Trying something new here: these are some valuable ideas and stories I’ve come across these past couple of weeks.
An Office Schvitz, Anyone?
“Office Sauna: Must-have or Hot Air”: This article highlights a trendy office space in London, one of whose many nontraditional perks include a sauna. One thing this piece does well is point out the downside of perks (“Compare the cost of buying a ping-pong table to offering a living wage, rather than a minimum wage, and you start to cut through to the reality,” says one source) as well as the upside. For example, in an age where people are more inclined to work from home, having office perks can be a good way for people to stay in the office. (Side note: one of my half-baked business ideas is a sauna/spa called “Schvitz Box.” Any investors interested?)
Not an Isolated Incident: Loneliness has Real Consequences
Dr. Jeremy Nobel, medical director of the Northeast Business Group on Health, brought up something very interesting in a recent interview about the mental wellness space: the impact of loneliness and isolation on health. This is one issue that hasn’t been picked up by popular media yet but should be more visible, he said. He added that these two factors contribute to mental health problems like substance abuse, depression and suicide, and that they also have a link to early mortality.
In a time when more companies are adopting mental health programs, I wonder if any of these programs account for these two biggies, loneliness and isolation. Is there a way to tackle these in the workplace? Feel free to share your ideas/ suggestions if you have any.
I’m Too Burned Out to Think of Anymore Kitschy Titles …
“Burnout is not, as many believe, a failing of an individual,” the article states. “Rather, it’s a sign that something is amiss within an organization, and that systemic dysfunction can prevent an organization from achieving the desired outcomes of today’s value-based care efforts.”
This piece goes into more detail about the real impact of burnout and how some organizations have dealt with it, for example Vandervilt and its Nurse Wellness Program.
A High Growth Industry
“Pot Industry Cultivates a New Branch with HR”: This is a stellar Workforce article, written by Max Mihelich, on HR in the legal marijuana industry. A lot of solid information here about a “budding” industry. Hehe. What HR professionals do in this space now matters, the article argues, because “the policies and procedures developed over the next few years as the industry grows could set the precedent for how HR departments of dispensaries are run for years to come.”
Another side note: A Mother’s Day distillery tour this past weekend re-sparked my interest in this story because the tour guide made some comparisons between the whiskey biz of the 1900s and the marijuana industry today. For example, during Prohibition, you could literally get a whiskey prescription for medical reasons from your doctor; there were complicated regulations involved with this as well. Looks like the issues surrounding marijuana now are pretty timeless.
Finally, I’d like to mention that I’ll be participating in G&A Partners’ #HRTailgate Twitter chat next week, Tuesday May 23, at 11 a.m. CT. The topic is, “The Evolution of Employee Benefits,” and the other panelists and I will be answering a series of eight questions via Twitter (see below). I’ll be on sharing information from my own sources, stories and research as well as pieces written by other Workforce contributors. For more information, check out this link.
I’ll be participating via this Twitter account: @andie_burjek. Other panelists include Kathryn Moody of HR Dive and Anu Mannathikuzhiyil of G&A Partners. Looking forward to discussing benefits with my fellow panelists and tweeters!
These are the eight questions we’ll be discussing:
What are the most significant trends you are seeing in employee benefit programs?
In your opinion, what is the most valuable benefit or perk a company can offer?
What offerings do you feel best attract new talent and retain employees?
With financial stress as the #1 inhibitor of productivity, what are companies doing to help employees in that facet of the wellbeing space?
From paternal to “paw-ternal” leave, what ways can companies uniquely care for employees who are growing their families?
Should employee benefits be tailored to different generations? Why or why not?
How can companiespromote their benefits programs to attract new talent?
Where do you see employee benefits programs heading in the next decade?
Andie Burjek is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below, or email at aburjek@humancapitalmedia.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at@workforcenews.
Last week, I nominated Target Corp. and MarketSource for the worst employer of 2017, because they ignored the approximately 10 incidents of vile ethnic harassment a Palestinian employee suffered during the brief two-month tenure of his employment. Almost as bad was the logic of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded that, as matter of law, the employee failed to state a claim for ethnic harassment because the “morally repulsive” comments “were not physically threatening.”
