Rick Bell, Author at Workforce

March 4, 2019June 29, 2023

HR Leaders Re-evaluate Termination Policies After Workplace Shooting

termination, covidiot, workplace violence, gun, weapon

Human resources professionals are assessing termination procedures following the February workplace shootings at the Henry Pratt Co. manufacturing plant in Aurora, Illinois.

Michelle Lee, HR director for the Wynright Corp. in Elk Grove, Illinois, noted, “While we review and evaluate our policies on a regular basis, this situation emphasizes the importance of protecting our employees. We are going to partner more with local law enforcement to ensure they understand the make-up of our facilities and employee population. In some cases, we may have them on premises for risky terminations.”

Courtney Templin, president of the Chicago chapter of the Society for Human Resource Management, said, “Our jobs as HR professionals are never easy and it’s at times like this when we feel the real weight of our roles.”

The Feb. 15 shooting by a 15-year employee being terminated that day killed five employees, including the HR director and an HR intern on his first day on the job, and wounded five police officers.

According to federal government statistics, there were 458 workplace homicides in 2017, of which 351 were committed with a gun.

Melissa Boyce, an attorney and legal editor for XpertHR, said employers should review what they can and cannot do to lawfully restrict employees’ weapon possession on workplace property.

Virtually all workplace shootings fit the category of targeted violence, said Randy Van Dyne, a consultant for the University of Findlay’s All Hazards Training Center in Ohio, which offers workplace violence prevention programs.

The shooter’s main motivation is to get even with a person or organization for perceived injustices, said Van Dyne, adding such events are often preventable because the perpetrator presents signs including ideation, planning, preparation and implementation.

Communication with volatile employees is key, said Charles Krugel, a Chicago-based management-side labor and employment lawyer.

Michelle Lee, HR director, Wynright Corp.

When no threats are present, respond quietly and calmly. Don’t take the employee’s behavior personally. Asking questions respectfully demonstrates that aggression isn’t necessary, he said.

“An apology may calm the person and encourage cooperation,” Krugel added. “Say, ‘I’m sorry to hear this happened. What can be done to solve the problem?”

Summarize the employee’s comments.

“In a crisis, a person feels humiliated and wants respect and attention,” he said. “Focus on areas of agreement.”

Ask an upset employee calmly and firmly to lower their voice and state, “There will be no disruptions here. Please be patient so I can understand what you need and try to help you,” Krugel added.

In continued disruption, tell the individual they can be disciplined or prosecuted, state that the discussion is over, and ask them to please leave or the police will be summoned, Krugel said.

If the individual seems dangerous, find a quiet, safe but not isolated place to talk.

Also watch the video: How-to HR: Offboarding—Terminations

“Maintain a safe distance, do not turn your back,” said Krugel. “Leave the door open or open a closed door. Sit near it.”

Ensure a co-worker is near to help if needed.

Using a calm, non-confrontational approach, allow the person to describe the problem.

Ensure the employee’s hands are on the table, said Van Dyne.

Avoid touching the individual to remove them from the area; a gentle push or holding their arm can be misinterpreted as assault by an agitated individual who may respond with violence or a lawsuit, Krugel said.

“Use a prearranged distress signal to have another staff member alert a supervisor and/or police,” said Krugel. “If you fear a violent response, do not mention discipline or the police.

“If the situation escalates, find a way to excuse yourself. Say, ‘You’ve raised some tough questions. I’ll consult my supervisor to see what we can do.’ ”

Who is present at a termination meeting depends on the situation.

HR directors set a neutral and consistent tone, deflect high emotions and ensure company procedures are followed to help ensure others’ safety and maintain the security of confidential information, Lee said.

The Aurora case also was influenced by labor union representation, said Krugel, adding there are laws and rules that apply regarding the National Labor Relations Act and the plant’s collective bargaining agreement.

At Lee’s company Wynright Corp., managers and HR role play before termination meetings to ensure they are fair, consistent and concise, said Lee.

