Andie Burjek – Page 24

December 19, 2018June 29, 2023

Use Pay Equity to Attract Top Talent

With unemployment at a near 50-year low and job switching on the rise, employers are struggling to attract and retain the skilled talent they need. From increasing wages, to offering better benefits and workplace perks, employers are pulling out all the stops to lure talent. With that in mind, reviewing pay practices for gender pay equity — an issue that is very important to today’s workers — could also offer a potential competitive advantage in attracting and retaining top talent.

We recently issued a new report at the ADP Research Institute, or ADPRI, titled “Rethinking Gender Pay Inequity in a More Transparent World,” to give more insight into what key factors contribute to the gender wage gap in the United States today. The study analyzed data over a six-year period, tracking 11,000 employees between 2010 and 2016, and looked at fluctuations in annual salary and incentive pay during that time. One key finding was that lower negotiated incentive pay — such as annual bonuses — at time of hire might become a limiting factor that prevents career advancement down the road. This new data tells us that the gender pay gap is actually wider than we thought because women are not receiving the same bonus-to-base ratio as their male counterparts.

Also read: 3 Steps for HR to Achieve Pay Equity

HR managers can use findings from this study as a benchmark to compare where their company stands in order to determine where changes may need to be made. Some of the report’s key findings include:

Women, on average, earn a 17 percent ($15,000) lower salary than men. However, when factoring in the gender pay gap for bonus pay (69 percent), the total earnings pay gap widens to 19 percent ($18,500).
Women ages 20 to 30 with a low starting salary had near equal base salary of men; however, the gap worsened for females after six years. Additionally, when a bonus is factored in, young women fared the worst with a 21 percent less bonus-to-base ratio compared to their male counterparts.
Women ages 40 to 50 started their careers with almost no base salary gap for all categorized income groups. The discrepancy was with incentive pay, especially with the lower income group. In the $40,000 to $60,000 income range, female workers received an average bonus of 8.5 percent, whereas men received 11.4 percent — a gap of 74 percent.
Women in the information industry make 7 percent more in bonus-to-base ratio than men, which reduced their overall gap in total earnings. In contrast, women in the finance and real estate industries are earning 21 percent less in their bonus-to-base ratio compared to men. These industries have the largest pay gap for women with and without incentive pay.
The average bonus amount for women was less than two-thirds the amount paid to men who had equivalent base pay, age and time with the company. This incentive pay disparity was observed across all age, salary and industry groups from the moment of hire and persisted throughout the six-year study window.

Consider Candidates Across All Age Groups

Finding skilled talent today is very challenging, which makes it critical for employers to look across all demographics to secure the talent they need.

pay equity attract talent — The gender pay gap is actually wider than we thought because women are not receiving the same bonus-to-base ratio as their male counterparts, according to new ADP data.

In fact, when categorizing workers by age and gender, the study revealed something very important about men, women and new-hire attrition. From time to time, pundits have suggested that women are paid less than men because they are more likely to leave work to serve as the primary caregivers to children. Across the entire data sample, however, there is minimal evidence that women were more likely than men across any age group to quit work. After six years, only 11 percent of both men and women who were hired into exempt positions were still with their same employers — an overall average attrition rate of 15 percent annually.

It is clear that quit rates by gender are not an explanation for why men are more likely to be hired into higher-paying roles. In fact, a better predictor of attrition was not gender, but age. For the younger age group, females are more likely to quit than males. This trend is reversed for the older age group — at 50-plus, women have a greater likelihood of staying with the same job at a rate which is 42 percent higher than their counterparts.

Also read: 5 Ways to Fix the Gender Pay Gap

Be Fair and Inclusive

Fair pay practices are not merely an important “corporate value,” or a tool for managing compliance risk. Rather, creating and communicating about fair pay practices is also a core strategy to develop a vibrant, high-performing, engaged workforce, which can potentially help to stave off the competition in this current labor market. To accomplish this, HR leaders can:

Take a close look at employee total compensation, including both base and incentive pay, to identify any gender pay gaps.
Utilize industry benchmarks as a point of comparison to determine how best to address any issues.
Examine recruiting practices and guidelines given to those in hiring positions to negotiate salary and incentives for new hires.
Properly train managers who are responsible for performance reviews and associated pay increases on equitable pay practices.
Update HR technology to better monitor and analyze total compensation and track against organizational goals for gender pay equity.
Broadly communicate to managers and associates company policies on equitable pay practices to ensure transparency.

In today’s tight labor market, employers are finding it increasingly difficult to attract and retain skilled talent. While wage increases and robust benefits can play a key role in staving off the competition, as the market continues to tighten additional tactics may be necessary.

Also watch: Equal Pay Day Highlights Gender Inequality at Work

Gender pay equity is an issue that many workers today care deeply about. By effectively evaluating pay practices and communicating broadly about organizational goals to shrink the gap, employers can foster deeper engagement with employees and help win in the war for talent.

December 18, 2018June 29, 2023

Key Elements of Complying With State Sexual Harassment Prevention Requirements

Sexual harassment has been a constant topic of discussion in the media, in the workplace and around dinner tables since the rise of the #MeToo movement in late-2017. Employers and employees alike have questioned what this societal shift means for their workplace interactions and responsibilities.

Though the issue remains at the forefront of the news cycle, many alleged sexual harassment incidents aren’t widely known or reported. State legislators are working to change that. More than 30 jurisdictions have introduced more than 100 pieces of legislation in 2018 toward sexual harassment prevention.