Ahmed, an Egyptian Muslim, alleged that her senior supervisor, Anthony Figeroux, repeatedly subjected her to ethical and religious slurs, such as “constantly” telling Ahmed to remove her hijab, which he referred to as a “rag,” and making a comment during her interview (which happened to be on Sept. 11) that Ahmed and two other Muslim employees were “suspicious” and that he was thankful he was “on the other side of the building in case you guys do anything.”
According to the court, the evidence “could lead a reasonable jury to find that Ahmed was subjected to ‘a steady barrage of opprobrious racial’ and anti‐Muslim comments and conduct constituting a hostile work environment.”
The conduct in Ahmed was significantly less severe or pervasive as compared to the conduct alleged against Target, et al., which included slurs like “camel jockey” and “sand nigger.” Yet, this court still had little difficulty concluding that a jury, and not a judge, should decide whether the slurs and other anti-Muslim comments created a hostile work environment.
Let me suggest the following. If you want to eliminate the judicial vagaries of what does, or does not, constitute a hostile work environment, establish a zero-tolerance workplace for this type of misconduct. Simply don’t stand for it. How?
Create an environment in which employees feel free and open complain to anyone about anything.
Take all complaints seriously and investigate.
Implements reasonable corrective action that helps ensure this conduct will not repeat. And, for this level of misconduct, for these types of statements, that action would be termination.
These steps feed themselves. It’s the circle of harassment prevention. You create an open environment to complain by investigating and correcting. Actions speak louder than words, and your attitude toward harassment must match or better your written harassment policy. And when all three of these steps work in harmony, you end up with as harassment free of a workplace as you can hope to achieve.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
I first started thinking about the power of plug-and-play platforms in my childhood, well before I joined the HR industry.
Integrated plug-and-play benefits systems have proven to be more nimble in responding to consumer needs and business trends.
It all started with a sleek, all-inclusive console stereo system. With its built-in turntable, AM/FM radio, amplifier and speakers, I loved that stereo despite its all-in-one vertically integrated design.
But one day the amplifier broke, rendering the entire unit non-functional. As a result, the console was kicked to the curb.
Years later, my parents bought me a new stereo system with separate components. Even though the system included so-so speakers, I was thrilled. Although the sound quality was not up to my teenage standards, I eventually purchased an excellent set of speakers that enabled me to rapidly upgrade my stereo to meet my expectations.
This plug-and-play approach to my updated stereo allowed me to integrate high quality speakers into my existing system of separate but integrated components. Most importantly, this allowed me to replace the speakers while keeping my stereo and wallet intact.
The plug-and play-platform is a great example of the beauty of a horizontally integrated model with separate components designed to work seamlessly together. Applying this example to benefits packages, horizontally integrating separate vendors, enables organizations to quickly and efficiently plug-and-play benefits and services within their existing offering.
Benefits Matter
The importance of benefits in recruiting and retaining top talent is well documented. An Aflac “WorkForces Report” found “Workers who are extremely or very satisfied with their benefits program are six times more likely to stay with their employer compared to workers who are dissatisfied with their benefits program.” A 2016 “Workforce Mindset Study” found one of the top factors differentiating employers from the competition was providing “better than average benefits.” Finally, a 2016 MetLife study found 70 percent of employees say that benefits that can be customized to meet their needs would increase their loyalty to their employer.
Let’s examine the current approach to benefits in the HR industry. It is increasingly common for vendors to offer multiple benefits and services integrated vertically, similar to the old console stereo system. Vendors frequently package wellness, disability, life insurance, voluntary benefits and more. The problem with vertically integrated design is if only one of the packaged benefits or services needs to be replaced, it often becomes necessary to replace the entire integrated offering because it is owned and operated by a single vendor. This is a major problem when trying to offer an agile, competitive benefits package that meets the needs of today’s diverse, multi-generational workforce. It is much easier and more cost effective to replace one component of your benefits package in a separate but integrated “plug-and-play” platform.
Vertical Integration — the Old Benefits Delivery Model
What exactly is vertical integration and why is it inferior to the plug-and-play platform? It is a business model in which all stages of production and delivery are owned by one company. As industries mature and try their hand at integration, they are often drawn toward vertical integration as it seems easiest to control and most cost effective. In reality, vertical integration results in poor quality and service, a slower response to the ever-changing needs of an organization’s employees, and higher costs in the long run. Because of an inherent monetary conflict of interest, vertically integrated models are resistant to replacing one of their own benefit offerings with a competitor’s offering even though it may better meet your organization’s rapidly changing needs.
