. Since January 20th, we have filed three Title VII pattern or practice suits, obtained settlements in five pattern or practice cases that provided significant prospective and remedial relief, and opened ten full pattern or practice investigations of State and local governmental employers with respect to employment opportunities for African Americans, Latinos and women. Also, in July, we obtained a highly significant victory in U.S. v. City of New York, NY, when the district court granted summary judgment for the United States and plaintiffs-intervenors on the issue of liability. In the City of New York case, we challenged the city’s use of two written examinations for entry-level firefighters as having unlawful disparate impact on African Americans and Latinos. In the relief phase, we are seeking, among other things, priority hiring and monetary relief for nearly 300 African-American and Hispanic victims of the challenged examinations.
Disability Rights
The Division’s Disability Rights Section has been conducting a wide range of enforcement activities, including its Project Civic Access to increase compliance by State and local governments with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The Project sends investigators, architects and attorneys to conduct on-site reviews of State and local government facilities. These reviews have resulted in agreements reached with the State and local government entities to address compliance issues by rectifying access issues at a wide range of facilities, including administrative buildings, courthouses, police and fire stations and jails, transportation facilities, parks and recreation facilities, libraries, museums, polling places, and emergency and domestic violence shelters.
From, a sub-committee report by the Department of Justice “THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE”PRESENTED DECEMBER 3, 2009
Timken Company Sued by EEOC for Disability and Sex Discrimination
On another but related front, the EEOC has recently decided to file a lawsuit against Timken, a global manufacturer, for discrimination against a woman with a disabled child. This is a reminder to all that complaints may be filed because of a person’s association with a disabled person.
In the press release issued by the EEOC, Tina Burnside, supervisory trial attorney in the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office stated:
Under the ADA and Title VII, employers cannot make employment decisions based on stereotypical assumptions that a female employee with a disabled child would have to miss work or could not perform the job because the employee provides care for a disabled person.
The take home lesson here is to the same as always, develop job descriptions and clear hiring standards, be consistent and objective in your selection practices. Steer clear of questions that invite disclosure of information that is irrelevant to performance of the job. If a candidate offers information without prompting, do not tarry, but re-focus the discussion on job-related matters.
POLICY ON RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE
Organizations vary in the way they set policy around dating relationships dependent upon the size of the organization and the design of the work. However, for most employers, especially smaller size organizations, this is an important issue that is frequently overlooked in personnel policies. One potential problem is the relationship gone bad scenario which results in lingering resentments which lead to more insidious workplace problems, not least of which is the potential for harassment complaints. Another serious issue is the fall-out from two people who marry and continue working together which is not only bad for department morale but sets the stage for a whole host of conflicts within reporting structures.
Recently, I helped a client arrive at a policy that was minimal in nature, but sufficient to address the most serious aspects of this issue. Here is what we came up with:
Romantic relationships between employees in the same work unit, while not prohibited, may not interfere with the department business, and employees will be disciplined for any disruption to the workplace caused as a result of the relationship. Furthermore, if two employees enter into marriage, subsequent to being employed in the same work unit, one of the persons affected must give up his or her position no later than 6 months from the date of their announced engagement. Within 30 days after the employees announce their intentions to marry, both employees must inform (in writing) the manager to whom the unit in which he or she is employed reports that they intend to marry and must state which of the affected persons will relinquish his or her position. Should the written notification fail to specify which of the affected persons will give up his or her position, it will be assumed that the party with the least seniority (length of continuous service from the last date of hire) will relinquish his or her position. The person giving up his or her position may be re-employed in another department, subject to the needs of organization.
Any thoughts on this from your neck of the woods?
Twitter