human resources – Page 15

February 7, 2020June 29, 2023

From boomers to Gen Z: How to engage a multigenerational workforce

Five generations are now represented in today’s workforce as millennials and Generation Z continue to make their mark.

Millennials will soon be the largest living generation in the U.S. labor force, while the number of people 65 years and older is expected to nearly double. At the same time, digital technologies are changing how these generations collaborate and work together, as well as how organizations engage, manage and retain employees.

Because of this, employee expectations across the board have evolved and no longer does a “one-size-fits-all” approach work when it comes to employee engagement. In fact, failure to meet these expectations can result in decreased productivity and high turnover in an increasingly competitive economy.

In a world of #okboomer memes and “Me Generation” stereotypes, organizations should explore ways to better unify employees and harness the power of a diverse workplace. Here are three ways that HR and communicators can accommodate employees across generations and gain a competitive advantage in the market.

Speak Their Language

First and foremost, HR and communications leaders must identify who their audiences are and what content will resonate the most, as the context and tone of a message can impact how employees receive and choose to engage with it. Even when providing the same information to all generations, communicators should explore ways to share that message to younger versus older employees.

For example, a more detailed email about new company policy might translate better with baby boomers, while it could be ignored by millennials and Gen Z who tend to prefer more informal, casual language. In contrast, a conversational tone may not translate for older demographics who might see it as blurring professional and personal boundaries.

In a multigenerational workplace, HR and communicators should find ways to personalize and distribute content based on employee types and preferences quickly and easily. This plays a major role in making workers feel more valued, drives feelings of inclusion and has a direct impact on productivity and satisfaction.

Once the content is in place, it’s important to consider the distribution strategy and the cadence or frequency in which content is shared. In the past decade alone, the workforce has become infinitely more connected with digital reminders, near-instantaneous updates, collaborative calendars and more. From intranet platforms to multidevice and direct messaging applications, each generation will find different methods better suited for them and employers need to adapt to this digital shift.

As digital natives, millennials and Gen Z are likely more comfortable and familiar with mobile and chat platforms, and may prefer receiving information and updates via mobile app. Conversely, Gen Xers and baby boomers may want to receive information via email or hard copy and hear feedback face-to-face.

Finding a balanced cadence of communications that appeases all employees can be tricky, but is foundational to building and maintaining a unified company culture. In this sense, it’s important to remember that every employee interacts with technology differently. When thinking about how best to disseminate the “nice-to-know” versus the “need-to-know,” evaluate consumption preferences and habits across all employees and tailor communication methods based on this assessment.

Keep Employees Motivated

A third factor to keep in mind when engaging a diverse workforce is that employees want different things from their employers and from their career paths, regardless of demographic. Internal communications directly impact employee motivations and their level of productivity, and leaders will need to invest in ways to empower everyone in their organization.

Research has shown that millennials and Gen Z value work-life balance more so than their older colleagues, and may not want to receive communications from work outside office hours. Gen Xers and boomers also don’t require constant feedback, while younger demographics are motivated by words of encouragement from superiors on a regular basis. Some employees might appreciate reminders to complete surveys or program registrations, while others might find anything more than a weekly reminder overwhelming.

And, while many see technology as a key divider among generations, that’s far from the case. Employee engagement tools and technologies can help managers, supervisors and the C-suite share their mission and messages with all employees in a personalized way. Providing channels to ask questions, share advice or collaborate on work can also energize employees and foster relationships between generations. With the right tools in place, HR and communications teams can measure and analyze the impact of their engagement strategies to adjust over time.

Employees of all ages seek workplace satisfaction and it’s up to HR and business leaders to provide the tools, resources and strategies that empower them to define their own experience. As workforce demographics evolve, organizations must create a space for a variety of work styles to flourish and ultimately position their employees – and the business – for success.

February 7, 2020June 29, 2023

Labor issues when you acquire a company with a union

Spotify recently announced that it is acquiring The Ringer, one of the most prolific and popular podcasting networks.

Spotify also indicated that it intends to hire all of The Ringer’s 90 employees, most of whom work on theringer.com, which covers sports and culture and which Spotify indicates it will keep up and running.

Last summer, 66 of those 90 employees signed union-authorization cards stating their support for the Writers Guild of America East to represent them as their collective bargaining representative. Shortly thereafter, The Ringer management voluntarily recognized the Guild as the union representative for its employees.