A company contracts with one provider for all benefit needs, similar to vertical integration. However, with horizontal integration all benefits are not owned by that particular vendor, but are managed by them. Instead, the integrated benefits provider selects separate best-fit vendors whose offerings match the organization’s identified human capital needs. The integrated benefits provider contracts directly with each vendor, using performance agreements, and then provides the client with one horizontally integrated benefit package. The outcome is one contract, covering separate vendors, with an integrated plug-and-play approach to benefits.
In today’s marketplace, utilizing a horizontally integrated plug-and-play benefits model is imperative. Meeting the needs of a workforce that employs five generations working side by side, balances on-site employees with a growing number of remote telecommuters and the increasing focus on mobile technology demands a benefits platform that is agile and responsive.
Historically, horizontally integrated plug-and-play systems have proven to be more nimble in responding to consumer needs and business trends while still providing high-quality, cost-efficient products and services. This plug-and-play model of horizontal integration results in:
Superior quality.
Rapid innovation.
Rapid response to organizational and human capital needs.
The bottom line is that the power of competition among separate vendors drives quality, cost containment and innovation. To achieve this plug-and-play platform, horizontally integrating separate vendors is the clear choice in producing the best benefit offering for your people.
Gene Raymondi is the founder and CEO of eni. He is a national expert in the field of benefit engagement and integrated benefits, with over three decades of experience in HR. He is a panelist on SHRM’s Technology and HR Management Panel and is a SHRM chapter past president. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
I was going to blog this morning about President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, and how, if you’re a CEO, and your company is investigating you for some misconduct (or even worse, potential illegal activity) related to your job, it’s bigly not good to fire the person leading the investigation, no matter the excuse you trump up.
Instead, however, today’s nominees are Target Corporation and MarketSource, (which operates mobile-phone kiosks in Target stores). Why do they make my list? Take a look at Abdel-Ghani v. Target Corp. (8th Cir. 5/5/17) [pdf].
Abdel-Ghani, a Palestinian immigrant, worked for MarketSource at a Target Mobile kiosk selling mobile phones. During the two months of his employment, he was subjected to repeated harassment about his ethnicity:
Abdel-Ghani alleged that some of the Target employees called him names like camel jockey, Muslim, Arab, terrorist, and sand nigger, often from behind shelves in the employee backroom. He claims he heard such comments at least ten times during his two months working at the Bloomington Target. He also claimed to have overheard another employee say “[y]ou should be rounded up in one place and nuke[d].”
Abdel-Ghani alleges that he reported the harassment to management of both companies. Instead of investigating the harassment or implementing any corrective action, however, Abdel-Ghani was suspended and fired based on complaints about his interactions with co-workers and customers.
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of his harassment complaint because the none of “morally repulsive” comments to which he had been subjected were accompanied by threats of violence.
Here, Abdel-Ghani has not alleged facts which show he was subjected to a hostile work environment by Target or MarketSource. Some of the approximately ten comments Abdel-Ghani heard in Target’s backroom may have been “morally repulsive,” but they were not physically threatening. The one physically threatening comment he overheard (referencing being nuked) was not said directly to him. Furthermore, Abdel-Ghani has not shown that any of these comments interfered with his work performance. We conclude that the record does not show he was subjected to a hostile work environment.
Since when does Title VII require that a hostile work environment be accompanied by threats of violence? (Hint: it doesn’t). The standard for a hostile work environment is that the offensive conduct must be so severe or pervasive so as to alter the employee’s terms or conditions of employment.
This employee was subjected to approximately ten hateful and disgusting comments about his ethnicity during the lone two months of his employment. To my management-side sensitives, that meets the pervasiveness standard. Indeed, I could make a good argument that even one “sand nigger” could meet the severity standard. Indeed, as one federal appellate court observed, “Perhaps no single act can more quickly alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment than the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as ‘nigger’ by a supervisor in the presence of his subordinates.” Regardless, however, you can’t ignore the harassment and do nothing (other than fire the victim).