One of the first goals of these state mandated sexual harassment prevention policies is general education, making sure everyone is aware that sexual harassment is prohibited and to provide a definition of what it may include. Sexual harassment is a broad but very fact-specific form of discrimination that can include:

Unwanted verbal or physical sexual advances.
Sexually explicit statements.
Sexually oriented gestures, noises, remarks, jokes or comments.
Remarks the recipient feels are offensive or objectionable.
Sexual or discriminatory displays/publications anywhere in the workplace.
Other harassing or hostile conduct that’s directed at recipients because of their sex.

All of the above may be considered examples of sexual harassment. Offering such examples is a significant item in the list of minimum standards New York is requiring of all anti-sexual harassment policies. Policies must also outline federal and state statutory provisions, and include remedies available to victims, procedures for a timely investigation and a complaint form for employees.

Also read: #MeToo — Movement or Moment?

It’s important to note that sexual harassment can be overt (such as inappropriate touching, unwanted sexual advances or telling of crude jokes) or subtle (including interfering with an individual’s ability to perform their job because of their gender). An employee can be sexually harassed by a supervisor, subordinate, employee, intern, independent contractor, temporary or contract worker, vendor, client, visitor or customer.

Another key principle of much of the anti-sexual harassment legislation introduced this year is training. In New York, for example, all employers must provide annual interactive sexual harassment prevention training for every one of their employees working in the state — including part-time, seasonal and temporary employees. The initial training must be completed by October 9, 2019. The training must be interactive, should be provided in the language the employee speaks, and — according to the guidance — must include the following components:

An explanation of sexual harassment consistent with guidance issued by the Department of Labor in consultation with the Division of Human Rights.
Examples of conduct that would constitute unlawful sexual harassment.
The federal and state statutory provisions concerning sexual harassment and remedies available to victims of sexual harassment.
Employees’ rights of redress and all available forums for adjudicating complaints.
Addressing conduct by supervisors and any additional responsibilities for such supervisors (note that all employees must be trained on this content, not just supervisors).

Though compliance with the new policy and training requirements for sexual harassment prevention can seem daunting, the New York State Department of Labor in consultation with the New York State Division of Human Rights has provided model materials that employers and HR managers can use to comply with the requirements in the state. The potential costs of a sexual harassment complaint against a business can be steep, so it’s in everyone’s best interest to be compliant with sexual harassment prevention training requirements. The typical harassment claim can take nearly 318 days to be settled, according to the 2017 “Hiscox Guide to Employee Lawsuits,” and some estimates place the average legal costs to defend and settle a claim to be upward of $160,000. Not to mention the irreparable damage a sexual harassment claim can have on your company’s reputation and the morale and productivity of the workplace.

Also read: Addressing #MeToo in the Workplace and HR’s Response

In addition to model materials and other guidance that may be provided by enforcing agencies to help employers meet the state’s unique requirements, businesses can also turn to an HR services provider to help them comply with new or existing provisions. State-specific requirements can be both comprehensive and complex. Even the most seasoned HR professional will likely have questions around the specific components of their state-mandated notice, policy and education programs. A reputable HR services provider will have a team of compliance experts on staff to help businesses ensure their policies and practices align with the requirements of their particular state (or states if they operate in multiple locations).

No matter where your organization does business, part of your HR role is to adopt and implement policies and procedures to prevent and address sexual harassment in the workplace. More importantly, promoting an inclusive culture of respect and free from sexual harassment can be essential in maintaining an engaged and productive workforce and even attracting the right talent to the organization.

This content is for educational purposes only, is not intended to provide specific legal advice, and should not be used as a substitute for the legal advice of a qualified attorney in your state. The information in this article may not reflect the most current legal developments, may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up to date.

December 10, 2018June 29, 2023

Help Workers Save for Rainy Days, Not Just Golden Years

There is a savings crisis in America. Eight out of 10 workers are living paycheck to paycheck, and though many employers have started to prioritize financial wellness in recent years, they are doing little to prepare employees for financial emergencies that could end up affecting their performance in the workplace.

While it’s true that a lot of companies offer 401(k)s to help employees save for retirement, they aren’t a feasible option for many U.S. workers, regardless of employer contributions. The Federal Reserve Board’s 2018 “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households” shows that 40 percent of people can’t even afford a $400 emergency, much less afford to set money aside for retirement.

401(k)s have their place in financial wellness, but that place is not savings for events prior to retirement. There are substantial fees associated with withdrawing funds before retirement.

These fees impact a lot of people: 44 percent of Americans report having to tap into their retirement before they hit age 59 and a half for things like grad school, debt reduction and unexpected hospital visits.

There is a 10 percent penalty for early withdrawals. On top of that, employees must also pay income tax on the money they withdraw, making these accounts even less useful for unexpected expenses prior to retirement.

Financial Worry Hurts the Bottom Line

But early withdrawal fees are just one symptom of the larger problem of ongoing financial stress. Last year, nearly 60 percent of people surveyed said they were anxious about their future financial state. And even more concerning, more than 30 percent reported being worried about how they’ll make ends meet in the present.

Also read: What Ails Financial Wellness Plans

This financial stress leads to big problems in the workplace. For example in 2017, financial worry caused employees to miss an average of 3.4 work days, and nearly a third of financially stressed employees say their money concerns carry over into their job, affecting their productivity and focus.

SafetyNet asked thousands of workers what they would like from their companies, and most noted they wanted help saving money, especially for unexpected emergencies. But few employers are offering help when it comes to rainy day savings.

