Author: Site Staff

Money isn’t the only thing standing in the way of improved security at American corporations. Clashes between company cultures within firms are equally at fault, according to The Conference Board.

There are often at least three different parts of an organization that have their hands in security issues: the physical security forces, the IT department and risk-management executives. They don’t always communicate well with each other, and have unequal degrees of authority within their companies, The Conference Board says.

In IT departments, privacy is often paramount. Physical security professionals often come from the military or law enforcement and value authority. Risk managers are sometimes most concerned about the bottom line.

Thomas Cavanagh is a senior research associate for The Conference Board, and has done extensive research on corporate security issues. He says that some of the best companies at handling corporate security are Morgan Stanley, Avaya, Marriott and El Al. Generally, says Cavanagh, the “best practices” firms centralize their security operations and also have senior leaders who are highly committed to ensuring the safety of employees, and communicating its importance.

Cavanagh says that executives in human resources have a part in corporate security that goes beyond their two traditional roles–managing the background-check process, and helping the company and its workforce cope with emergencies. Human resources professionals are also sometimes part of security committees within corporations. “Human resources by and large will not be taking the lead on those committees,” Cavanagh says, “but should be aware of some of these (infighting) issues and play a facilitating role to the extent that that’s possible.”

Below is one organization’s policy regarding hiring from outside the firm–with references to the company removed.

1. POLICY
It is the policy of the Organization to select employees from candidates possessing the required qualifications for a position. When qualified internal candidates are not available, external candidates are considered.

2. SCOPE
This policy and procedure applies to all departments and employees of the Organization.

3. ACCOUNTABILITY

3.1 All managers are accountable for identifying the staffing needs of their departments and the qualifications for each position within their departments.

3.2 Human Resources is solely accountable for obtaining qualified candidates for all open positions, conducting reference checks, negotiating compensation and start date, processing new employees, and providing all necessary forms to implement this policy and procedure.

3.3 The Supervisor of the position, Department Manager, and Human Resources are jointly accountable for making the selection decision.

4. DEFINITIONS

4.1 Search Firm–An external organization contracted to obtain qualified candidates and used mainly for executive and professional positions. Generally, the fee is paid whether or not a candidate is hired.

4.2 Employment Agency–An external organization furnishing qualified candidates and used mainly for nonexempt, administrative, first-level management, and entry positions. Generally, no fee is paid unless a candidate is hired.

5. FORMS

5.1 Employee Requisition

5.2 Employee Recommendation

5.3 Application for Employment

5.4 Emergency Information Sheet

5.5 Federal Form I-9

5.6 Federal Form W-4

5.7 Employee Handbook

5.8 Benefit Enrollment Forms and Manuals

5.9 Reference Authorization and Release

6. PROCEDURE

6.1 When a position becomes available, the supervisor to whom that position reports and his/her manager decide whether to obtain external candidates (see Internal Selection Policy and Procedure).

6.2 If external candidates are to be considered for the position, the supervisor completes an Employee Requisition, has it approved and signed by the manager to whom he/she reports, and submits it to Human Resources, along with a request for external candidates.

6.3 Human Resources obtains qualified candidates and refers them to the supervisor submitting the requisition.

6.4 Human Resources may use whatever sources it views as appropriate for obtaining external candidates, such as, but not limited to, employee recommendations (see 6.11 below), applications and resumes on file, new applications and resumes, newspaper advertising, school references, job fairs, professional references, employment agencies, and search firms.

6.5 The Human Resources manager has the sole authority for selecting candidates to be considered, scheduling interviews, checking references, and obtaining a completed Application for Employment and a signed Reference Authorization and Release.

6.5.1 Human Resources submits applications and/or resumes of candidates meeting qualifications to the supervisor of the position for review.

6.5.2 If approved by the supervisor, Human Resource schedules interviews for a candidate.

6.6 The selection decision is made by the supervisor from the candidates provided by Human Resources, with the approval of the supervisor’s manager.

6.6.1 Human Resources negotiates starting compensation and dates with the selected candidate and prepares and sends a written offer of employment (see 7.2 Compensation Policy and Procedure).

6.6.2 When the employment offer is accepted by the selected candidate, Human Resources notifies all other candidates for the position. If the selected candidate declines the offer, the external selection process is continued.