What does this mean for Spotify? Is it acquiring a labor union as part of its purchase of The Ringer? Like most legal questions, the answer depends on a number of factors.
The primary question relates to the structure of the deal itself. Is it a stock purchase or an asset purchase?

If it’s a stock purchase — the buyer is acquiring all of the stock of the seller — this issue is much easier to solve. In a stock purchase, the buyer stands in the place of the seller and becomes responsible for all of the seller’s obligations, including its union-related obligations and any existing collective bargaining agreements. In other words, if Spotify purchased all of the stock of The Ringer, then Spotify is almost certainly acquiring its union and related obligations.

The fact that Spotify said that it intends to hire all of The Ringer’s employees, however, makes me think this deal is an asset purchase and not a stock purchase. And in an asset purchase, these issues are much more complex.

In an asset deal, the buyer assumes some, but not necessarily all, of the seller’s union-related obligations, but only if the buyer is a “successor employer.” A buyer is deemed to be a successor employer when it continues the predecessor’s business and hires a majority of its employees from the predecessor’s union employees.

A successor-buyer must recognize and bargain with the union, but it does not necessarily adopt the predecessor’s collective bargaining agreement. Instead, the buyer is usually free to set its own initial terms and conditions of employment before bargaining in good faith to a new collective bargaining agreement (as long as the buyer does not mislead employees into believing they will be re-hired without changes to their terms and conditions of employment, which will lock the buyer into the old agreement).

What I hope you take away from today’s post is the complexity of these issues. If you are involved in the sale or purchase of a business that has unionized employees, you absolutely need to involve labor counsel in the deal so that the parties understand what union-related rights are being bought and sold.

February 6, 2020June 29, 2023

Here’s why fair-chance hiring is a benefit to employees and employers

Many American companies are missing out on employees who have the potential to transform their perspectives and increase their profits. Specifically, they’re overlooking a significant swath of the U.S. population — the 70 million Americans who have a criminal record.

This isn’t to say progress hasn’t been made to re-integrate this group back into the working world. Recently, the Fair Chance Act was signed into law by President Donald Trump as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. The law prohibits the federal government and federal contractors from asking about an applicant’s criminal history prior to the conditional offer stage.

With this recent law, the White House is joining the 35 states and over 150 cities with similar “ban the box” policies. Such “ban the box” policies help remove barriers for people with criminal records during the hiring process by delaying questions about one’s criminal history from the initial part of the hiring process.

This is a part of a larger criminal justice trend taking shape across both the public and private sectors. Many organizations and corporations, including Coca-Cola, American Airlines, Google, Facebook, and others, signed on to the Fair Chance Pledge launched by the Obama Administration.

Slack, in partnership with the Kellogg Foundation and others, launched Next Chapter, a pilot program designed to help formerly incarcerated individuals succeed in tech. Providing these opportunities to qualified candidates adds stability to workers’ lives and, by extension, helps strengthen communities. That’s a message companies want to get behind, and with good reason.

After all, fair chance hiring is built on the premise that everyone, regardless of their background, should be fairly assessed for a role they are qualified for, including those with criminal histories. Candidates that fall into this category are often eager and driven but overlooked for past infractions that may or may not have any connection to the role for which they are applying.

Fair chance hiring lowers recidivism and enables individuals with arrest or conviction records — and their families — to get back on their feet and reintegrated into society. But in my experience, it benefits employers just as much, if not more.

Take my employer, for example. At Checkr, fair chance hiring is deeply embedded into both our culture and our process, which is fulfilling to me on a personal level as a former public service attorney for the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. In terms of hard numbers, about 6 percent of our employees are fair chance, and 72 percent have moved up at Checkr or gone on to new positions elsewhere.

If fair chance hiring is something you’d also like to consider at your organization, here are a few benefits you can expect.

Develop a competitive edge through a broader talent pool. Given how tight today’s job market is — the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the current unemployment rate is hovering around 3.5% — employers can’t afford to turn away qualified applicants. And because one in three American adults has a criminal record, automatically excluding anyone in this category necessarily means that you are missing out on good people. A broader talent pool means better, stronger hires, which in turn gives you a valuable competitive advantage.

Diversify your employee base. In America, the burden of incarceration is borne disproportionately by underrepresented minorities. When companies hire from this talent pool, they’re not just bringing on racial diversity, they’re also opening their doors to people who are likely to have different abilities, education levels and economic statuses. A more diverse team means different perspectives and new ways of looking at challenges, which ultimately lead to creativity, innovation and disruption.