Also read: Assessing the Value of Financial Wellness for Your Employees

Employers Can Help by Offering Short-term Savings Programs

The good news is that improving employees’ financial security is solvable.

Some companies, like Aetna, have started using incentive-based financial programs to educate employees on basic money management. Still, only 17 percent of large companies offer these types of programs and employees want financial tools in addition to education.

Prudential Financial is throwing their hat in the ring by helping employees set up an after-tax savings option within their 401(k)s. This model enables employees to gather after-tax contributions from their paycheck and have a lower withdrawal fee than the pre-tax contributions do, making these funds easier to use as emergency savings if needed.

One option becoming popular for employers is a short-term savings program, which holds funds that people can access at any time.

Different from traditional savings accounts, these programs (sometimes called “rainy day funds”) are typically sponsored by employers. They work by stowing funds in dedicated savings accounts. A few varieties already exist.

CookieJar, for example, is an employer-sponsored savings account that rounds up spare change from employees’ debit card purchases and gives companies the option to match those contributions. This type of program is low-cost — far below those of a 401(k) for the employer, and free to the employee.

And with Congress attempting to make it easier for employers to set up these types of programs, you can expect to see more in the future.

Given the amount of time and energy currently lost to financial stress, these programs could have a major impact on the well-being — and the bottom line — of your company.

December 7, 2018June 29, 2023

How Leaders Can Improve Their Emotional Intelligence

Building a company is hard. But the most successful founders and CEOs have one thing in common. In fact, this characteristic is so important that I have never seen a leader be truly successful without it. That characteristic is emotional intelligence, or EQ.

EQ is the intangible asset that lets a leader be self-aware of his/her own strengths. It’s the characteristic that enables a leader to hire a high-powered team of thinkers and doers. Without this intelligence, leaders hire people who are “smaller” than they are.

As an entrepreneurial adviser and venture capitalist, emotional intelligence is one of the most important things I look for when evaluating promising companies. And I’m not the only one who does this. A study of important workplace skills found that EQ was the strongest predictor of a person’s performance, explaining 58 percent of success in all types of jobs.

If you present your business to me and your story doesn’t touch upon your own growth in some way, or if you attribute your company’s success to no one but yourself, you’ve lost me. It isn’t because such stories are less interesting — it’s because they usually aren’t true. If a CEO or founder believes that he or she alone is responsible for a company’s success, it’s usually an unfortunate sign of a large ego and poor emotional intelligence.

EQ is your ability to understand people, maintain your own self-awareness and work with others. It encompasses skills such as the ability to motivate, emotional awareness, self-control, adaptability, empathy and communication. It has the greatest impact on investor relations, customer success, leadership and company growth — far more than the past success a person has had. Ultimately, EQ is the biggest factor in whether a CEO succeeds or fails.

Also read: The Business Case for Emotional Intelligence

If you’re a CEO or leader looking to grow your business or attract new investors, it’s time to leave your ego at the door and focus on growing your EQ. Here are a few key elements for improving your emotional intelligence:

Self-Awareness Above All Else

When I’m evaluating a company’s CEO, that person’s emotional awareness is just as important as his or her business acumen. If owners don’t focus on the personal lessons learned from past companies, they aren’t self-aware enough to learn and grow through future endeavors.

For people who have never founded a company before, I’ll look for a full, honest account of your strengths, your weaknesses and your plan to overcome the latter. People who are real about the challenges they face are the ones you can work with. Investors can see right through fluff. Be honest with them and yourself about your positive as well as your negative qualities.

Expand Your Worldview

As a CEO, your worldview can limit you in many ways. The biggest mistake I see is CEOs closing themselves off to new perspectives by only working with people who look, talk, speak, come from the same background and worship the same way they do. One of the single most important job requirements of a CEO is the ability to see multiple sides of an issue. Allowing biases to restrict your business environment prevents you from putting the company’s best interests first.

Also read: Spotting Emotional Intelligence in Candidates

CEOs must be comfortable engaging with diverse backgrounds and skills. You’re responsible for communicating with stakeholders, employees at all levels and customers. It’s essential to treat them all with equal respect and open-mindedness.

Listen Up

The other huge thing I listen for in CEO stories is acknowledgment of the other people required for a company to succeed. This shows a leader who is open to hearing input from other people.

Never think you’re above anyone else in your business. Your name might be at the top of the org chart, but listening to and connecting with your employees and customers can bring a huge advantage.

It takes intelligence and talent to start a business, but that isn’t all that will determine your success. Your ability to work with people, keep an open mind and improve your own skills will take you a lot further than ego ever can.

November 28, 2018August 3, 2023

Taming the Wild West of Health Care Navigation

As I prepare to write an in-depth article on health care costs for Workforce’s March-April issue, one of the topics that has come up regularly is health care navigation among employees. That’s what I found the Deloitte “2018 Survey of US Health Care Consumers” to be interesting.

The survey broke down the types of consumers in the health care market as “Wild West” tropes and gave suggestions for how different stakeholders could appeal to these consumer segments. Corny? Sure. But corny little bits like this, at least to me, make it way more fun to write about health care navigation, which can be a pretty dry topic. Personally, I would have gone with the space theme, since my roommate and I have been rewatching the early 2000s futuristic space western drama “Firefly” recently, but the historical Wild West works, too.

Health care navigation is a term that refers to helping patients navigate their way through the often complex health system by giving them as much information as possible to make their own decision and guiding you to the most appropriate health professional. Different patients navigate different ways.