6.7 During the first hours of employment, Human Resources has the employee complete all required forms: Emergency Information Sheet, Federal Form I-9, Federal Form W-4, and any other required forms.

6.8 When all forms are completed, Human Resources will explain all appropriate conditions of employment and then escort the new employee to the supervisor to whom she/he will report.

6.9 Between sixty (60) and seventy-five (75) days after the date of employment, Human Resources will meet with the employee to explain the health and dental benefits programs. Prior to the ninetieth (90th) day of employment, the employee will be required to accept or decline (in writing) the benefits programs.

6.10 Record Keeping
Human Resources is accountable for maintaining the following records and files:

6.10.1 Applicant Log listing all applicants, from whatever sources, by date of application.

6.10.2 A file of completed applications and resumes.

6.10.2.1 Applications and resumes are filed by type of position for which they were made or are qualified.

6.10.2.2 Applications and resumes in each category are maintained by date received.

6.10.2.3 Applications and resumes are retained for at least twelve (12) months.

6.10.2.4 After twelve (12) months, they are discarded.

6.10.3 Bulletin Board
Human Resources maintains a bulletin board at each location where candidates and applications are received. The bulletin boards include a posting of all required local, state, and federal employment notices.

6.11 Employee Referrals

A system for existing employees to recommend external candidates for positions within the organization.

6.11.1 Human Resources may notify all employees of open positions by bulletin board notices.

6.11.2 Any employee may recommend a non-employee for any posted position by submitting to Human Resources a completed Employee Recommendation form, accompanied by an Application for Employment completed by the individual being recommended.

6.11.3 Human Resources retains all Employee Recommendation forms in a separate file for six (6) months from date of receipt.

6.11.4 If the recommended individual is hired, the recommending employee will receive a reward after the newly hired employee has completed six months of service with the organization.

6.11.5 In the event two or more employees recommend the same individual, the employee making the recommendation first will be paid any award, and the other recommending employees will be so notified.

6.11.6 Awards are:

6.11.6.1 $**** for commissioned sales positions.

6.11.6.2 $**** for all positions other than commissioned sales positions.

6.11.7 No awards will be paid if:

6.11.7.1 The individual applied to the Organization within the past six months and prior to the receipt of the Employee Recommendation form.

6.11.7.2 The individual was suggested to the Organization by a search firm or employment agency within the past six months and prior to the receipt of the Employee Recommendation form.

6.11.7.3 There is a completed Application for Employment on file that was received prior to the receipt of the Employee Recommendation form.

6.11.7.4 The individual is hired more than six months after the Employee Recommendation form is received.

6.11.7.5 The employee making the referral is no longer employed by the Organization at the time the award is scheduled for payment.

6.11.7.6 The recommended individual is terminated for any reason prior to 180 days of service.

6.11.7.7 The referring employee is in the Human Resources department; is an officer or senior manager of the Organization; is a relative of the referred individual (sibling, divorced former spouse, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, spouse, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, or daughter-in-law); or is the supervisor or manager of the position.

7. REFERENCES

7.1 Internal Selection Policy and Procedure

7.2 Compensation Policy and Procedure

SOURCE: Excerpted from How to Develop Essential HR Policies and Procedures by John H. McConnell. Copyright 2005 John H. McConnell. Published by AMACOM Books, a division of American Management Association, New York, NY. Used with permission. All rights reserved www.amacombooks.org

Employers calling off flu shot programs in light of the nation’s severe vaccine shortage should prepare for possible surges in absenteeism and plunges in productivity among their employees, experts say.

    The federal government had projected that Americans would require a supply of about 100 million influenza boosters this flu season and was relying on Emeryville, California-based Chiron Corp. to produce between 46 million and 48 million of those doses, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. But, earlier this month, Chiron announced that the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency had suspended its license to manufacture the vaccine Fluvirin in its Liverpool, England, facility, citing a breach of U.K. Good Manufacturing Practices regulations. Chiron has not disclosed the nature of the breach.

    With Chiron now barred from distributing its drug this year, HHS expects it will be able to secure only approximately 54 million flu shot immunizations–just over half of the anticipated supply–from the only other American-approved manufacturer, the Lyon, France-based Aventis Pasteur.