HR consultant Carol Semrad of C. Semrad & Associates in Chicago and Chicago SHRM chapter treasurer, suggested the presence of one person “who can most influence that person being let go. Sometimes people in different positions have different amounts of social currency with somebody.”

Termination has always been one of the most uncomfortable and cautious situations employers have to approach, said Monika Bowles, HR director for the Village of Royal Palm Beach, Florida.

“You don’t really know the mind of the person you’re dealing with,” said Bowles. “When you terminate someone, do it without demoralizing them. There are huge repercussions and consequences to terminating somebody that has far more reach into their lives than we tend to think about.”

Supportive measures might include offering outplacement services, resume writing and if appropriate, a letter of reference.

Lee keeps terminations brief and schedules them at the day’s end when fewer employees are on site to minimize the employee’s embarrassment.

“Don’t have anyone near the terminated employee they may want to get even with,” said Van Dyne. “Wish them best and get them on their way.”

Semrad advises clients that if they believe a termination may involve risk, notify building security and potentially law enforcement to alert them of the meeting time.

February 28, 2019June 29, 2023

Ensuring #MeToo Movement Advances Diversity in Leadership

Progress has been made in terms of women’s equality and protection over the past 10 years.

In fact, it was recently the 10th anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009.

While there have been significant strides in reducing gender bias, harassment and sexual misconduct, clearly there is still work to be done. The #MeToo movement has been an important driver in bringing to light numerous cases of sexual abuse and misconduct.

However, it has also had the unintended consequence of causing men to refrain from interacting with women for fear of retaliation. Considering that male executives play a key role in advancing women into higher levels of leadership, this fear must be taken seriously because if unaddressed it leads to workplaces where there are fewer opportunities for women’s career advancement and informal coaching. Bloomberg recently conducted interviews with more than 30 senior executives that suggest many are startled by the #MeToo movement — some for good cause while others succumb to fear and retreat from supporting leadership diversity.

This is a huge problem for women, men, the companies they work for and society as a whole. When men shy away from mentoring women and helping them advance in their careers, it hurts everyone. Likewise, it is shameful and unacceptable when women are objectified, threatened or harmed.

In both cases no one wins. The outcome of the #MeToo movement should not be that we reverse progress on increasing diversity in leadership but that we are creating opportunities for women and men to thrive.

This shift needs to happen at the organizational level with changes implemented by leaders so that men can invest in the career advancement of women without fearing they will be classified as #MeToo participants and so that women will have confidence that they are working in a safe environment. These changes should include:

Providing sexual harassment and communications training for men and women. Employees and managers need to understand what is acceptable and what is not. Men and women respond to nuance differently, and everyone needs to understand what behavior crosses the line. Insight on how to be friendly, kind and foster appropriate relationships will benefit both men and women at all levels within the organization.
Ensuring there are confidential reporting protocols in place. All employees need to have a clear and confidential venue to report misconduct so they will not be retaliated against by their colleagues. Similarly, they need to know that because they are empowered to report any misconduct (perceived or overt), their concerns will be taken seriously and senior leadership will take appropriate and supportive action. By formalizing the process, men will feel confident that if a woman retaliates and misuses her power in a destructive way there is a recourse. Both men and women should not be driven by fear but rather they should understand that if they adhere to clearly specified boundaries and are treated unfairly, they will be supported.
Making evaluations less ambiguous. We know that when there is ambiguity in assessments it can lead to bias. An article in the Harvard Business Review sums it up as, “Without structure, people are more likely to rely on gender, race and other stereotypes when making decisions — instead of thoughtfully constructing assessments using agreed-upon processes and criteria that are consistently applied across all employees.” When managers use comparable data to evaluate employees and include insight from subordinates, peers and other leaders as well as self-evaluations it will help ensure that constructive criticism relayed to a subordinate is not viewed as subjective, but in fact is based on data and information gathered from multiple sources.
Rewarding positive behavior and swiftly addressing inappropriate or illegal actions. By recognizing men and women who serve as successful models of mentoring colleagues, leaders will gain confidence and others will better understand the best way to help both men and women advance in their careers. Likewise, punishing the bad actors will improve working conditions for everyone.