Their four categories Deloitte highlighted were: Homesteaders, who are reserved, cautious and traditionalist; Prospectors, who rely on recommendations from family and friends, find their health care providers to be trusted advisers and are willing to use technology; Trailblazers, who are tech-savvy, engaged in wellness and willing to share data; and Bystanders, who are unengaged, tech-reluctant and resistant to change.

The report compared these groups in several different categories, but the two that stood out to me were shopping behavior and willingness to share health information/data.

Let’s start with health data. The older, poorer groups (bystanders and homesteaders) were least likely to share tracked health information with a doctor or to use technology (like wearables) to monitor fitness. The younger, richer groups (trailblazers and prospectors) had the opposite tendencies toward health data.

Now, I know health companies and employers love have their own incentives to get health data, but, from the point of view of an employee, I would just like to point out that not everyone needs to be reliant on technology to keep track of their health. It’s not how everybody functions best, and trying to push wearables or health apps on someone who’s perfectly content in a more manual workout routine is silly.

Also, the data privacy laws in the U.S. aren’t necessarily promising for consumers yet. People should be able to feel like they have control of what happens with their own personal health data.

Not to say that patients/employees shouldn’t be open with their doctors. But, as I’ve written about before, although it’s great if a company genuinely wants to create a program that will improve the well-being of its employees, it should stay voluntary, and people who don’t participate shouldn’t be shamed, penalized or seen as backward or stubborn.

Shopping behavior is the other area of comparison, and this is the meaty part because it gets to the inherent differences in people and who they trust for advice on something as personal as health — and something as complicated and not-necessarily straightforward as choosing a doctor.

It also taps into the reality of how people in different socioeconomic situations make these decisions. Bystanders, the group with the lowest incomes, consider out-of-pocket costs and convenient hours when choosing a doctor and are less likely to change doctors or health plans even if they’re dissatisfied. Compare them to Trailblazers, the highest income group, who are the most likely to do their research on physicians, hospitals and health insurance companies and are the most likely to change doctors if they’re dissatisfied.

Using basic logic, this makes sense. Having a higher paying job with reliable hours and access to paid time off would make it much simpler to make health care provider changes. Meanwhile, if you’re living paycheck to paycheck and have a busy schedule, basing your medical off out-of-pocket costs and hours is perfectly rational.

The report also gave employers and other stakeholders like health systems and insurers suggestions on how to engage employees/patients in each segment.

Employers can begin to engage the tech-savvy, wellness-engaged Trailblazers by offering virtual health visits and creating a seamless technology experience. For those employees who rely on family, friends and trusted doctors for medical advice, employers can push online patient forums and patient advocacy groups.

I was most interested in stakeholder strategies for the two less tech-centric groups, mostly because those segments seem more like a challenge for employers. Connecting with these people and getting them engaged with health care can happen a number of ways, depending on what their barriers are.

A patient who makes health care decisions based off convenience of hours and location could benefit from having access to a physician or health system that offers off-hour appointments.
A patient who is open to trying tech solutions but still intimidated by it could benefit by having a nurse or clinician spend a few minutes at the end of a doctor’s visit and help set up a virtual appointment, as well as answer any questions about how virtual appoints work, how to access them, etc.
For a patient who isn’t likely to engage with the health care system on their own, stakeholders can address this by involving a caregiver, if applicable, who can encourage this person to get the care they need.
For the least engaged patients, what could also help is if community organizations like their local grocery store or place of worship encourages healthy behaviors. For example, a church could hold a healthy food potluck.

Now, none of these are employer-based actions, but I still think they hold some value to employers. For example, employers may have an employee with a chronic condition whose spouse and kids act as a caregiver; maybe they could consider how to engage spouses and children in chronic-condition care in their health plan. Also, employers could offer healthy good in the office, where employees spend a large chunk of their time, and think about partnering with health systems that offer appointments off-hours.

What do you think? What does your organization do to appeal to employees/patients with different preferences?

November 19, 2018June 29, 2023

How’s Your Performance Review Performing?

Each month Workforce looks at important statistics in the human resources sector. In this month’s edition, we explore performance reviews. The effectiveness of reviews has been been questioned before, and recent stats show that many organizations and employees are ambivalent of how accurately these reviews define employees performance.

Check out previous By the Numbers for statistics on retirement, flexible work arrangements, demographics within HR, and more.

November 13, 2018June 29, 2023

Make Benefits and Internal Communications Inseparable

Ask any HR professional what they think of their internal communications group and you’re likely to get an answer at one extreme or the other.

Either you’ll hear about an incredibly strong and strategic working relationship or you’ll get an eye roll with a story about how impossible they are to work with. When meeting your HR goals requires reaching and engaging employees — like during open enrollment — ensuring that relationship is working becomes even more critical.

While sometimes seen as a roadblock or gatekeeper, an internal communications team can be a vocal advocate for the benefits team’s goals and vision, supporting their efforts and ensuring campaigns resonate with employees. That is why making that relationship strong and successful is a key goal in our work.

With that in mind, my colleague Lindsay Kohler identified these helpful guidelines for working with internal communications teams. As part of our team, she’s designed and orchestrated global internal communications strategies. In her prior role, she was part of the benefits team at Nordstrom, managing all benefits communication and working with Nordstrom’s internal communications group.