    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta estimates that up to 20 percent of the U.S. population contracts the flu each year, with over 200,000 people each year hospitalized from flu-related complications and as many as 36,000 dying from influenza. Groups at high risk for flu complications include children under two years of age, adults age 65 years and older, women who will be pregnant during influenza season, persons with underlying chronic medical conditions and residents of long-term care facilities.

    The CDC cites vaccination as the best defense against contracting the flu, but, given this season’s shortfall, those not in priority groups are being asked to forgo the vaccine.

    “Most of the people are following the CDC’s guidelines, and that’s what we’re recommending to clients,” said Jennifer Lim, national director of Vienna, Virginia-based Comprehensive Health Services, a company that manages occupational health programs for large organizations, including several Fortune 200 firms and federal agencies.

Absences and disabilities
    Thousands of companies across the country have canceled onsite programs that immunize workers in an effort to ensure that high-risk individuals can obtain flu shots.

    Boeing, for example, which has for several years offered flu shots to employees free of charge, has canceled its program for this season and donated its vaccine supply to a local health department, a company spokesman said. General Motors, which has over 320,000 workers, also made the decision to forgo its immunization program this year, a spokesman confirmed. And Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., which earlier this month informed its 64,000 employees that free shots would not be offered this season, is grappling with how “to gauge the costs related to canceling the flu shot,” a company spokesman said.

    While it may be too soon for companies to calculate the losses related to the lack of flu vaccine, experts say that businesses should expect to feel the impact.

    “Employers should brace themselves for increased absences and, in severe cases, short-term disability, because of the lack of availability of the vaccine,” said Shelly Wolff, national practice leader for health and productivity for Watson Wyatt Worldwide in Stamford, Connecticut.

    A study published in 1999 in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. found that recipients of the influenza vaccine experienced up to 27 percent fewer days of illness, up to 28 percent fewer days of work lost and up to 40 percent fewer days making health care provider visits.

    In recent years, “more and more companies have been offering the flu vaccine, because there has been a proven connection between the flu vaccine and reduced illness, which translates into less use of sick leave,” Wolff said.

    A June survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management showed that 60 percent of U.S. companies provide flu shot programs for their employees. “It works both ways,” said a spokeswoman for SHRM. “Organizations are hoping that they’ll see a decrease in sick days. Employees are very happy to have this benefit because they don’t want the flu.”

Effect on health costs
    According to Sharon Kaleta, chief executive officer of the San Diego-based Disability Management Employer Coalition, which assists employers in developing cost-saving programs and returning workers to productive employment, those companies that vaccinate their employees are not only “reporting a decrease in sick time” but “some employers have indicated that there’s been a decrease in their health care costs.”

    CCH Inc., a Riverwoods, Illinois-based firm that tracks human resources statistics, estimates unscheduled absences cost organizations, on average, $610 per employee annually. “For those organizations that did not get the vaccine early,” Kaleta predicted there will be “an increase in the absence rate, and in corresponding dollars. There will be a lesser impact on those employers that are able to vaccinate their high-risk employees but there will still be some impact,” she said. “We just don’t know to what degree yet.”

    The cost of the flu shot shortage for employers will depend, in part, on the severity of the flu season, which, according to the CDC, varies in intensity and begins as early as October and ends as late as May. “We don’t have enough data yet to tell if it’s going to be a mild, moderate or severe flu season this year,” a CDC spokeswoman said.

    Still, businesses can put into place some absence and productivity management strategies to mitigate the effects of not being able to immunize workers.

    As an alternative to onsite vaccination, companies should “encourage their employees who are at high risk to get their flu shot from their physician or other health care provider,” said Dr. Ron Davis, a Detroit-based physician who is also an AMA board member.

    Doctors and benefit consultants recommend that employers communicate the importance of maintaining good hygiene in the workplace, using simple techniques such as hand washing and covering the mouth and nose when sneezing. Employers should also allow contagious employees to work from home so they do not spread the virus, they say.

    Additionally, Gaithersburg, Maryland-based Medimmune Inc. has made available 1 million to 2 million doses of FluMist, a nasal spray vaccine not recommended for higher-risk individuals but suitable for healthy patients between the ages of five and 49. Hartford, Connecticut-based insurer Aetna Inc. and Woodland Hills, California-based managed health care company Health Net Inc. announced they will cover the cost of FluMist.