Congratulations Target and MarketSource for your nomination. If you condone the use of ethnic (or, for that matter, racial, sexual or otherwise) epithets, no matter how many are uttered, you might be the worst employer of 2017.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Having a singles-friendly organizational culture can increase the attachment and engagement of single employees and greatly benefit the company. Here are some tips from Wendy Casper for creating one:
Create an environment that supports and includes all workers, regardless of marital, relationship or parental status. A key to doing this is the sense of support coming from supervisors. Training can be implemented to help supervisors understand how to manage their team so that all members feel connected and supported. Supervisors may not always be aware of the degree to which their employees feel or do not feel connected at work.
Wendy Casper
Provide work opportunities and assignments without regard to family/marital status or personal situations. Instead, use only job-relevant criteria such as past performance and strengths to determine work opportunities. When single workers feel that such assignments are given fairly, they are less likely to make plans to leave the firm.
Offer a wide variety of cafeteria-style employee benefits so that employees can choose those that best meet their personal work-life needs. Companies can still offer on-site day care, resource and referral programs, and health coverage for spouses and children, but they should also offer programs that will benefit single employees with no children, such as subsidies for fitness centers or education and training opportunities and even pet care that employees can use when traveling for business.
Treat all employee requests for time off, schedule flexibility or other alternative work arrangements the same, regardless of the reason.
Let job type or level drive work expectations rather than personal or family situations. This is an important concern for single workers who often are expected to work overtime or holidays more frequently than co-workers with spouses and children. Singles are often willing to volunteer for extra work and travel to benefit married co-workers with family obligations as long as it does not interfere with the important non-work roles in a single person’s life.
Clif Boutelle is a consultant for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
Family-friendly policies are admirable, but policies sometimes can ignore a growing segment of the employee population — single workers. Illustration by Anna Jo Beck
To attract and retain top employees, many organizations strive to create a family-friendly atmosphere.
Child care considerations, job-sharing plans and flexible work options are among the perks employers have implemented to build family oriented workplaces. Studies show that such practices often result in higher levels of employee retention, greater productivity and healthier attitudes about work.
Cynthia Horkey agrees that a family-friendly workplace can boost an organization. But Horkey, a community college grants administrator who has worked in both business and education, adds that such policies can ignore a growing yet overlooked segment of the employee population — single workers.
“I have seen mothers and fathers leave work to pick up their children from school, take them to a doctor’s appointment, or attend a school function or sports event,” she said. “Supervisors or directors generally have no problem with that, and those leaving work think nothing of taking the time off to handle these needs.”
But let a single person ask for time off to attend to a personal matter and the request is often considered unfavorably, Horkey added.
“If organizations tout family-friendliness, why not be single-friendly as well?” she asked.
Despite the best of intentions, family-friendly workplaces can neglect employees who are single — whether they are unmarried, divorced or widowed — in favor of colleagues with families. Experts say that could be a problem for organizations looking to retain them.
Single employees comprise a significant and growing segment of the American workforce. According to a 2014 Census Bureau report, there are 105 million Americans 18 and older who are divorced, widowed or never married. They comprise 44 percent of all U.S. residents with 53 percent women and 47 percent men, the report stated. Together, single employees represent 43.8 percent of the civilian labor force — hardly a demographic to be ignored.
Millennials and Marriage
A large chunk of these single workers are millennials, those ages 18 to 34 who now comprise one in three of American workers, according to the Pew Research Center. A significant number of them are single because young people are putting off marriage and are on track to remain single far longer than previous generations.
Wendy Casper has studied single workers extensively.
Wendy Casper, a professor of organizational behavior, human resource management and research methods at the University of Texas at Arlington, has studied single workers extensively. She has found that many feel their managers and organizations overlook their needs for support in the workplace in favor of their married colleagues.
“It is these kinds of perceptions, real or otherwise, that can lead to bad feelings within the workplace,” Casper said.
Casper’s research specifically focuses on single workers without dependents. One of her conclusions is that many organizations do not recognize that single workers have non-work obligations just like their married colleagues. This is often interpreted by singles as a sign that their personal responsibilities are not taken seriously.
Casper added that the emergence of family-friendly practices to help employees with child care demands and dual career issues is a positive trend that has made U.S. employers better places to work.
“The singles in my research also commend employers that offer these programs,” she said. “They just hope employers will think more broadly to support their non-work responsibilities as well.”
While singles’ non-work lives are different, they nevertheless are important, Casper said. Yet the perception persists that single workers have few non-work responsibilities, at least not the kind that married employees have.