Appreciate their role. Internal communications teams are responsible for ensuring that what every department communicates is clear, on brand, in support of business priorities, and timely. They need to make sure communications are scheduled so that employees aren’t overwhelmed by competing messages but also don’t miss key events or deadlines.

Internal communications teams have to strike a delicate balance. They are the liaison between every department within every business unit and the employee. At the same time, they’re often accountable to the marketing and PR departments, which have different objectives than HR teams.

By understanding their priorities and how they want to support HR, you can better partner with them to make your communications shine.

Understand what’s important to your executive team. Your internal communications partners will share those same organizational priorities, which should drive your benefits goals as well. Keep those strategic goals in mind as you think through what you want to communicate, and you’ll find it easier to win their support to make it happen.

Bring in your internal communications partner early. When you make sure they’re in the loop from the get-go, internal communications can prioritize resources on your behalf and be your advocate and champion. They can point out potential issues before you’re too far along to change direction. And they can even lend a hand in drafting and delivering communications.

Be open to their point of view. HR teams and communications professionals are bound to have differences of opinion at some point. These disagreements don’t need to be adversarial. By being open to their feedback, you can create a better partnership on behalf of employees.

Treat them as equals, not as gatekeepers. Often, we hear HR teams complain that “everything has to go through so-and-so in internal communications.” On the flip side, internal communications teams assume that they have to say something about every deliverable because they’re being treated as if they are gatekeepers. A slight change in the way you ask for their review can help you shift to a more strategic working relationship. “Here’s what I’m planning to send; I’d like your advice” is much more collaborative than “Can you review and approve?”

Recognize that your priorities may differ from those of your organization. Internal communications teams do their best to accommodate content from all departments. But there will be times that certain initiatives will have to be prioritized over yours. Don’t let that be discouraging. And remember that getting early buy-in will ensure you don’t get many “no’s.”

Ask your internal communications team to schedule regular summits. Communication summits are an ideal way to generate a holistic view of the communication landscape within an organization. With a deeper understanding of everything, employees are being expected to absorb and act on, you can adjust your own communication plans accordingly.

HR and benefits teams and internal communication teams play different roles within companies, but your goals align around doing what’s best for employees. You’ll find that working in collaboration with your internal communications partners will make it easier for you to achieve success.

November 9, 2018September 5, 2023

Meet Your New Colleague: Artificial Intelligence

communication with artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence is increasingly people’s interviewer, colleague and competition. As it burrows its way further into the workplace and different job functions, it holds abilities to take over certain tasks, learn over time and even have conversations. Many of us may not even be aware that who we’re talking to isn’t even a “who” but a “what.”

In 2017, 61 percent of businesses said they implemented AI, compared to 38 percent in 2016, according to the “Outlook on Artificial Intelligence in the Enterprise 2018” report from Narrative Science, an artificial intelligence company, in collaboration with the National Business Research Institute. In the communication arena, 43 percent of these businesses said they send AI-powered communications to employees.

Many candidates don’t even realize that they’re not speaking to a human, according to Sahil Sahni, co-founder of computer software company AllyO, which uses an AI-enabled chatbot to speak to candidates and answer questions in the recruiting process.

Based off data from AllyO’s applicants, he found that less than 30 percent of candidates think that they’re speaking to something not human. The other 70 percent either did not disclose what they thought or believed there’s a person behind that chatbot.

AllyO does not disclose up front to the candidate that they are not speaking to a human. However, if they were to ask outright if they are speaking to a person or an AI-enabled chatbot, the system discloses that information. “The goal is not to goof anyone here. The goal is to have the best candidate experience. Lying about it is not the best candidate experience,” Sahni said.

Candidates don’t behave differently when speaking to an AI as opposed to a human, Sahni added.

“When you’re a job seeker, it’s not like you’re calling customer service to complain about something. You’re at your best behavior,” he said. “You tend to be a lot more tolerant, you tend to be a lot more respectful, no matter what the process might be.”

Dennis R. Mortensen, CEO and founder of New York-based technology company X.ai, also has access to conversations between people and machine agents, and his team spent the past four years assembling a data set of more than 10 million emails on these dialogues. Their findings have similarly found that people don’t communicate differently just because they’re speaking to a robot.

Giving X.ai’s own personal assistants Amy and Andrew as an example, he said, “It would be very easy to imagine that I will treat them like machines and remove any level of emotion otherwise applied to a traditional conversation with a human, or that the system as a whole would not leave any room for empathy toward the machine. I am happy to say that it is not the case.”

This is not to say that everyone treats a machine with respect. If people tend to be more aggressive or rude with a real person, that same communication style can be seen in how they converse with a machine. The same trend goes with people who are neutral or overly friendly in how they speak to others.

Also read: Artificial Intelligence, Automation and the Future of Talent Acquisition

How potential employees actually speak to AI is a different conversation than how potential employees should speak to AI, he added. That is, it’s unclear whether how a person treats a machine says anything about how that person would treat other people, and it’s unclear whether something like a person being rude to a machine agent should impact their job prospects.

“We can certainly agree that we do care if it’s a human recruiting coordinator,” Mortenson said. But machines have no feelings or emotions and cannot be offended, so it would be easy to argue why employers shouldn’t care. Ultimately, “I do think we should care even if it is a machine,” Mortenson said. “I understand why we might care a little bit less, but I don’t think we can just discard that as a signal.”

He gave the example of a report which found that this technology could have implications on how kids learn how to communicate and teach them that speaking harshly or impolitely to people has no consequences.

“In real life there’s a penalty to being an asshole,” Mortensen.