    “Larger employers that have self-insured plans” might find it “prudent to cover the FluMist,” said Kathleen Strukoff, a vice president with Chicago-based Aon Consulting, which provides risk management, human resource and employee benefit consulting. An alternative for smaller employers might be a vaccine reimbursement process through accounts payable departments, she suggested.

    There are also three antiviral prescription drugs–amantadine, rimantadine and oseltamivir–that are approved and commercially available in the United States for preventing flu. While the CDC stresses that these drugs are not substitutes for the flu vaccine, they are 70 percent to 90 percent effective in preventing illness in healthy adults, the agency claims.

    In the meantime, companies currently not licensed to sell the flu vaccine in the United States–such as Vancouver, British Columbia-based I.D. Biomedical, which supplies Canada with 75 percent of its flu vaccine–are in talks with the federal Food and Drug Administration to gain approval to supply additional doses. I.D. Biomedical has a stockpile of between 1 million and 1.5 million doses that have not been allocated, a company spokesman said.

    Looking ahead, Chiron–which is now under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to determine if the company had attempted to cover up problems at its vaccine plant in England–says it is committed to providing the flu shot next year.

    “We take our responsibility to protect human health very seriously,” Howard Pien, president and chief executive officer of Chiron, said in a statement, “and we are committed to taking all necessary actions to ensure an adequate vaccine supply for the 2005-06 influenza season.”

From the October 18 issue of   Business Insurance. Written by Rupal Parekh

Bill Catlette and Richard Hadden, authors of Contented Cows Give Better Milk, were among the first experts to argue that being asought-after employer leads to higher employeesatisfaction, higherretention rates, greater efficiency, better customer relations and ultimately higher profits.

    Workforce Management talked to Catlette and Hadden about their latest findings.

    What have companies been coming up with lately as strategies to retain employees?

RH: It’s not the things that have never been thought of before that hold the most promise, but rather the things that have been thought about but not applied enough.

There’s a lot of low-hanging fruit. Some employers confuse recruitment and retention. If someone is unsatisfied with another employer, if they’re frustrated or bored, you can get them to jump ship by offering outrageous signing bonuses or luxury cars–but they don’t seem to have any retentive power. They’ll get people there, but not keep them there. And I’d venture to say that most of the companies that have thrown these things up have done so without even considering the hard numbers.

    There’s a lot of talk about “building a sense of community for employees.” Is it just a touchy-feely thing? What’s the cost and payoff involved in creating a community?

RH: If people feel like they’re part of a workplace, then they’re going to have more resistance to leaving. They’re not just leaving a job, they’re leaving a community, and it takes a little bit more of a tug for that to happen.

East Alabama Medical Center does an outstanding job of retaining their employees. Nursing has north of a 50 percent annual turnover, on average. At last count, East Alabama Medical Center was running closer to 12 percent for its nurses, and that’s driven by leaders at every level. Their CEO, Terry Andrus, comes in early every morning so that he can spend time doing what everyone in the hospital calls “TA’s rounds”: he spends at least an hour every day, without exception, walking around, talking to people, listening–mostly listening. That’s enabled him to lead this hospital for 20 years and do remarkable things in terms of patient care and employee commitment. And it costs absolutely nothing for managers to be out there, spending time, talking and listening. The higher up in an organization you go, the less it’s done and the more important it is.

East Alabama also has the Cornerstone Society, an employee-run program to assist employees in times of crisis: a fire, a serious illness, an accident. The only resource the hospital gives to it is a full-time employee to manage it. They receive money through voluntary payroll deductions from employees, and some fund-raisers. The society averages about $125,000 a year. And people contribute vacation and sick time for those who really need it. Bill and I were at a meeting at East Alabama a few years ago, and some HR character said, “Well, how do you keep that from being abused? How would you make sure that process is administered fairly? Because it seems like some people would have more tragedy in their lives than others.” I think Terry Andrus wanted to throttle the guy. He said, “We do the right thing, and it always comes back to us.”

    Have they run the numbers on it?

RH: I bet Terry Andrus would resist that. But he knows he’s got the only public hospital that’s ever been listed in Fortune‘s 100 best companies to work for.

BC: They do monitor their patient-satisfaction data very carefully, and they have empirical data that suggests there’s a very strong correlation with their success in dealing with employees and with patients.