The holidays can be an especially difficult time to accommodate all workers and their scheduling requests.
“Where I am employed, if you worked one holiday then you got the next off,” said Haley Perry, 20, a customer service associate at an outdoor gear and apparel store.
However, as a single person, she is among the first to be asked by married co-workers to change shifts so they can be with their families.
“At first, I tried to be agreeable, but often I have plans with my family and friends and finally had to say no,” she said. “There was the assumption because I was not married that I could easily change my schedule.”
Kristen Noreen, a natural resource consultant in Washington state, has seen both sides of the workplace dynamic. When she was married, Noreen was oblivious to how single co-workers were treated. However, when she divorced she began to notice that being single had given her a different status in the office.
“I saw married people receive the vacation times they requested, but single people’s requests were given lower priority,” she said. “When I wanted to spend time with my mother, it was more difficult to schedule time off. Then when my supervisor was divorced she began to work really late hours and expected me to work late because I was not married and she assumed I had the time to stay in the office longer.”
Noreen began to distance herself from her boss and finally asked for a transfer, which she thought she could easily obtain because a married co-worker was able to transfer so his children could go to the schools in their new location. The manager denied her request because she was single, saying unlike the married co-worker, she had no reason to be transferred.
“He told me that when my status changed and I could afford a house then my request would be reconsidered,” Noreen said.
Casper said the brazen assumption that people who are single have no life or responsibilities outside of the workplace is false and that, in today’s workplace, it is not wise to ignore the needs of unmarried workers because given changing demographics they will soon comprise the majority of the workforce.
Single people have obligations outside of work, Casper said. They are often asked to take care of aging parents or other relatives, many are involved in community service projects, some are working toward a college degree, and there are those who are raising children as single parents. Moreover, they often handle these responsibilities on their own, without the support of a partner to help them.
“I understand there are times when employees with children need to take care of some of these things, but if for some reason they cannot leave work, they have someone to share those situations with, whereas single people do not,” Horkey said. “If a single person has to go home to meet a plumber or electrician to fix a problem and is not given permission to leave work, he or she may have to make other arrangements, like scheduling someone after work, in the evening or on the weekend, which is a distinct disadvantage for single people.”
Casper’s research has found that many single workers feel married workers receive more flexibility in terms of duties and hours worked as well as benefits, such as paid family leave. In one of her studies of singles without children she found that 62 percent said they were treated differently from co-workers with a spouse and children, and 30 percent described different work expectations for single and married workers, “reinforcing the message that married workers’ lives are more important than the lives of singles,” she said.
Jennifer Deal is the co-author of ‘What Millennials Want from Work.’
Singles may also feel shortchanged when it comes to supervisors’ evaluations, given evidence that they sometimes subconsciously favor those with families. For instance, married men are often paid a “wage premium,” presumably because they are seen as providing for families. It’s a consideration not given to singles who managers assume do not have families to support.
“The bottom line is that the combination of the shift to later marriages resulting in more single workers is going to have substantial implications for employers,” said Jennifer Deal, senior research scientist at the Center for Creative Leadership in San Diego and co-author of “What Millennials Want from Work.”
And if trends continue, many millennials will be single parents and will have similar obligations as married people, which can affect everything from health care plans to work assignments. Organizations need to get in front of this societal shift, Deal explained.
“Millennials are looking for what everyone wants in a job — one that pays well, offers interesting work with people they like and trust, doesn’t cause them to have a career with no life, allows for promotion, and has enough development so they don’t feel they are stagnating,” she added.
Millennials are deeply concerned about job and financial stability, according to Deal. If they feel either are threatened, they will be quick to leave. However, her research shows that most prefer to stay with their employer for the long haul.
Compounding the stereotypes regarding single workers, several studies have shown they are viewed more negatively than married people and judged to be lonely, insecure, more self-centered, inflexible and unhappy. At the same time, millennials, many of whom are single, suffer from similar unflattering impressions as being self-centered and entitled and willing to jump ship for something better.
Such stereotypes and impressions can negatively affect a work environment.
“Despite that, singles don’t really resent the perks given to married workers because they understand the importance of being family friendly. They simply would like to have employers pay greater attention to their needs as well,” Casper said.
Company leaders can help their young and single employees by paying them well from the beginning of their employment. They can also implement assistance programs to help pay their college loan debt or provide tuition reimbursement plans that help with their continuing education.