Get a better return on investment. Fair chance hiring practices offer a significant return on investment, both from a performance and retention perspective. In fact, a study of John Hopkins Health Systems & Hospital (which has employed hundreds of people with criminal backgrounds since 2000, making up 5 percent of their workforce) found that, over a four-year period, fair chance employees had a 43 percent higher retention rate than employees without a criminal record.

If you truly incorporate fair chance hiring as part of your corporate mission, the positive effects will astound you. Not only is it the right thing to do, but you will reap rewards far in excess of what you sow through a diversified, loyal, and passionate employee base.

February 4, 2020June 29, 2023

Court to decide whether an employer can require direct observation of a workplace urine-sample collection

An employer requires “direct observation” of its employees providing a urine sample pursuant to its reasonable suspicion and random workplace drug-testing policy.

The employer sends an individual of the same sex to accompany the tested employee into a restroom designated for the sample collection to visually observe the employee producing the sample. The employer’s substance abuse policy and the consent and release form provide for the testing, neither discloses or provides for the direct observation of the sample production.

These are the facts of Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, in which the Ohio Supreme Court will decide whether a private-sector, at-will employee who agrees to drug testing as a condition of continued employment has a reasonable expectation of privacy during mandatory drug screening.

The court of appeals determined that the direct observation method of urine-sample collection is an unlawful invasion of the employees’ common law right to privacy. “We find appellants did have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to exposure of their genitals.” The issue wasn’t whether the collection itself violated the employees’ privacy. It doesn’t. As the appellate court explained, “[A]n employee consenting to a drug test waives the right to complain that his urine is collected and tested.” However, in this case, the employees “had an expectation of privacy with regard to their bodies and … the compelled exposure of their genitals and compelled urination before a stranger intruded upon that privacy.”

The Ohio Supreme Court, which held oral argument in this case last week, will now decide this fascinating issue.

If you watch the oral argument, you will not witness a whole lot of outrage toward the employer from my state’s notoriously business-friendly Supreme Court. While this case will likely be a win for the employer, it does not mean that your business should across-the-board adopt “direct observation” as the process for your drug testing. To me, it’s a horribly offensive practice that should only be used if necessary, and only after disclosure to, and consent by, the observed employee.

What advice would I provide if a client comes to me and asks about a “direct observation” policy?

I’d ask, “Why?” What are you trying to achieve? Are there less obtrusive means available to prevent employees from cheating a drug test (e.g., searches before they enter the restroom, pat-downs, etc.)? Does it make more sense to limit direct observation to situations in which you have a reasonable suspicion of cheating?
Make sure all employees have notice of the direct observation and when you might use it. Unlike the employer in this case, put it in your drug-testing policy, and have employees sign off on it as an express condition of employment. With notice and consent, they cannot complain about an invasion of privacy, as they’ve voluntarily sacrificed that right.

Just because Ohio’s Supreme Court will likely grant a thumbs-up to Sterilite’s policy in this case, it does not mean that the policy makes for good HR or that it’s one that you should adopt in your workplace. Instead, consider what goals you hope to advance with your drug-testing policy and tailor it accordingly.

February 4, 2020June 29, 2023

The evolving role of a chief people officer

Late last year McDonald’s Corp. Chief People Officer David Fairhurst left the fast-food giant just one day following Chief Executive Officer Steve Easterbrook’s termination after violating company policy by having a consensual relationship with an employee.

The sudden departures caused a major shift in the McDonald’s C-suite, leaving new Chief People Officer Mason Smoot to deal with the fallout. When that kind of responsibility falls to the chief people officer, what should they do?

Eugenie Fanning, vice president of people at commercial real estate company SquareFoot, looks at the chief people officer’s overall role in the workplace before diving into the nitty gritty. According to Fanning, a chief people officer owns the strategy and execution in bringing and retaining top talent to the workplace.

“They must be able to see the business from the perspective of each employee — both new hires and veteran leaders — and to represent all of those views when coaching senior leadership on communication, management and planning,” Fanning said in an email interview. “This all feeds into the maintenance and care of culture, which everyone contributes to in their own way.”