    Synovus Bank in Georgia also tends to appear on lists of great places to work; what’s its strategy?

RH: One thing I know about them is their profit-sharing plan. That’s something that’s attractive for some organizations and not others, and a lot of it has to do with how the company is performing. Their profit-sharing and 401(k) can add up to about a 21 percent bonus for employees, even–and especially–for rank-and-file employees. Their take is that it has to make a major difference; they know they can’t offer a $500 bonus and have people get excited. And they’ve done very well; their stock went up 50 percent from 2002 to 2003.

    You discuss Chick-fil-A and its corporate culture in Contented Cows. Has it changed since its founder, Truett Cathy, moved out of the spotlight and turned command over to his son Dan?

RH: They continue to hold very tightly to their mission; they’ve gotten even better at what they do, and how they relate to their employees. And it seems to be paying off: just last month, they won a “Customers First” award from Fast Company magazine. They make sure their operators have very strong leadership ability because they know that drives their retention, and turnover is one of their heaviest costs. If they can keep it to a third to a fourth of their competitors’, that allows them to make more money. And, more than any other fast-food company we know of, they seem to care that their individual team members know how their work affects the overall operation.

Chick-fil-A is very proud of their scholarship program; to date, they’ve given more than $18 million in scholarship funds.

I told them, “Most of your employees are teenagers and seniors. I can understand that at Intel or GE or Bank of America, places that hire college grads, there might be a scholarship program, but you know that most of your scholarships’ beneficiaries will not come back to Chick-fil-A.” They say that part of their mission is to have a positive impact on society, and therefore it qualifies under their charter. They also have found that it causes these teenagers, who otherwise will work for three or four months at a restaurant and then move on, to stick around for two or three or four years.

Because it’s a closely held private company, it’s hard to know how the numbers go, but I’m sure they see this as a very, very worthwhile investment.

    Why wouldn’t other chains adopt the same sorts of employee-relations ideas that have worked for Chick-fil-A?

RH: I don’t think any of the other fast-service food organizations have been willing to apply the same high standards to their managers, or commit to the kinds of values and missions, that Chick-fil-A has. They don’t see that it’s in their immediate self-interest; they’re playing to the quarterly numbers, and not willing to take the long view of it.

    Has the reliance by many companies on contingent employees changed relationships between employees and managers?

BC: Absolutely. For the longest time, organizations that relied heavily on part-time and casual employees almost looked at those folks as being second-class citizens–in terms of compensation, benefits, training–and my goodness, we’ve paid a price for it. As if a part-time employee couldn’t piss off a customer, or have an accident, or injure people!

We’re finally starting to get beyond some of that. Starbucks, for instance, has a lot of part-time people, and they’re as serious about getting them trained and on board and competent, and knowing what’s going on at Starbucks, as they are with full-time employees.

    A number of companies used the promise of training and “learning environments” to recruit employees a few years ago, but when the economy went sour, training programs were among the first things to go! Are there organizations that are still using training to help with employee retention?

RH: The credit-card company MBNA believes in training; they know how much they invest in training and what their return-on-investment goals are. They tell young college graduates that they’re going to learn something specific about investing, finance, banking and so forth.

Another example is Intel, with whom we’ve done a fair amount of work in the last year or so. They’re very serious about training, especially in technical areas. They know that the greatest source of their competitiveness is their ability to maintain bench strength in those technical research areas, and they provide a lot of support for people to increase their education. If you want a technical career with Intel, you know you’re going to get some of the best technical training in the world.

    What other unconventional ideas for employee relations–that really work–have turned up recently?

RH: There’s a small community bank in St. Augustine, Florida, that Bill and I have worked with, called Prosperity Bank. They’ve got a really neat culture, driven by the nature of the leadership of the company. They have a volunteer program: everyone in the bank can do four hours of volunteer work a month on bank time and get paid for it. The employees really like that, and they have a pretty high participation rate. And if you volunteer for 16 hours in a quarter for one organization, they’ll contribute $100 in cash in your name to that organization.

    But the cold, hard, capitalist bottom line: how does that affect the bank?

RH: Well, it’s the fastest-growing bank in the state of Florida right now; their business is clearly moving ahead pretty well. They want to appeal to customers, and also to their employees.