Men and women are asking some important and tough questions about the workplace. Women have earned a seat at the management table and are rightfully demanding it. The #MeToo movement has been a powerful force for change in bringing to light sexual harassment and misconduct and removing perpetrators from positions of power. It’s time to capitalize on that momentum and change our workplace policies — starting from the top down — so that we can turn the #MeToo era into a movement that is constructive, encourages human interaction and supports appropriate career advancement.

February 27, 2019February 27, 2019

Reskilling: The New Trend in Recruiting

It doesn’t matter how talented your new hires are, or what stellar technology training they’ve received.

Chances are within a few years those skills will be obsolete.

Technology evolves so quickly that it is no longer enough to hire for the skills needed today. To stay relevant, companies need to hire people who have the ability to constantly learn new skills that may not yet exist. This focus on reskilling as a talent management strategy is already taking place, said Art Mazor, principal of Deloitte’s human capital management consulting practice, in Atlanta. “Most big companies today are focused on reskilling, and for good reason: The half-life of skills is two to five years,” he said. “That has huge implications for recruiting.”

With demand for talent at an all-time high, companies can’t expect to pluck these skills ready-made from the talent pool. They will have to create them in-house by providing employees with constant access to training, and incentives to continuously reskill.

Research from McKinsey found 82 percent of executives at large organizations believe retraining and reskilling must be at least half of the answer to addressing their skills gap, with 27 percent calling it a top five priority. And 74 percent of global recruiting firms say reskilling workers represents an effective strategy to combat the perennial skills shortage, according to Bullhorn’s 2019 “Staffing and Recruiting Trends” report.

“Reskilling is an important solution to the talent shortage,” said Vinda Souza, vice president of marketing for Bullhorn. She said that as long as there is low unemployment, companies need to consider what training they can provide to new and existing talent to constantly close new skill gaps.

To reskill someone, look for people with “adjacent skills,” said Jesper Bendtsen, head of recruiting for Thomson Reuters in Toronto. “Don’t just look for people who know blockchain or AI,” he said. “Look for people who work with related technologies that will lend themselves to your future needs.”

That talent pool may already be on staff. Bendtsen noted that employees who have been with the company for years may not have the exact skills you are looking for, but they know your culture, your customers and your way of doing business. “Start by looking internally at who might be interested and able to transition to a new role through retraining,” he said. An internal upskilling program can help companies close talent gaps while reinforcing their commitment to the existing workforce.

When recruiting externally, companies need to consider what skills they are looking for and how that impacts the recruiting process. New hires need to be willing and able to learn new skills and to tackle nebulous workplace challenges. Identifying these skills requires more thoughtful assessments of candidates’ soft skills and personality, not just their past history, Mazor said.

Some organizations are adding virtual reality, automated simulations and gaming tools to the recruiting process to observe how candidates handle unknown situations and learn new information to solve problems.

“These tools test their predisposition for handling challenges while creating a compelling candidate experience,” Mazor said.

Companies are also integrating hiring managers into this assessment process. At Thomson Reuters, for example, software engineers oversee candidates as they complete coding challenges, while asking questions about their process.

“The goal isn’t to see if they get the right answers, but to see how they tackle problems and use information,” Bendtsen said. “It’s an objective way to assess a candidate’s skills and ability to learn.”

This new approach to recruiting could make it easier for companies to look further afield for candidates who show an aptitude and interest in learning, even if they don’t follow a traditional academic or career path, said Tara Cassady, senior vice president at Cielo, a global recruitment process outsourcing provider in Milwaukee. “You want people who are curious, have an aptitude to troubleshoot, and who use technology to solve problems,” she said. These lifelong learners could just as easily come from tech schools, boot camps and online universities as from traditional college campuses.

Once they do find or retain these candidates, they are also investing more effort into retaining them, she said. From ensuring that interns have a clear path to employment, to making sure newly trained talent are given new assignments and competitive salaries, engagement and retention must be part of the reskilling trend, she said. “If you are going to invest in training talent, you don’t want to lose them to a competing firm.”