In recent years, there has been some rebranding around human resources, Fanning said. HR is now often labeled as “people” with the emphasis being more focused on employee engagement rather than paperwork and bureaucracy. “CPOs are emerging as stakeholders in the overall long-term success of companies,” Fanning said. “The evolution of this role is a long time coming. While it may crop up more in growing companies looking to standardize processes, it’s a growing trend everywhere.”

While CPOs generally tend to operate behind the scenes, they play an important role in coaching and directing the behavior of those within the organization. If a scandal does occur, the counsel of the CPO decides what should be said and done going forward while also focusing on how well employees will receive the message.

Also read: Tesla’s CHRO pick points to a new era

“With the appointment of a CPO, the organization has brought on someone they believe embodies their culture, vision and values and who can reinforce those values at all times,” Fanning said. “Whatever the message is, it should represent the views of the company and its leadership.”

Fanning also emphasized how vital it is that the chief people officer be secure in their morals and messaging when put in such a situation.

“There is no black and white answer in many situations and never a set process that guarantees to work all the time,” Fanning said. “You need to be able to analyze what’s happening, detect its impact on the company and employees and help manage the best course of action to rectify the situation in a timely manner.”

Fanning suggests three basic best practices for chief people officers to keep in mind if they ever find themselves or the organization in a scandal:

Don’t panic. Employees look to the CPO to know how they should feel and react to the situation and will emulate their behavior.
Understand the repercussions. Look at the situation from all perspectives and make sure to have the vision to see what could happen in the coming weeks.
Earn a seat at the table. Once the company is back on solid footing, the CPO can emerge as a reliable voice of skepticism.

The chief people officer is seen as a partner to everyone in the company. Whether there is a scandal, they are there to help guide internal and external communication and to maintain a support system for all employees.

“The CPO is someone you’d turn to as a key stakeholder to ensure that the messaging communicated matches the company’s values,” Fanning said.

January 30, 2020June 29, 2023

Does Title VII protect veganism as a religion?

A judge in the United Kingdom has ruled that “ethical veganism” is a protected class akin to religion and is protected from workplace discrimination. The Washington Post shares the details:

An employment tribunal made that landmark determination in a case involving a man who claimed he was fired from his job at an animal rights organization for revealing to colleagues that their pension funds were invested in companies that experiment on animals. The tribunal has yet to rule on the merits of the case, but it did on Friday take the step of deciding that the man’s ethical veganism constitutes a “philosophical and religious belief” protected by anti-discrimination law.

That’s the United Kingdom. What about the United States? Well, it depends.

There are two leading cases on this issue.

In Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. (S.D. Ohio 2012), the federal court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss the employee’s religious discrimination claim. The core issue the court decided is whether veganism is a sincerely held religious belief, or merely a moral or secular philosophy or lifestyle (as the hospital argued). In support of her argument, Chenzira—a customer service representative who refused a flu vaccine because it contained animal by-products—cited an essay, The Biblical Basis of Veganism. She also cited bible verse to her employer when she made her request for a religious accommodation. In denying the motion to dismiss, the court stated:

The Court finds that in the context of a motion to dismiss, it merely needs to determine whether Plaintiff has alleged a plausible claim. The Court finds it plausible that Plaintiff could subscribe to veganism with a sincerity equating that of traditional religious views.

Contrarily, in Friedman v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (Cal. Ct. App. 2002), the state appellate court dismissed the religious discrimination claims of a vegan IT worker who refused a mumps vaccine for similar reasons as Chenzira. He claimed the vaccine “would violate his system of beliefs and would be considered immoral by him,” which resulted in the withdrawal of his employment offer. The court concluded that veganism is not a protected religion:

We do not question plaintiff’s allegation that his beliefs are sincerely held; it is presumed as a matter of law that they are.… There is no allegation or judicially noticeable evidence plaintiffs belief system addresses fundamental or ultimate questions. There is no claim that veganism speaks to: the meaning of human existence; the purpose of life; theories of humankind’s nature or its place in the universe; matters of human life and death; or the exercise of faith. There is no apparent spiritual or otherworldly component to plaintiffs beliefs. Rather, plaintiff alleges a moral and ethical creed limited to the single subject of highly valuing animal life and ordering one’s life based on that perspective. While veganism compels plaintiff to live in accord with strict dictates of behavior, it reflects a moral and secular, rather than religious, philosophy.

In other words, while his beliefs are sincerely held, they are moral beliefs, and therefore secular and not religious.