“A challenge for managers is to think of their employees in terms of their life stage rather than in terms of a generation,” Deal added. “What people want, can do, and need differs more as a function of life stage than it does as a function of generation.”
Clearly what is needed is a workplace culture where the specifics of a person’s home life, including marriage, should not matter in evaluating an employee’s work, and a culture that supports everyone having a life outside of work regardless of whether that life includes having a spouse and raising children, she said.
Organizations need to understand the responsibilities their employees have outside the workplace and that requires more flexibility from the company, Deal said. Being knowledgeable about all employees — single, millennials (often the same) and married — and ensuring the organization is prepared to meet their needs is a key to a company’s success.
Developing a culture that supports all employees’ work-life balance is likely to enhance employee perceptions of both supportiveness and fairness, Casper said. She references an abundance of research that shows when employees perceive their organizations are more supportive, they tend to be more committed and satisfied and less likely to leave. Those employees also are more likely to go “above and beyond” and pitch in to help co-workers and the organization.
“When they do, everyone wins; organizations benefit when turnover of talented employees is reduced and when institutional knowledge is retained and developed over many years and companies become better places for people to work,” she said.
Clif Boutelle is a consultant for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
I’m a sucker for packaging. It’s probably because I’m in the media and headlines are my business. I live for messaging that hooks and reels you in like a caught fish. The right word combo — you’ve got all my attention.
An expert contends there are 150 unconscious biases in play at our brain at any given time. Technology can nudge hiring managers to align with the company’s diversity and inclusion goals.
The article was good too — though the headline was better — it discussed methods talent leaders can use to tackle unconscious bias, specifically HR technology systems. Hint: It has nothing to do with the user experience and everything to do with what the author called, the nudge.
Apparently when the idea of relieving HR processes of bias comes up, technology system decision-makers in the market at-large are often peppered with questions about whether they plan to replace HR with artificial intelligence. I’d wager, aside from companies firmly entrenched in the tech industry, few organizations have any such plan, but I agree with one idea presented in the piece: It pays to take a holistic look at HR, with innovations like machine learning as one facet to consider. You don’t want to lose the human touch, nor do you want to cut HR leaders off from the rich data streams technology provides. Data they can use to make better, more sustainable recruitment and talent-related decisions.
But it was the suggestion that CDOs are poorly positioned in the HR decision-making hierarchy that really caught my eye. Patti Fletcher, leadership futurist and solution management at SAP SuccessFactors, “said that while chief diversity officers are on the rise, that hasn’t necessarily translated into measurable results … designated diversity leaders rarely have a seat at the table when it comes to human capital management technology purchasing decisions.”
Technology is ubiquitous in the modern workplace. Successful organizations have made gadgetry another kind of employee in areas throughout the employee lifecycle. Talent leaders of all kinds rely on systems to do their jobs: hiring, recruitment, retention, engagement, promotion, succession planning, etc. If diversity leaders can’t influence technology purchasing decisions in the context of talent or people strategy, that’s a huge disconnect.
It also brings up a few questions:
How dialed in is the CDO with the company’s overall talent/HR strategy?
Is the CDO an active partner working closely with talent leaders to ensure that systems and processes promote a diverse and inclusive workforce that is as free from bias as possible?
If not, why not?
What is their sphere of influence? Who do they report to? Who holds their ear?
But back to the nudge. “We know the blame and shame game doesn’t work when it comes to addressing bias,” said Fletcher. “We’re finding out what does work is the nudge factor. There are 150 unconscious biases in play at our brain at any given time, and technology can literally interrupt decisions, nudging hiring managers to align with the company’s diversity and inclusion goals.”
Good grief. How can there be 150 unconscious biases in our brains at any given time? That’s just, wow. They can’t mean all at once. I couldn’t name that many biases if you paid me. But if you ever had a doubt that you have been or will at some point fall prey to bias, that number should give you significant pause.
“This is not about replaying the old human vs. machine tapes,” Fletcher explained. “When technology can take everything about someone — credentials, experience, cultural fit — and find the ideal match based on what the machine has learned about what it takes to be successful at your business, this fundamentally changes the role of HR.”