February 27, 2019June 29, 2023

Globoforce Renames Itself as Workhuman

This year, Globoforce celebrates 20 years of providing employee rewards and recognition solutions.

And 2019 also marks another milestone as co-founder and CEO Eric Mosley said that Globoforce is renaming itself Workhuman.

Headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts, and Dublin, Ireland, Workhuman also is the name of Globoforce’s annual conference, which this year is scheduled March 18-21 in Nashville. The conference features actors George Clooney and Viola Davis as keynote speakers.

“I’m thrilled to announce that our company name now clearly reflects the power of bringing gratitude into the workplace,” Mosly said in a Feb. 27 press statement. “We are Workhuman. This evolution acknowledges both the traction and effectiveness of our Workhuman Cloud platform and the demand from progressive global organizations who want to motivate and empower their people to do the best work of their lives.”

Some 4 million people in more than 160 countries access Workhuman Cloud, according to the press statement.

“Great leaders instinctively know that the more gratitude in a company, the better it performs,” Mosly said in the press statement. “Turnover is cut in half for employees who receive a moment of gratitude from a fellow employee at least once every 60 days. And safety records are more than 80 percent better for teams that express gratitude.”

In December 2017, Globoforce named veteran human resources leader Steve Pemberton as its chief human resources officer.

Pemberton, the former chief diversity officer for Walgreens Boots Alliance, the well-being enterprise of the drug-store giant, was brought on to work with Globoforce HR leaders and senior management executives worldwide to help them create relationships with their employees so they feel recognized, respected and appreciated, according to a statement from the company. Pemberton also was assigned to manage Globoforce’s WorkHuman movement.

Companies including JetBlue, the Hershey Co. and Procter & Gamble Co. utilize Workhuman’s recognition programs, according to the annual Workforce magazine Hot List of Rewards and Recognition Providers.

Along with a new name, Workhuman also announced their newly expanded $4.5 million headquarters expansion in Dublin along with the creation of 150 new jobs, the press release stated.

February 26, 2019June 29, 2023

Coaching Is Not Mentoring: Underrepresented Employees Need Both

In a recent meeting with a major client my consultant team and I were faced with an unusual request.

A transgender executive working for the organization had been facing a series of small but cumulatively damaging setbacks in her career after many years of success. Her slow-motion derailment was harming the performance of her team, which was tasked with a high-stakes, high-visibility project. She had transitioned (from male- to female-presenting) two years earlier and she believed the perceived lag in her performance was not about her actual results, but about her now more-visible gender identity. The organization wanted to invest in the executive’s development and needed help finding her a coach.

It turned out I was the only one in the room who had experience working with transgender clients, but before I could gather more information, one of the leaders jumped in eagerly with a suggestion: “Well, why don’t we call up the local chapter of the Human Rights Campaign and see if anyone there can coach her?” Several heads nodded.

My heart sank. These educated, well-intended professionals had just made the same error too many of our clients make — confusing coaching with mentoring.

As a professional coach and former fitness instructor, there are parallels between the two disciplines that can be helpful in making a distinction between coaching and mentoring.

Before the modern fitness movement first began in the U.S., gyms, sports and various forms of dance and exercise already existed. In the late 1970s and early ’80s, programs such as Jazzercise emerged, and Richard Simmons and Jane Fonda helped popularize a whole new form of intense, rhythmic exercise done to upbeat music.

In those early years, almost anyone who was charismatic and a good dancer could lead an “aerobics” class. However, driven by increasing popularity, the exuberance of innovation soon gave way to widely varying levels of quality among aerobics classes and instructors, some of which seriously injured participants. Over time, the industry developed standards, ethics and certification guidelines so that today, fitness instructors are mostly well trained and accountable, and class participants enjoy both safety and effective guidance in meeting their wellness goals.