BC: What amazes me is that, with the hundreds of speeches and seminars we’ve done to talk about the business case for treating people right, I don’t think we’ve had even one soul dispute the business case.

Below is one organization’s internal selection policy, with references to the company removed.

1. POLICY
It is the policy of the Organization to fill positions by drawing from internal candidates possessing the desired qualifications, and to promote from within whenever possible.

2. SCOPE
This policy and procedure applies to all departments and employees of the Organization.

3. ACCOUNTABILITY

3.1 All managers are accountable for identifying the staffing needs of their department and the qualifications for each position within their department.

3.2 Human Resources is solely accountable for obtaining qualified candidates for all open positions and providing all necessary forms to implement this policy and procedure.

4. DEFINITIONS

4.1 Transfer–Moving an existing employee to a new position, department, or location at the same level within the Organization.

4.2 Promotion–Moving an existing employee to a new position, department, or location at a higher level within the Organization.

4.3 Demotion–Moving an existing employee to a new position, department, or location at a lower level within the Organization.

5. FORMS

5.1 Employee Requisition

5.2 Job Available Notice

6. PROCEDURE

6.1 Identifying Open Position and Obtaining Candidates

6.1.1 When a position becomes available, the supervisor to whom that position reports will first decide whether to fill the position from within or from outside the Organization, based on the position’s requirements. This decision is to be reviewed with and approved by the person to whom the manager reports.

6.1.2 If the position is to be filled from within the Organization, the supervisor of the open position first considers employees within the department and/or a reorganization of the department’s work.

6.1.3 In the event a qualified candidate is not available within the department, the supervisor consults with the person to whom he/she reports to determine if there is a qualified person within the division.

6.1.4 If no employees within the department and division are qualified for the position, and if the work cannot be reorganized, the supervisor and the supervisor’s manager decide whether to post the position within the Organization and/or obtain candidates from outside the Organization.

6.1.5 The supervisor completes an Employee Requisition, has it approved and signed by the manager to whom he/she reports, and submits it to Human Resources, along with a request for job posting and/or external candidates.

6.1.6 Human Resources first conducts a search of employee files to determine if there is an already-identified candidate for the job.

6.1.7 Procedures if there are no identified internal candidates:

6.1.7.1 If the job is to be posted, Human Resources completes a Job Available Notice and posts it, as per the Job Posting procedure (6.2 below).

6.1.7.2 If external candidates are to be sought, Human Resources implements the External Selection Policy and Procedure.

6.2 Job Posting

Job posting is used to notify existing employees of a position’s availability and obtain qualified internal candidates of it.

6.2.1 Human Resources posts the Job Available Notice at all job posting locations, stating a description of the position with salary grade, required qualifications, and the date by which applications must be received. If external candidates will also be considered, it is stated on the Notice.

6.2.1.1 The Notice for the position is posted by Human Resources on the employee information bulletin board(s) or on separate job posting bulletin board(s) maintained by Human Resources.

6.2.2 Any eligible and qualified employee may apply for a posted position by completing an application supplied by Human Resources. However, applications will only be considered for the position if the employees:

6.2.2.1 Provide evidence that they possess the required qualifications.

6.2.2.2 Have been in their current position at least six months.

6.2.2.3 Have no current Performance Improvement notifications.

6.2.2.4 Have not been excessively absent or late during the past 12 months.

6.2.2.5 Have received at least a Good rating on their last performance appraisal.

6.2.2.6 Have been an employee of the Organization for at least one year.

6.2.2.7 Have not applied for more than three posted positions within the last 12 months.

6.2.3 Human Resources will notify an employee within one week of receiving an application if the employee does not meet the above requirements. Such notice will state which requirement(s) was not met, and that the employee will not be considered for the position unless the employee can provide information to support her/his qualifications within one week.

6.2.4 Applications from employees who apply for the position and possess the required qualifications are forwarded, after the closing date for applying, to the supervisor of the position.

6.2.5 The supervisor of the position interviews all qualified applying employees and makes a decision regarding each one.

6.2.5.1 In the event there are two or more employees with identical qualifications, the supervisor is encouraged to use length of service with the Organization as a tie-breaker.

6.2.6 When the selection has been made, Human Resources notifies the selected candidate and any non-selected but considered candidates.