And it goes without saying, it makes things more complicated. That’s why it’s so important that diversity and talent leaders work together to untangle the best ways to find, assess, keep and promote talent. Diversity, inclusion and talent are not ideas that can be kept separate. If these silos exist, I bet that organization’s diversity plan is more of an idea than it is a strategy. Unless diversity is a sop, which is infinitely worse.
Whether it’s using technology to promote the nudge, being more thoughtful about the wording in job postings, or any of the other hundred HR-diversity related tasks leaders face each day — lean on the people who have made diversity and inclusion their business. Pick their brains. Ask their opinion. Loop them in. If you have a diversity leader, that’s what they’re there for. If you don’t use them as a resource, what’s the point?
Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce. Comment below or email editor@workforce.com.
Startups are notorious for having a high attrition rate, and HR is tasked with difficult job of retaining and engaging existing employees.
At an early stage, a startup will typically attract highly creative, strategic, future-oriented thinkers who defy boundaries.
Despite their best efforts, attrition continues.
The repetitive cycle reminds me of Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity: “Doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
What if we thought about retention differently? What if we said, “Let’s accept and work with attrition rather than against it?” To do that, we must first understand what causes turnover in startups.
In my experience, the cause is due to two key factors: the profile of people who are attracted to work at startups, and evolution of that profile as the company grows.
The profile of candidates who flock to startups tend to be more risk-tolerant professionals interested in making a big impact, and they’re focused on growing quickly. Because successful startups go through various phases of growth, the type of person interested in contributing at one stage is different from the one attracted to the next stage.
For example, at an earlier stage, a startup will typically attract highly creative, strategic, future-oriented thinkers who defy boundaries. As it grows in number of employees, processes are needed to help create structure, which changes the kind of work needed, hence changing the candidates the company attracts.
It is up to HR to understand this evolution and work with the reality rather than against it. Working to “prevent” turnover is virtually impossible, and leads only to great frustration and wasted resources. Instead, here are three strategies to work with the reality we live in:
Getahead and keepcommunicationopen. Providing multiple modes of communication among managers, employees and leaders is essential to understanding when and where the turnover will happen. These might include polling, surveys, All Hands, 1:1s, team meetings, stand ups and informal “drive bys.” Equip managers with tools to have open dialog with employees to learn what their motivators are, and how their work and environment currently or could fulfill that. Encourage the question “When you leave here, what do you want to have learned?” Managers may shy away from this kind of conversation, yet when they open up the dialog and build the right level of trust, employees welcome the ability to speak openly. By learning where attrition will happen through these modes of communication, organizations can much better plan for the attrition they will inevitably face.
Linkyouridealcandidateprofiletoyourcompanygrowthphase. Let’s face it: when we need to hire quickly, hiring managers create a description quickly and after a brief review by a recruiter, it is posted. Aside from the skills and experience needed, not much time is spent thinking about the kind of candidate profile that’s needed for that particular stage of the company. Candidates with only very large company experience struggle with the often very little structure that exists in a startup. They also tend to be less risk-tolerant and therefore can sometimes stand in the way of innovation. Candidates who have jumped around to different startups will likely be frustrated with the structure in place for companies with 500 employees or more. The moral: be mindful of where you are in your growth, define the profile of a successful candidate for each stage and make sure your recruiting strategy evolves with your growth.
Maximizeonyouremployees’ talents. How much happier would your employees be — and how much more could they contribute — if everyone agreed? Using Gallup’s simple Strengthsfinder assessment can help your employees learn about their best talents, and their managers can use this information to align those talents with work. Each time I’ve run Strengthsfinder sessions with employees, their eyes light up as they discover what truly drives them. Managers can then take this information and allocate work according to each team members’ strengths, thus maximizing the output of each individual.
The purpose here is not to say that engaging employees and ensuring overall employee health and happiness isn’t important. In fact, it is extremely important. However, at the pace that startups grow, the reality is that different people are attracted to, and do their best in, different stages. So, instead of wringing our hands over attrition and trying to coerce everyone to stay, let’s capitalize on the fact that each individual performs differently depending on the situation by changing how we attract and develop talent each step of the way.
Rachel Ernst is the head of employee success at Reflektive. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
I recently told you that small businesses (less than 250 employees) suffered 31 percent of last year’s cyberattacks. What can you do to best protect your business (of any size) to repel an attack? Let me introduce you to the data security policy, an essential component of any employee handbook now, and likely forever.