Coaching is similar in that the term “coaching” existed long before the coaching field, and some aspects of what we today refer to as “coaching” have always been performed by skilled therapists, bosses, clergy, healers, elders and even close friends. However, these similarities, as well as the recent explosion of the coaching field, have contributed to both confusion about what coaching is and widely varying degrees of quality among coaches even as the field has adopted certification procedures, a code of ethics and credentialing requirements.

The Elements of Professional Coaching

“Professional coaching” is not coaching like we see happening in sports. It’s not directing. Simply put, coaching is the facilitation of self-discovery in another person. This self-discovery is achieved through powerful and provocative questions, insightful feedback on what the coach is noticing, and a clear plan for action and accountability. Effective coaches are extraordinary listeners, highly creative, extremely agile and masterful at self-management — skills developed over months of training and years of practice.

Coaching is not giving advice, telling someone what to do, or showing someone how to perform a task. These functions are more accurately described as advising, mentoring or even consulting. Mentoring is a form of advising, in which the mentor’s role is to impart what the learner doesn’t have — knowledge, wisdom, skills and connections. Coaches can be effective even with minimal experience in their client’s field or industry, because the client possesses the “self” the coach helps them unlock and act from. In mentoring, the mentor has the answers; in coaching, the client has the answers.

Effective advising, mentoring and consulting often have coaching elements to them, but they are not technically coaching. It’s also true that some coaches incorporate advising or consulting in their work — for example, debriefing the results of an assessment or 360 — but when they do, they aren’t necessarily coaching. When I incorporate advising into my coaching, I always ask permission to do so, and verbally indicate when I am stepping in and out of coaching mode.

Being clear about what coaching really is, it is not about nitpicking semantics. When advising is called coaching, or mentoring is conflated with coaching, everyone involved misses out on the unique transformative power of a professional coaching relationship. People think they have experienced coaching, when they have not.

Professional coaches are to coaching what certified fitness instructors are to the fitness world. Here are some of the requirements:

Many professional coaches have completed a certification program, often accredited by the International Coach Federation, which requires up to 125 hours of training taking place over several months or longer. Some certification programs also require an exam, completion of hours observed by a mentor coach, and receiving coaching from a senior level coach. Coaches who complete certification become certified professional coaches or another designation bestowed by their certification program.
Some coaches, certified or not, choose to complete a credential, usually with the International Coach Federation. This requires at least 100 documented hours of coaching experience, passing an exam, and in some cases (depending on the type of credential and selected path), mentor coaching and/or the submission of recorded sessions for evaluation. Credentialed coaches (ACC, PCC or MCC) must complete continuing education to maintain their credential, which must be renewed every three years.
In sum, all credentialed coaches are trained, many credentialed coaches are certified, but not all certified coaches are credentialed. The latter case is similar to that of a social worker that has completed their MSW degree but is not yet licensed as a counselor.

Being clear about the qualifications that professional coaches possess is not about denigrating those who aren’t certified or credentialed. Many coaches who are not certified or credentialed are very skilled. But many of them are not. Some of them are not even doing coaching, and they are neither held to a professional code of ethics nor required to meet continuing education requirements.

Our clients trying to support their struggling transgender leader had good intentions, but have a common misunderstanding of what coaching entails. Suggesting that a person from the Human Rights Campaign would be qualified to coach a transgender executive just because they’re LGBTQ is like saying a person who’s good at arithmetic is qualified to do your tax returns, or a person with nice hair is qualified to cut yours. Professional coaches have a specialized, often highly developed skill set that should not be devalued or dismissed.

Both coaching and mentoring are critical to developing employees from underrepresented and marginalized identity groups. While we do need insightful, validating facilitators of our self-discovery, we also need competent role models to show us the way.

February 25, 2019June 29, 2023

You’re Never Too Small to Have an HR Department

Some 43 percent of American employees work for companies with 50 or fewer workers.

I raise this statistic because it is almost a guarantee that many of these small businesses operate without a dedicated HR department or HR personnel.