To answer my question on how U.S. courts would view this issue, it depends on the jurisdiction in which your business is located, and perhaps whether the employee’s beliefs are grounded in spiritualism or personal morals.

These cases also raise a more fundamental question — how far should businesses go to accommodate employees’ requests for special treatment. To me, sometimes, the path of least resistance makes the most sense.

For a hospital, there may not be a path of least resistance when comes to public health issues such as vaccinations. Other businesses, however, have to balance the burden of granting the accommodation versus the risk of a lawsuit (and the costs that go with it). In many cases, the accommodation should win out, because it is easier and less costly than denying the request and eating a lawsuit, even if it’s a defensible lawsuit.

For example, if you face this same vaccination issue at your widget company, is there a harm in letting employees opt out on religious ground, even if it’s a borderline (at best) religion, like veganism. You can defend your decision to deny the request based on the bona fides of the claimed religion. But, where does that get you? Are you on right side of the law? Possibly. Have you irreparably damaged your relationship with your employee, while at the same time demonstrating to your entire workforce that you practice policies of exclusion instead of inclusion? Likely.

In other words, there are more factors to consider other than answering the question, “What does the law say about this?” How you incorporate those other factors into your accommodation decision-making is often more important than simply answering the underlying legal question.

January 29, 2020June 29, 2023

Chipotle settlement highlights child labor issues

employment law, labor law, overtime records

According to CNN, Chipotle has agreed to pay a $1.3 million fine for more than 13,000 child labor violations at over 50 of its Massachusetts restaurants.

The state’s attorney general’s office accused the company of forcing teenagers to work without proper work permits, late into the night, and for too many hours per day and week. It’s the largest child labor penalty in Massachusetts history.

Writing at Inc.com, Suzanne Lucas (aka the Evil HR Lady) makes the excellent point that these failings fall squarely on the shoulders of management.

Employees, even adult employees, aren’t expected to know and comply with all labor laws. … It’s not up to a 17-year-old to clock out no later than 9:59 pm. It’s the manager’s responsibility to make sure it happens. This can be difficult for managers—and can require some complicated scheduling or hiring more adults than teenagers. Some teens want to work more hours and are happy to keep their mouths shut. It doesn’t change the law around it. Managers need training on the law and how it differs between adults and minor employees.

So what are the rule of the road for child workers? Each state’s laws differs. Here’s what Ohio law says on the issue.

Ages 14 and 15

When school is in session: i) they cannot work between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.; ii) they cannot work for more than 3 hours on any school day; and iii) they cannot work more than 18 hours during any school week

When school is out of session: i) they cannot work between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.; ii) they cannot work more than 8 hours per day; and iii) they cannot work more than 40 hours per week.

Ages 16 and 17

When school is in session: i) 11 p.m. before a school day to 7 a.m. on a school day (6 a.m. if not employed after 8 p.m. the previous night); and there are no limits on hours worked per day or week.

When school is not in session, there are no limits on starting or ending times, or hours worked per day or week.

Unlike adult workers, all minors are required to have a 30-minute uninterrupted break when working for more than five consecutive hours.

Prohibited Occupations

All minors are prohibited from working in the following occupations:
Slaughtering, meat-packing, processing rendering
Operation of power-driven slicers; bakery machines; paper product machines; metal forming; punching or shearing machines; circular and band saws; guillotine shears; woodworking machines
Manufacture of brick, tile, and kindred products
Manufacture and storage of chemicals or explosives, or exposure to radioactive and ionizing radiation substances
Coal mining and mining other than coal
Logging and sawmilling
Motor vehicle, railroads, maritime, and longshoreman occupations
Excavation operations, wrecking, demolition, and shipbreaking
Power-driven and hoisting apparatus equipment
Roofing operations

Additional Prohibited Occupations for 14- and 15-Year-Olds

Manufacturing and warehouse occupations (except office and clerical work)
Public messenger services occupations
Work in freezers; meat coolers and all preparations of meats for sale (except wrapping, sealing labeling, weighing, pricing, and stocking)
Transportation; storage, communications, public utilities; construction and repair
Work in boilers or engine rooms; maintenance or repair of machinery
Outside window washing from window sills, scaffolding, ladders or their substitutes
Cooking, baking, operating, setting up, adjusting, cleaning, oiling, or repairing power-driven food slicers, grinders, food choppers cutters, baker type mixers
Loading or unloading goods to and from trucks, railroad cars or conveyors
Work with cars and trucks involving pits, racks, or lifting apparatus
Inflation of tires mounted on rimes equipped with a removable retaining ring
For-profit door-to-door employment (unless the employer is registered with the Ohio Dept. of Commerce Division of Labor & Worker Safety)

As one can imagine, the Department of Labor and state attorney general offices take child labor violations very seriously. Just ask Chipotle. And ignorance is no excuse.