What should an effective data security policy contain? Consider 1) consulting with a knowledgeable cybersecurity attorney; and 2) including these 10 components (c/o me, Travelers, and the U.S. Small Business Association):
Safeguard Data Privacy: Employees must understand that your privacy policy is a pledge to your customers/vendors/etc. that you and they will protect their information. Employees should only use data in ways that will keep customer identity and the confidentiality of information secure.
Establish Password Management: A policy mandating complex passwords, changed regularly, is required for any workers who will access corporate resources.
Consider Two-Factor Authentication: Consider requiring multi-factor authentication that requires additional information (i.e., an additional pass-code delivered to a designated secondary device) beyond a password to gain entry.
Govern Internet Usage: Each organization must decide how employees can and should access the internet, which balances employee productivity against corporate security concerns.
Manage Email Usage: Many data breaches result from employee misuse of email, which results in the loss/theft of data or the accidental downloading of viruses, malware, or ransomware. You need standards on the use of emails, message content, encryption, and file retention. Moreover, do not forget to train your employees on how to detect and deflect phishing attempts.
Govern and Manage Company-Owned Mobile Devices: Organizations that provide mobile devices for employee use need a formal process to help ensure that any use is secure. A good starting point? Requiring the same password protection as non-mobile devices, and a mobile device management infrastructure that lets you remote wipe a device if it’s lost or stolen.
Establish an Approval Process for Employee-Owned Mobile Devices: Ownership of smartphones has reached a critical mass. A “Bring Your Own Device” program is no longer an option, but should be required. If employees are going to bring personal devices into the workplace, and use them to connect to your network, you need to deploy reasonable policies to govern their use and protect your network and security, instead of ignoring the issue or instituting prohibitions that employees will ignore anyway.
Govern Social Media: All users of social media need to be aware of the risks associated with social media. Social media presents a real risk of corporate breaches of confidentiality. It is easy to tell your employees, “Think before you click.” Yet, 76 percent of the Inc. 500 lack a social media policy for their employees, and 73 percent of all employers conduct no social media training. If you aren’t educating your employees about the risks and benefits of social media, both in and out of the workplace, you are not only missing a golden opportunity, but you also leaving yourself exposed to breaches of confidentiality and other snafus.
Oversee Software Copyright and Licensing: Software usage agreements oblige organizations to adhere to their terms, and you should make employees aware of any software use restrictions. Also, employees should not download and use software that has not been reviewed and approved by the company (some of which could expose the company to viruses, malware, or ransomware).
Report Security Incidents: Finally, all of the above goes out the window if your employees do not know and understand when and how to report a security breach, and how and when to report malicious viruses, malware, or ransomware in the event it is inadvertently imported. All employees must know how to report security incidents and what to do to mitigate any damage.
As is the case with any policy, a data security policy will not be worth the paper on which it’s written if you don’t train your employees on what it means and how it operates in practice. Data breaches are not an if issue, but a when issue. You will be breached; the only question is when it will occur. While you cannot prevent a data breach from occurring, you can and should train your employees to sure up any knowledge gaps that further opens the risk they inadvertently pose.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
If you’ve ever spoken or thought the words, “We’re too small to worry about a cyberattack,” you’d better think again.
According to a recent study, 31 percent of all cyberattacks in 2016 were directed at companies with less than 250 employees.
Do I now have your attention?
If you’re still on the fence, consider these other stats, courtesy of Dark Reading:
98 percent of all companies suffered a cyberattack in 2016.
The average company suffers a minimum of 11 cyberattacks per day, with some facing as many as 50 daily.
27 percent of all cyber incidents are caused by insiders due to malicious or accidental actions.
Individuals open 30 percent of phishing messages directed to them, with another 12 percent clicking the malicious attachment or link, enabling the attack to succeed.
40 percent of companies have no cyber incident response plan in place
70 percent of companies lack cyber insurance.
Over the lifespan of a mobile device, 22 percent of all such devices will disappear, with over 50 percent of those never to be recovered. With more and more internet traffic flowing via mobile over desktop, these missing devices (along with other security holes such as open and unsecured wifi) pose a huge risk to your data security.
I’ll soon discuss your first and best defense against a cyberattack, a data security policy, and the key elements that it must have to best shield your company.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Andie Burjek is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below, or email at aburjek@humancapitalmedia.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.