Earlier this month, the EEOC settled a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit it had brought against several IHOP franchises operating in New York and Nevada. The allegations were truly awful, including misbehavior such as unwanted touching of female employees’ buttocks and genitalia, graphic comments about sexual genitalia, invitations to engage in intercourse, and vulgar name calling, perpetrated by both managers and co-workers.

Part of the settlement included a cash payment of $700,000 to the alleged victims. The more interesting part of the Consent Decree requires the companies to create a human resources department (which they were lacking) staffed with professionals knowledgeable about handling and preventing discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date, for at least the duration of the Decree, Defendants shall establish and maintain a Human Resources Department with enough staffing to carry out the terms of this Decree. The Human Resources staff shall be comprised of human resources professionals with demonstrated experience in the area of employment law, properly handing complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and preventing and correcting such conduct.…

The Human Resources Department shall be easily accessible to Defendants’ employees in person, telephonically, or by email during normal business hours.

That newly created HR department is required to do all of the things you’d expect an HR department to do regarding its EEO responsibilities:

- Establishing a record-keeping procedure that provides a centralized system of tracking discrimination, harassment and retaliation complaints.

- Enforcing the employers’ policies, procedures, and practices to foster a workplace free of unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, including taking measures to ensure that no retaliation is taken against any employee engaging in protected activity.

- Ensuring proper systems are in place to make certain that proper avenues exist for employees to complain about discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.

- Receiving and promptly investigating complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from any employee.

- Maintaining regular contact with employees who complain of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

- Ensuring appropriate corrective and protective measures are implemented in a timely manner after conducting a thorough harassment investigation.
- Overseeing the development and implementation of anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training and education.

Your business is never too small for an HR department, and HR should never be an afterthought. In fact, it’s one of the most important positions to fill in any business of any size.

Your people are your most important asset. No matter your product, service, or mission, without employees to make it, provide it, or carry it out, you don’t exist.

Every company needs HR to recruit and hire, to create and monitor policies, to help ensure legal compliance, to implement benefits, and to strategize. Size may vary, but without any dedicated HR professionals, you are telling your employees they don’t matter, which is never the right message to communicate.

And, further, when it leads to harassment complaints being ignored, it could land you at the receiving end of an expensive lawsuit.

February 25, 2019June 29, 2023

Clamor Over SHRM Agenda Misses the Point

I’m sharing a ride with a colleague heading back to our hotel after work.

As we pull in to the hotel parking lot, the topic of a struggling restaurant there with service issues comes up.

I offer the following: “If I owned that place, I’d solve all the service issues by hiring nothing but people with criminal backgrounds who were recently released.”

Some of you may think I’m enlightened making that statement, others will think I’m crazy. It’s neither. I’ve just been influenced by the recent agenda of the Society for Human Resource Management. SHRM recently announced a partnership called “Getting Talent Back to Work,” which includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association and Koch Industries. The singular goal of this initiative is to encourage companies to take a national pledge to hire workers with criminal backgrounds

The average HR pro might think the controversy would be getting past America’s long-term tradition of refusing to hire those with criminal records. Instead, there was a small to moderate outcry related to presence of Koch Industries in the initiative. Owners Charles and David Koch — the Koch brothers — are active (some would say notorious) fundraisers and influencers in conservative politics.

Research Koch Industries and you’ll find environmental issues as well. But you’ll also discover an industrial business hurting for employees in a low unemployment/peak economic cycle environment.

Which begs the question: Will those with criminal convictions in their background care about the political leanings of the owners if they get a job at Koch Industries?

I think not. I believe they’ll be thrilled for the chance. But back to the evolving agenda of SHRM.

What should we expect from SHRM related to its agenda and politics? Should we be outraged when SHRM CEO Johnny C. Taylor Jr. shakes the hand of an American president whose tweets spark widespread division? Should we expect that companies with the ownership background of Koch Industries never have the chance to partner with SHRM?