January 29, 2020June 29, 2023

Cultures of cohesion connect employees with engagement

It’s time employers stop focusing on employee engagement and start focusing on cohesion, according to Troy Hall, chief strategy officer for South Carolina Federal Credit Union.

“More often than not, leaders fail to embrace the type of culture that places an emphasis on the employee,” said Hall. “When organizations claim employees are their greatest assets, one would expect to experience the type of thinking and see actions that correlate to that end.

“Far too often that is not the case because leadership has been taught for the past two decades to put profit before people.”

A “cohesion culture” is a work environment where employees have a sense of belonging, understand their value and commit to both self and desired organizational outcomes, he said.

Hall has spent 14 years working with the South Carolina Federal Credit Union’s leadership team to create a cohesion culture. He does it through an approach he calls the talent retention model, which he describes in his book “Cohesion Culture: Proven Principles to Retain Your Top Talent.”

“Cohesion is a causal phenomenon, engagement is not,” said Hall. “When cohesion is present, it has a positive impact on performance. Cohesive team members produce better results. Cohesion can be measured, engagement cannot.”

Engagement is an arrangement to do something with a specified period of time, he added.

“We think of engagement as leading to commitment, loyalty and going the extra mile. In fact, the type of engagement that leaders seek is fueled through cohesion.”

Today’s workforce requires transformative leaders who value people beyond the courting process, said Hall.

“Employees want to work in an environment that makes them feel like they belong, have value and can commit to both personal and corporate desired outcomes,” he added.

Hall’s strategies have worked, leading the credit union to be named one of Glassdoor’s Best Places to Work in 2019 and 2020. In 2017, it earned a No. 2 ranking on a national list of best credit unions to work from Credit Union Journal and Best Companies Group, which identified companies that have excelled in creating quality workplaces for employees.

Employees offered praise for the financial institution, citing its “fantastic” 401(k), time-off policies, an option that offers free health care, management’s ability to “keep things fun and keep motivation high” and how “they make you feel special, appreciated and give lots of opportunities to grow.”

Hall shares his organization’s success stories and methodologies with others’ top management and HR directors worldwide to help transform their cultures and retain top talent.

The war for talent must transcend merely attracting talent to focusing on retention strategies, said Hall.

“With 63 percent of the current workforce seeking opportunities for advancement or new roles, employers will need to focus on retaining that talent or it will become a revolving door between acquisition and retention,” said Hall.

It costs 25 percent of the employee’s salary to replace the organizational intelligence that walks out the door, Hall said.

Hall’s doctoral dissertation at Regent University in global leadership and entrepreneurship focused on group dynamics and cohesion.

“My assertion to focus on retention is based upon what we are seeing as trends in the marketplace and understanding how to create a culture that is self-fulfilling and sustainable,” he said.

It is critical for CEOs to lead the charge for talent retention, said Hall. His boss, Credit Union CEO Scott Woods is a prime example.

“CEOs who are self-aware inspire a cohesive spirit within their company and align individual wants, desires and goals to those of the organization,” Hall said.

The smallest of actions can have a ripple effect, said Hall.

“A misplaced comment or the unexplained absence of the CEO from a major organizational endeavor sends confusing signals,” he said. “It is up the CEO to ensure the leadership team is on board with the culture and that they work in tandem to represent one voice.”

Aligning employee goals to organizational goals maximizes the bottom line, said Hall.

Within the cohesion process, the element of commitment is more aptly fulfilled with leaders who support employee development first, then move toward organizational goals, said Hall.

January 23, 2020June 29, 2023

5 ways leaders ruin employee engagement

Employee engagement levels are woefully low. The latest Gallup data shows only 34 percent of employees are actively engaged in their work.

That means more than half of all employees are not engaged in their work, and 13 percent are actively disengaged, according to the survey.

These are troubling numbers given the proven benefits that employee engagement brings to a business, which include higher share prices, greater customer loyalty, lower turnover, easier recruiting and a host of other desirable business outcomes.