Limits and Capabilities of AI in the Hiring Process

Machine learning allows AI to gain knowledge over time and learn from its interactions, much like a person would. That being said, even though it has the ability to mature in its own way and become more humanlike over time, that still doesn’t make it human, and there are certain questions that a person might have to answer, for example, questions about company culture, according to Sahni.

AI systems are capable of taking this into account. For example, AllyO can recognize when a candidate asks a question that cannot be answered by a machine and brings in a person who can answer that question, Sahni said. This way, the candidate can have a positive experience and not feel like they’ve lost out by not speaking to a real person.

“If the process is objective, AI knocks it out of the park. If the process has any subjectivity to it, AI does really well looping in the hiring team,” he said. “A good AI system typically has human support behind it.”

Much like people themselves, AI has the potential for bias, according to Eric Shangle, director of people operations at AI platform Figure Eight, based in San Francisco. For example, Wired reported in July 2018 that Amazon’s facial recognition software system Rekognition confused many black members of Congress with publicly available mugshots and that facial recognition technology’s problem in detecting darker skin tones is a well-established problem.

One reason why a tool may be biased is training data bias, Shangle said. From the developmental side of machine learning, the creator of a tool must input a data set to train the algorithm, and if it does not use a diverse data set, then an employer using the tool may come across bias blind spots.

“What are the biases of this tool?” is a legitimate question for employers who are looking to purchase a machine learning tool such as facial recognition software, Shangle said. A recruiting tool may, for example, have a bias toward college-educated job seekers.

David Dalka, founder of Chicago-based management consulting company Fearless Revival, agrees that AI has its limits. He has a more traditional view of what recruiting should look like, arguing that companies should invest less in technology and more in human recruiters who work at the company long-term, know the company culture and know what kind of person would be a best fit for the job, rather than look for trendy keywords or job titles in résumés.

“I’m not opposed to AI tools if someone built the full data library of all the factors and stopped focusing trivially on things like job titles,” he said.

He suggested that companies should more carefully consider the attributes that matter in a candidate — Do they read any books? Are they naturally curious? What are their skills and degrees? — and consider how they would weigh these attributes in an AI system. Ultimately AI is simply a tool that analyzes content.

“This idea that some wizard will magically create this black box that will hire the right people without you thinking of these things is a fallacy,” Dalka said.

This article originally appeared in Talent Economy.

November 7, 2018June 29, 2023

Finding the Way of the HR Warrior

Author Keri Ohlrich asks whether you’re an HR warrior or HR weenie in her new book, “The Way of the HR Warrior.” Workforce Editorial Director Rick Bell caught up with Ohlrich via email.

Workforce: Are HR practitioners viewed as second-class citizens in the corporate world?

Keri Ohlrich: Short answer: Yes. If we’re being cheeky here, we might wish to be second-class citizens, but we’re more like third or fourth class.

Long answer: It depends. There are wonderful leaders and cultures who adore HR, understand the value and expect high performance from the HR department. Unfortunately, the majority of businesses and employees do view HR as second-class citizens and a department that does not contribute to the bottom line.

Why second-class citizens? Let’s look at leadership, HR, and society. Leadership sometimes only wants tactical and administrative HR support. Why wouldn’t they want a strategic HR professional? A strategic HR person questions and discusses how to help their organization reach higher levels. There are leaders who don’t want dissent or to be challenged. They simply want HR to do compliance work and payroll. You can spot companies who view HR as second class when they have HR reporting to Finance or Legal. Or even worse, when they give HR responsibilities to anyone in legal or finance because let’s face it, they would rarely, if ever, ask HR to handle finance or legal matters.

There are some HR talent who are only at the level of tactical and want to stay that way. They crave checking off tasks on the to-do list and completing what is easy. They get a charge from accomplishing tasks. Creating strategy and pushing the organization takes courage and long-term thinking. There are some in HR who resist that level of responsibility and are comfortable being second-class citizens—it’s a safer position.

Lastly, let’s look at society in general. Professions that are human focused are often not given the respect and/or paid like technology-focused professions (think teachers, nurses, social workers versus engineers). Human resources already starts in a one-down position as the “touchy-feely job” and “you just listen to people all day.” Then, let’s consider that the majority of HR professionals are females. Do I need to discuss how females are often viewed as second-class citizens? Cue mic drop.

WF: Since the beginnings of the #MeToo movement there were a lot of questions surrounding, ‘Where was HR’? So, where was HR?

Ohlrich: Great question. First, let’s address a couple types of HR professionals. Yes, there are definitely the HR professionals that we can all point at and call low-performing. And yes, there are HR professionals who knew about harassment and did nothing. They likely did nothing because they were afraid for their job, afraid to speak out, or even worse, just didn’t care that much. That’s the typical story we hear about, but let’s talk about another type of HR professional.

There were amazing HR professionals who were horrified by the behaviors of their leaders. They brought issues to the attention of those leaders and—wait for it—nothing happened. This occurred for a number of reasons: “he brings in so much revenue,” “he has great customer contacts,” or one of my favorites, “we cannot do anything about it because the CEO does the same thing.” There are many HR professionals who had the courage to address hostile work environments, discrimination, and harassment, and if leaders or the board of directors don’t care about it, HR becomes stuck. I know many HR rock stars who have left, had their departments reduced in size, or been fired for their courage and commitment to integrity. It is much easier to fire the trouble maker than to address the issue.

So, here’s my question: where were the leaders?