First, you must first understand the reality of SHRM. The DNA of SHRM includes the following components:

• SHRM leans conservative as an organization focused on helping companies perform better through progressive talent practices. SHRM serves its membership in this regard, as any company with strong internal HR talent has a better chance of marketplace success. But make no mistake, SHRM is directly aligned with the business community. Go to any SHRM legislative update and you’ll hear the pro-business focus. This conservative focus attracts partners with deep roots in the business community. SHRM’s affiliations are easy when the partner is a broad, vanilla association like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Companies like Koch become harder to evaluate for fit.

• SHRM is at its best when its initiatives merge business need, policy trends and inclusion. “Getting Talent Back to Work” is a good example of this. We’re dealing with the lowest unemployment in decades (business need) and immigration policy trends will continue to put pressure on workforce planning (especially in non-white collar jobs). Any SHRM initiative to relieve this pressure would seem to be a good investment of resources. But the real magic happens when SHRM can create these types of programs with an inclusion element. Rather than teaching HR pros how to recruit existing employees away from competitors, “Getting Talent Back to Work” attempts to bring new candidates into the tent. It’s the not the first example of inclusion most of us would list, but it’s a brilliant program when you step back and evaluate the convergence of business need, policy and demographic in need.

• SHRM doesn’t always move first, but when they move, it matters. SHRM’s a mega-association battleship. With hundreds of thousands of members, you’ll find a cross-section of America including comparable percentages of conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheists and more. Like any other association with demographics that rival the United States at large, SHRM is rarely first on any issue that involves societal change. But when SHRM moves, it matters. Hundreds of thousands of members are influenced by various SHRM media properties monthly, meaning SHRM opens minds on any issues linked to the world of HR.

SHRM’s not perfect. But an agenda that challenges HR pros to rethink traditional views that may be limiting in today’s world matters.

February 22, 2019June 29, 2023

Employees Prefer a Raise, But They’re Also OK with a Promotion

A recent survey conducted by HR consultancy Korn Ferry revealed that 55 percent of employees prefer a raise with no promotion. However, 45 percent of them are just fine with a new title and no salary bump.

The survey, conducted in December and released in January, collected 1,327 responses from professionals. The key components of the survey could offer employers insight to how their employees consider which reward matters most.

Dennis Baltzley, global head of leadership development solutions at Korn Ferry noted, “Appropriate compensation is key to a professional’s job satisfaction, but at least as important as recognition for a job well done. One of the most visible forms of recognition is a promotion.”

When asked what the most likely action would be if they wanted to attain a promotion, 77 percent of respondents said they would have a conversation with their supervisor directly and identify areas of growth. When asked what they would do if they were passed over for a promotion, 66 percent said they would identify the reason(s) and work to improve while 20 percent said they would take on more responsibility.

Professionals are saying that they are willing to improve their workplace performance in order to be recognized. However, bottlenecking, or having nowhere to go, were the biggest likely reasons respondents said they were passed over for a promotion. If passed over, 31 percent of respondents said that they would start searching for other job opportunities.

In order to retain and motivate talent, Baltzley advised that, “Organizational leaders must set expectations of constant learning, and this means development and career plans at all levels, so employees see a path broadening, deepening, or advancing.”

In the next 12 months, half of the respondents said that they will ask for a promotion.

The other half, if they haven’t already received a promotion, said that they are afraid or don’t know how to ask, or they admit that they are not ready to be promoted.

Some 90 percent of respondents said they expected a promotion in one to five years. Of that, 44 percent were in the two- to three-year range. Employers need to be prepared for both cases while also considering how long an employee expects to stay in a role before being promoted.

“They key to job progression is ongoing development and coaching to ensure professionals are receiving feedback in terms of how they are doing in their current role and what they need to do to be ready to take on added responsibility,” Baltzley said. “And even if an employee is not yet ready for the next role, knowing that there is a potential for a promotion to a more challenging role is an excellent way to retain top talent.”

February 20, 2019June 29, 2023

The 6th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Diverse Discriminator

How many different ways can one employer discriminate? How about eight?

The EEOC recently settled a national origin and disability discrimination lawsuit against a staffing agency, brought on behalf of a group of Latino employees working at an Alabama poultry plant.