The good news in this story is that HR is not to blame. While HR leaders may be responsible for overseeing benefits programs, gathering employee engagement survey results, and rolling out employee programs and campaigns, they are not the ones who actually move the needle on engagement.

Studies consistently find that employee engagement hinges entirely on the way leaders lead and the kind of culture they create, said Patrick Kulesa, global head of employee research for Willis Towers Watson in New York. “The numbers show that how leaders inspire people with their strategy and mission determines whether employees will be engaged,” Kulesa said.

The problem is that leaders rarely take responsibility for employee engagement. They see it as a people issue, so they assume HR will fix whatever is broken. This is one of many mistakes leaders make when it comes to engagement.

Here are some of the other mistakes leaders make that damage employee engagement and how they can do better.

Leaders assume company perks will make a difference. Offering free coffee, half-day summer Fridays and other creature comforts may deliver short-term positive vibes from overworked employees. But if you aren’t also addressing the core problems in your culture — like a lack of acknowledgement for work well done, managers who can’t be trusted or limited opportunities for development — no amount of free snacks will solve your employee engagement problems, Kulesa said.
Leaders talk, but they don’t listen. “Employees don’t need to be told what to do. They need to be encouraged to trust their instincts,” said Kevin Hancock, CEO of Hancock Lumber in Casco, Maine and and author of The Seventh Power. Hancock learned this lesson after acquiring a rare voice disorder in 2010 that made it difficult for him to speak. To protect his voice, whenever anyone asked him a question, he responded with, “What do you think is the right answer?” He wasn’t trying to improve engagement, but that’s what happened. Over the course of a year, engagement levels rose as employees gained confidence in their ideas and became more innovative and invested in their work. It made him realize the power of distributed leadership, and giving everyone a voice.
Leaders think employees should serve the business, not the other way around. When business leaders make financial performance the most important factor in every decision, employees become slaves to business outcomes. “But what if you rethink the purpose of work?” Hancock said. When leaders prioritize improving the lives of employees, improved employee engagement is the natural result. That leads to better performance, higher revenues and other business benefits that every leader wants, he said. “When the company exists to serve the employees, it creates a stronger company and a better future for everyone.”
Leaders focus on numbers, not outcomes. When leaders only care about achieving the right employee engagement score, they lose focus on the ultimate goal, said Jim MacLennan, founder of Maker Turtle, a digital transformation consulting firm, and author of “Don’t Think So Much.” “Once they reach the target metric they move on to something else.” That makes employees cynical about their motives and can cause any short-term improvements to quickly sag. Instead, he suggested using employee engagement surveys to identify the biggest problem in your culture, then to spend the year solving it. “Keep it simple and define what ‘better’ looks like so it doesn’t get diluted,” MacLennan said. Once you see improvements, move on to the next thing. When leaders focus on outcomes rather than metrics, continuous improvement becomes part of the way things are done.
They mistake surveys for conversations. If you want engagement to improve, leaders have to actually talk to employees, listen to their needs and build a corporate culture that inspires trust and respect. “You can’t do that with a survey,” MacLennan said. “Once you wade in and start having conversations, you’ll be amazed at what you learn.”

January 22, 2020January 22, 2020

Washington state joins noncompete law parade

Washington state employers now must comply with one of the strictest noncompete laws in the country, which the Legislature determined will apply retroactively to restrictive covenants entered into before Jan. 1, 2020.

Washington House Bill 1450 declares that noncompetes are unenforceable against employees who make less than $100,000 a year (and in the case of independent contractors, $250,000 a year). The law also requires significant disclosures to be made to the employee at the time they sign the noncompete — the absence of which could also invalidate the clause.

The law requires compensation to be paid to the employee during the period that it will be enforced at a rate not less than the employee’s previous salary, minus any compensation earned through subsequent employment during the period of enforcement.

Further, noncompetes lasting longer than 18 months are presumptively void. Under the law, any attempt by an employer to noncompetes against Washington employees or independent contractors in another state (i.e., through a forum clause) will render the covenant unenforceable.

Finally, the law states that in the case of a noncompete being declared unenforceable or enforceable in part or as modified, the party seeking enforcement must pay the aggrieved person the greater of actual damages suffered or a $5,000 penalty, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

IMPACT: Employers should be aware of any state restrictive covenant laws that may impact portions of the workforce.