WF: Your book in part is titled HR Warrior. But you also cite the HR weenie. How can it be both ways in one profession?

Ohlrich: Ah, just like in every profession there are low- and high-performers. There are great CEOs and weenie CEOs, wonderful IT professionals and weenie IT, you get my drift.

But I think there are two main reasons why there is a question of why HR weenies and why that low expectation persists. One, HR is very visible in companies and, two, they are involved in emotional events (hiring, performance issues, layoffs). Therefore, when they’re HR weenies, that behavior is magnified.

Employees and hiring candidates will tell stories to family and friends about what horrible thing HR did (“they didn’t call me back,” “my resume went nowhere,” “they gave me zero severance”). Almost everyone has looked for jobs, received merits, or left jobs. All these situations involve HR and if there is a bad experience during these emotional times, well, then the stories about HR weenies grow exponentially!

But just as there are HR weenies, there are HR warriors who can change the perception. HR warriors can counteract the negative image of the HR weenie one employee at a time. And the same HR warrior might have been an HR weenie in the past. Heck, we all develop and grow—it’s possible for each of us to start off as an HR weenie and grow into an HR warrior. However, a true HR weenie wants to stay in a static position — they refuse to do the hard work to become a resilient and exemplary member of their organization. There were times in my career when I was sure I was more on the weenie side than the warrior side!

WF: Does HR exist to represent the best interests of the organization or the employee?

Ohlrich: It is not a zero-sum game. HR needs to represent both but it is difficult to strike this balance. Oftentimes the best interest of the company and the employee are opposing sides (should we talk about employee health benefits?). This is what makes HR work a wonderful challenge and not for the faint of heart. Unfortunately, I’ve seen many HR Weenies only side with either the employee or the organization and stick to that side no matter what!

Additionally, I think employees want to feel we are there for them, but don’t truly believe that. There are managers who won’t coach or have difficult conversations with employees. Instead, they have HR do “the dirty work.” As an aside, oh how I wish HR would get out of the business of doing managers’ jobs of talent management! Consequently, the employees see HR as the police, because poor managers say, “let me tell HR.” Frequently, employees only see HR when something bad is happening (layoffs, terminations, performance issues). We have an exposure issue. For example, when you only take your dog for a car ride when it’s time to visit the vet, what does the dog think? Car = bad. If HR is only there for bad times, employees think HR = bad. At the same time, organizations tend to believe that HR is there to support only the business.

HR needs courage to balance that tension and understand that the job is a lonely one. Sometimes an HR professional works behind the scenes to get laid-off employees an extra month of insurance, but employees will never know that. Sometimes HR works with legal to figure out the quickest, most efficient way to terminate an underperforming employee and help the organization save on a potential lawsuit, but it isn’t fast enough for the organization.

An HR warrior maintains this tension, and they’re courageous for both employees and the business. An HR professional who only uses one lens (the business or the employee) just might be an HR weenie!

WF: Are HR practitioners afraid to speak up when they see inappropriate conduct by their superiors?

Ohlrich: Well, yes and no. If the inappropriate conduct is their direct supervisor that is a sticky wicket. HR at this point is just like any other employee who has an inappropriate manager. The questions are: What if I say something? Will I get fired? Will my job get worse? Will I need to quit? To make things a bit more complicated, employees have the option of talking to HR, but HR might not have that option for themselves.

It takes the utmost courage to speak out directly against your manager, especially if s/he is the CEO. Where do you go with the complaint: the board, your peers, the public? And as we’ve seen in the past, when victims speak out, it often does not end well for them. The stakes are often higher for HR to speak out because they know the impact that leader has on the entire organization.

If the inappropriate behavior is not caused by the direct manager, but others on the leadership team, then this falls into typical HR duties. Meaning, HR needs to call out these behaviors and try to change them. Again, like the direct manager, the politics of the situation get more complex as the leaders are usually in alliance with one another and will, therefore, protect each other. It can be very difficult for HR to break through the leadership clique when bad behavior is occurring.

WF: What’s an example of “HR speak” that HR professionals should try to avoid? How should they rephrase it?

Ohlrich: So much business and HR speak! I think the most cringe-worthy one that sticks out is “the policy says” or “according to the policy.” It’s better to say, “Well, we can do that, and let’s understand the consequences first.” Of course, if harassment is involved, it’s best to stop that behavior in the first place!

But I have heard HR professionals use “policy speak” on issues that are not as black and white as sexual harassment. Some HR professionals, when asked a question, have sent an email with a cut-and-paste description of the policy to managers. If we just make binary decisions, then we could be replaced by robots. We need to understand the goals and motivations of the audience. We need to tailor our message to them and avoid HR speak.

We bring so much more than just “the policy says.” We understand the business, the culture, and the people, and we can help leaders think through complex issues. It requires more than “policy,” it requires understanding the business and the people. Dare I say it? It requires an HR Warrior!

WF: HR practitioners will go to conferences like SHRM and WorldatWork and get all pumped up then go back and face the realities of their job. How do they carry forth and utilize that positive vibe?

Ohlrich: It’s exciting to hear great ideas and best practices at conferences! And it’s definitely tough to go back to the “real world.” In fact, it can be extra frustrating because an HR professional can visualize what a great organization can look like and realize, “Crud, we aren’t that — not even close!”

To avoid the “post-conference blues,” set realistic goals. First, focus on the big picture. What is a talent goal for the organization? Maybe the business needs to overhaul the way they approach performance. Then ask, where is the organization on its journey to this goal? The HR professional needs to meet the organization where it is and then push! Of course, we have to get leadership buy-in first and explain how we are pushing for good business reasons, and not just to push.