6.2.7 Human Resources coordinates the date of the employee transfer/promotion.

6.2.8 The supervisor initiates the Employee Status Change form and submits the form to the employee’s current supervisor.

6.2.9 The employee’s current supervisor approves the Employee Status Change form and returns it to the new position’s supervisor, who then submits it to her/his manager.

6.2.10 The manager ensures it is within budget, approves it, and submits it to Human Resources.

6.2.11 Human Resources approves the Employee Status Change form if it is within guidelines and submits it to Payroll.

6.2.12 Payroll notifies the supervisor of the effective date.

7. REFERENCES

7.1 External Selection Policy and Procedure

SOURCE: Excerpted from How to Develop Essential HR Policies and Procedures by John H. McConnell. Copyright 2005 John H. McConnell. Published by AMACOM Books, a division of American Management Association, New York, New York. Used with permission. All rights reserved. www.amacombooks.org

Last year, 38 percent of middle-managers said they were looking for a new job. A new Accenture survey shows that only 21 percent are doing so now.

Most people looking to job-hop were hoping for a better job; they weren’t always unhappy with the ones they had. They would leave for better pay or benefits (cited by 52 percent); better conditions or job prospects (14 percent) and better training and development opportunities (13 percent). Only 3 percent said they would leave because of their bosses, bucking the conventional wisdom that “people leave managers, not companies.”

One area they weren’t happy about: flexibility. Only 37 percent of managers said that their companies managed flexible work arrangements, such as working from home, extremely well or very well.

The survey was part of an ICR/International Communications Research study conducted in the United States by telephone in July 2004; 217 full-time workers who consider themselves to be middle managers were surveyed.

More on retention is available online.

Dear Losing Control:



Complaining about one’s manager is virtually a national pastime. The fact that the employees have made you aware of the problem indicates a healthy degree of confidence in you, and provides you with an ideal opportunity to demonstrate the value of human resources.

Start with one-on-one discussions with a representative handful of employees, coupled with a review of the unit’s most recent employee survey results, if you have them (if you don’t routinely conduct surveys, now would be a good time to start).

Whatever you do, thank people sincerely for bringing the matter to your attention. It’s far better than regrettable turnover, notice of a lawsuit/representation election petition or continued grumbling. If it turns out that the complaints are frivolous or due to readily explainable causes, nip the matter in the bud right then, while still leaving people a responsible “out.” If the complaints pertain to legal, ethical or moral issues, you may wish to get additional help.

If the complaints are being registered by a single work group and don’t seem particularly serious, you might be able to make good progress by having an earnest discussion with the work-group leaders, who ultimately will have to solve it anyway. Alternatively, it’s usually possible to convince one or two employees to take the matter to their manager. Either way, it’s important for the manager to be aware of the problem and know that you will serve as a resource, and that you will follow up.

If the complaints are more serious or systemic, it may be necessary to meet with the management team in the affected area (together with other appropriate corporate resources) to explore what you’ve learned and how best to deal with it. Our suggestion is that you do it soon (the matter probably isn’t going to resolve itself) and approach it in a businesslike manner, with your facts well organized.

The ability to maintain open, honest communication in a work group is a vital skill for anyone in a leadership position, and should be a condition of employment for all managers. If these managers aren’t skilled in this area, they should be provided with training and support, and held accountable for developing the skill. If after the company has done all it can to support this effort, a manager remains unable or unwilling to conduct discussions about important matters–however difficult–that management position should be staffed with a professional who can.

SOURCE: Richard Hadden and Bill Catlette, co-authors, Contented Cows Give Better Milk, http://www.ContentedCows.com, November 18, 2003.

LEARN MORE:12 Questions to Measure Employee Engagement.

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Ask a Question

Dear Workforce Newsletter

Honeywell has agreed to pay $2.15 million to resolve an age-discrimination lawsuit with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The suit involved employees at AlliedSignal, which was purchased by Honeywell in 2000.

According to the EEOC’s suit, during a 1997 reorganization, a class of sales managers and representatives were either terminated or demoted because of their age. Sometimes, the EEOC says, younger workers with less experience were offered those positions.

Honeywell, which has more than 100,000 employees in 95 countries, denies any wrongdoing. As part of the settlement, it will provide training in the provisions of the age-discrimination act to managers and supervisors in its consumer-products group and frictions-materials businesses.