The eight different acts of discrimination alleged by the workers?

1. They were harassed, which included ethnic slurs, threats, verbal abuse and other abusive working conditions.
2. They were paid less than they were promised.
3. They were placed in more hazardous conditions.
4. They were denied bathroom and lunch breaks.
5. They received fewer hours of work than their non-Latino co-workers.
6. They had exorbitant relocation, housing and transportation fees deducted from their pay.
7. They were denied medical treatment and other accommodations (such as breaks or time off from work to recuperate) after suffering repetitive motion injuries to their hands, forearms and shoulders.
8. And, when they complained about all of the above, they were ignored.

According to Marsha L. Rucker, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District Office, “We cannot allow any employer to prey on vulnerable workers by recruiting them and then subjecting them to such gross mistreatment.” Adds Bradley Anderson, the EEOC’s Birmingham district director, “The EEOC has made combating discrimination against vulnerable workers a strategic priority so that employers cannot profit from victimizing them.”

All of the above cost this employer $475,000 to settle the EEOC’s claims.

It also earned this employer its nomination as the Worst Employer of 2019.

Previous nominees:

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Philandering Pharmacist

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Little Rascal Racist

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is … the Barbarous Boss

The 4th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Flagrant Farmer

The 5th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Fishy Fishery

February 19, 2019June 29, 2023

Do You Know How to Spot an Employee at Risk for Violence?

Early Friday afternoon, Henry Pratt Co. informed one of its employees, Gary Martin, of his termination.

Shortly thereafter, he opened fire with a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson, killing five of his co-workers and wounding five police officers. Martin himself was the sixth casualty, killed in a shootout with police.

After the news of this tragedy broke, reports surfaced of Martin’s history of violence —s ix prior arrests by the local police department for domestic violence, and a decades-old felony conviction for aggravated assault.

All of which begs the question, should this employer have known that Martin was prone to violence, and, if so, should it have taken added measures in connection with his termination.

A criminal history of violent arrests and offenses is not necessarily a predictor of workplace violence. Still, there are certain warning signs for which an employer can look to help determine whether an employee is at risk for potential violence.

According to ESI Group, these warning signs include:

A chronic inability to get along with fellow employees
Mood swings and anger control issues
Expressions of paranoia or persecution. Being a “victim”
A history of problems with past jobs and and/or personal relationships
An inability to get beyond minor setbacks or disputes at work
A fascination with guns, weapons, or violent events
A sudden deterioration in work habits or personal grooming
Signs of stress, depression, or suicidal ideation
A major life problem, such as divorce or legal problems

If one more of these red flags surface, it is recommend that you refer this employee to an employee assistance program, for assessment and treatment.

If you are compelled to fire an employee who you think poses a risk of violence, it is recommended that you take further steps to mitigate against the risk of your termination transforming into a workplace tragedy.

ESI Group recommends the following:

Consider a professional threat assessment
Consider using a neutral manager or outside security consultant to carry out the termination
If there is manager or supervisor who has been the object of threats or anger, that person should not be the person to conduct the termination
Have security nearby—not in the same office, but close enough to hear signs of a problem and to act
Do not take a break. There are numerous instances of an employee asking for a bathroom break or time to compose him- or herself, and using the break to retrieve weapons
Wait until the end of the workday to terminate, if possible. This protects the dignity of the fired employee and minimizes the number of employees on hand should a situation escalate
Minimize any reasons why the employee would have to revisit the workplace. Mail a check; have uncollected belongings sent to the person’s home via a delivery service
Allow the person as much dignity as possible, but be brief and to the point. Do not get into a back and forth
Emphasize any severance benefits and outsourcing help that may be available. Some organizations decide they will not contest unemployment or offer the option of resigning.

As with most issues in the workplace, the proverbial ounce of prevention really matters. While there exists no foolproof way to protect your workplace against these kinds of tragedies, a few preventative steps can go a long way to putting you in the best place to deter and respond.