Now, the HR professional knows the overall goal and the maturity level of their organization. From there, create three mini goals to help move toward the overall goal. Consider three that can be achieved in the next six to 12 months. By creating mini-goals, the HR professional can channel the energy of the conference and accomplish great things.

WF: The 2005 Fast Company article ‘Why I Hate HR’ argued that HR is lazy, unhelpful, etc. Why do these arguments still seem to linger?

Ohlrich: Triple sigh. I could blame the media coverage, Dilbert comics, The Office TV show, and I could name more shows that depict HR as lazy losers and freaks (yeah, looking at some of my favorite shows like Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and A Series of Unfortunate Events). It reminds me of the statistics on plane crashes: because they’re covered in the media more often than car crashes, people tend to believe air travel is less safe than cars, when the exact opposite is true. We need a great PR firm to help overhaul the image of HR!

Now, I can’t just blame the media for HR’s poor image. We absolutely have poor talent in HR—the HR Weenies. As I mentioned earlier, HR interacts with every employee at some point in their lifecycle at work (hiring, performance, termination) therefore, one bad HR Weenie experience is told to an exponential number of people. The HR Warrior stories aren’t shared as widely.

We can do more with our profession. Leaders can demand more from HR (as well as themselves). HR can demand more from our profession. HR is indispensable for organizations and employees, and we HR professionals need to tell stories that showcase us in a different light. We have HR Warriors in companies and their voices need to be heard and their stories told. When we accomplish that, our perception of HR changes.

November 6, 2018June 29, 2023

Paid Parental Leave: A Workplace Exception or Trend?

For the longest time, many employers differentiated between “maternity” leave and “paternity” leave in their policy manuals.

A typical maternity leave would offer six to 12 weeks of salary replacement for new mothers, while offering only one to two weeks of salary replacement for new fathers. Over time, society began catching up with reality, and now most employers acknowledge that traditional definitions of gender and family no longer apply. As a result, antiquated policies have been modified to offer paid “parental” leave to new parents.

While many policies offer more significant benefits for “primary” versus “non-primary” caregivers, many employers are promoting a more evenhanded approach. As one example, Microsoft recently announced that it will require all U.S. suppliers with 50 or more employees that perform “substantial” work for Microsoft to offer their employees who take time off for the birth or adoption of a child a minimum of 12 weeks paid parental leave.

In its announcement, Microsoft referenced the state of Washington’s paid parental leave law that goes into effect in 2020 and acknowledged that such legislation will benefit only employees of suppliers in Washington (Microsoft is headquartered there) and “will leave thousands of valued contributors outside of Washington behind.”

The company “made a decision to apply Washington’s parental leave requirement more broadly, and not wait until 2020 to begin implementation.” In other words, if a supplier wants to have the privilege of working with Microsoft, they must offer parental leave benefits at least as generous as the standards Microsoft has set.

Microsoft’s announcement begs some questions: Will other businesses follow suit? Outside of states where paid parental leave is legally required (to date, only California, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Washington), will paid parental leave become a standard employee benefit instead of a perk offered by only an elite group of employers?

Also read: The Price of a Family-friendly Workplace

And of course, these questions don’t explore underlying motivations: Are companies like Microsoft implementing such programs to benefit families or simply to gain a competitive advantage when recruiting quality talent? And does motivation matter, if the results (for employees, families and businesses) are the same?

I recently worked with one of our middle-market clients to update and improve their paid parental leave policy. Taking note of the disparity in salary replacement to be offered to “primary caregivers” vs. “secondary caregivers” (a very common differentiator in modern times), I played devil’s advocate and asked: What is your goal in offering paid parental leave to your workforce?

The answer, not surprisingly, was to give new parents the opportunity to spend quality time with their newborn or newly adopted child. I further summoned the devil: If that’s the case, then why should it matter who is the primary caregiver, and why not offer the same benefit for both parents? Better yet, why not follow Microsoft’s example and offer a full 12 weeks of paid leave?

Also listen to: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation CHRO on Yearlong Parental Leave

The simple answer the client offered with an audible sigh: “We don’t have the budget for that.”

That’s the practical reality facing most small- to midsize employers, especially those with a predominantly young (i.e., of childbearing age) workforce, as is often found in the tech industry.

Indeed, in such businesses, it’s not uncommon for multiple employees to take parental leave at the same time. (This seems to happen frequently in November which, coincidentally, is nine months after Valentine’s Day.) Establishing and honoring parental leave policies can become expensive.

Most people — including employers — believe that allowing parents to spend more time with their children is indisputably a good thing. But while behemoths such as Walmart, Starbucks, Microsoft, IBM, Facebook, Netflix, American Express, Etsy and Bank of America have the financial wherewithal to implement such programs, many smaller employers do not have the ability to fully subsidize parental leaves, despite having the best intentions and hopes for their employees.

While we don’t expect state parental leave laws or employer policies to become the norm, it seems clear that such requirements and programs are gaining momentum, particularly in certain jurisdictions, markets and industries. The question for employers of any size is how to balance competing demands — fiscal realities, attracting and retaining top talent, compliance with local and state statutes — in a manner that enables them to achieve their business objectives while honoring their organizational values.

There are no broad-brush solutions that can be easily painted into an employee handbook. Each company must conduct its own calculus when deciding on the nature and extent of its parental leave benefits.