Under federal law, employers cannot deny employment to anyone simply because they are 40 or older.

More information on discrimination is available online, as is the article “They Don’t Retire Them, They Hire Them,” about retaining older employees.

Given that Wal-Mart is the world’s largest employer, you could say that Lawrence Jackson has just signed on for the world’s biggest workforce management challenge.
 
Jackson, 51, begins work Friday as the executive vice president of Wal-Mart’s People Division. He was most recently president and chief operating officer of Dollar General Corporation, which has been described as a sort of pocket Wal-Mart, operating small stores in rural areas or in poorer neighborhoods of mid-sized cities.

At Wal-Mart, he will report to CEO Lee Scott, and will be in charge of the full human resources spectrum: planning, training, executive development, recruiting, succession planning, human resources technology, culture change and regulatory issues.

That includes, of course, taking the lead in the company’s attempts to counter a perception that it is an employer that does not adequately provide for its employees in wages or benefits and that discriminates against its female workers.

Earlier this year, a judge certified a class-action gender-discrimination lawsuit against the company that may include 1.6 million current and former female employees–virtually all the women who have worked at the massive retailer since 1998. Scott has set diversity goals for the organization and put his own and their bonuses on the line if they are not met. The retailer also has established a diversity office, and named Charlyn Jarrells Porter chief diversity officer.

Jackson, who grew up in Washington, D.C., is a graduate of both Harvard University and the Harvard Business School. He comes to his new job with a widely praised background in operations, and, according to one book, an up-front approach to confronting issues of bias in organizations. In 1992, Jackson was No. 29 on Fortune’s list of the most powerful black executives in America. And, interestingly, there’s no HR title on his résumé.

After working as a consultant for McKinsey and Co., he joined the Pepsi Cola Bottling Group in 1981. He became vice president and general manager of the company’s Southeast Division in 1992 and was promoted to senior vice president of Worldwide Operations for PepsiCo Food Systems in 1994. Jackson left to become senior vice president of Supply Operations for Safeway, Inc., food stores in 1997.

He cites his early experiences learning the business at Pepsi with a night-side production crew as a key to understanding how to motivate people to create a successful organization.

“You need to be a keen observer and try to figure out what makes people tick,” Jackson said in an interview with Working Knowledge, a Harvard Business School publication. “A manager’s role is to hire good people and help them become extraordinary in what they achieve. I think you can do that, in part, by giving them the freedom to be themselves.”

In the book, Cracking the Corporate Code, which recounts how African-Americans have made their mark in the business world, Jackson talks about how he and a Pepsi human resources manager, Ron Parker, worked to change the company’s culture.

“None of the initiatives Pepsi has would be going down today if we hadn’t worked there,” Jackson said in the book. “As the only black line manager and then the only vice president, I was in a position to protect all the corporate people trying to promote diversity. I had the power–the line results, the budget–so nobody could discredit me.
 
“If we wanted 50 people to meet, and just the idea of that kind of meeting made the upper executives go nuts, I could walk over and say, ‘You got a problem, man?’ Because of what I built, I was able to call them out.”

Last week’s employment report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics provided fodder for labor-market optimists and pessimists. One sector, however, that is clearly holding steady is the contingent-staffing field.

Staffing Industry Analysts, a Los Altos, California, research firm, reports that “temporary help providers added an impressive 47,200 employees (seasonally unadjusted) to U.S. payrolls during the month of September, following a gain of 81,900 in August. Since January 2004, the industry has added 425,000 jobs, or more than 50,000 per month for the past eight months…we sense that many staffing companies are picking up steam.”

The staffing analysts believe that employers’ continued reluctance to add permanent jobs has helped the contingent-staffing sector, and that high-margin jobs such as accounting and legal are particularly strong.

Temp numbers have been strong for more than a year, says Reesa Staten, vice president and director of research for Robert Half International, which is the largest staffing-services firm that specializes in accounting, finance and information technology jobs.

“It’s probably emblematic of the fact that companies are still a little hesitant to add full-time staff,” Staten adds. “Business activity is up. There’s work to be done. You’ve got a combination of work to be done and hesitation in terms of adding full-time jobs because they’re not sure where the economy is headed.”

The demand is particularly strong, Staten says, for public companies needing employees to help them comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley law.