strategy – Page 10

November 7, 2018June 29, 2023

Finding the Way of the HR Warrior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 5, 2018June 29, 2023

How to Decide When to Make Political Statements in the Workplace

These days, particularly in the United States, it feels like the divided nature of our politics makes it almost impossible to keep from choosing sides.

Whether you’re a person, a business or a politician, you almost certainly know what you support and what you oppose. For organizations and their leaders, that means the more difficult issue often becomes whether to say anything publicly about what you support or oppose.

From a business perspective, the issue of whether to make political statements is critical — and it’s more complex and risky than ever. In the past, CEOs, boards or businesses that took some sort of activist stand used to be able to draw a fairly bright line between social activism and political activism.

Today those lines are far more blurred. Whether we’re talking about the #MeToo movement, education policy, health care, immigration or trade issues, these debates frequently fall into both the social and political spheres.

These are deep and roiling waters for business leaders who personally feel obligated to communicate which side they’re on regarding hot-button issues. Given that there are essentially no people in the middle, coming out on one side or the other comes with significant business risk.

If you’re a business leader who represents a brand and you’re considering taking a public stand on a social or political issue, you should first think very carefully about these three constituencies.

The first group you have to carefully consider when mulling a public political stand is your employees. And here’s the first big question to ask yourself: Is your stand consistent with your stated and lived corporate values, or do those values just represent those of the CEO or some portion of the C-suite? If your stand is consistent with your stated and lived corporate values, and they’re not just the personal musings of a company executive, then you’ve got a check in the go-forward box.

Next, ask yourself if your stand will alienate employees and exacerbate the line between people on both sides of the issue in a more public way than already exists. Think about whether some employees will leave, or if they’ll instead stay and be more committed. Or perhaps they’ll remain but as alienated employees with reduced engagement and performance across the board.

An organization’s public political or social stand can bring employees together or can tear them apart. It can also significantly affect your ability to attract talent, for better or worse, particularly when the economy is strong. You have to carefully measure these potential impacts before you step into the political arena.

Next, it’s absolutely vital to consider how your stand will affect your customer base. Start by considering whether your public position will be received negatively or positively by customers — and also whether it will make it harder or easier for loyal customers to do business with you. The reality is that your stand could grow or diminish your customer base, while also negatively or positively affecting your brand promise.

Remember that you’re representing a business. If you feel compelled to make a political stand, think through how it will affect your actual business, what will the stakeholders will think about that and how or whether they will support you in the long term.

Also read: How to Manage Emotions in a Post-Election Workplace

Finally, you have to weigh the impact of your action on your community. No organization exists in a vacuum, whether it’s a one-location business, has 20 locations around the country or is a global organization with hundreds of locations around the world. Consider how your stand will positively or negatively affect your standing in the communities in which you live and operate. Will the community be in agreement or will you alienate your community base?

Particularly if you’re a business with one or a handful of locations, you do business with other businesses in the community and you likely have relationships with policymakers. That means you have important relationships with the larger social environment in which you are living and working, and your business often relies on these connections in nontrivial ways. If your stand will make any of these harder, you need to think through truly what the ramifications are for that action.

When pondering a political stand, the bottom line is to remove the self from your decision and think only in terms of the business. If the stand you’re going to take will put your business at risk, put your employees’ jobs at risk or put your organization’s reputation at risk, then you need to think seriously about whether you’re willing to assume that risk.A

Also read: Talking Politics at Work Shouldn’t Be Taboo

That doesn’t mean you don’t ultimately take the stand. It just means you have to be knowledgeable about what the effects will be and have contingency plans in place. As business leaders, we have to think through the ramifications for our organizations and the people that make them — and not just for the CEO.

November 5, 2018June 29, 2023

Managing Election Day at Work

As tomorrow is Election Day, I thought I’d share a few tips for employers to keep in mind.

First: Please don’t tell your employees for whom to vote. It may or may not be illegal (depending on your state), but it is certainly a terrible HR practice.

Second: Ohio law requires that employers provide all employees a reasonable amount of time off to vote on Election Day. Deny employees that right, or punish them for exercising it, at your risk. Better yet, embrace the Time to Vote movement and implement policies (like paid time off) to encourage your employees to vote on Election Day.

Finally: After the election is over, think about how we heal at work. Some thoughts (care of The Wall Street Journal): providing meeting space for employees to talk after the election, offering supervisors and managers sample language for opening up a constructive dialogue with employees, and playing soothing music to distract employees from political headlines.

Watch the Video: Voting on the Clock Works as an Employee Engagement Tool

Bonus: While you’re voting on Election Day, don’t forget to cast your ballot for the Worst Employer of 2018.

End of public service announcement.

October 26, 2018June 29, 2023

Voting on the Clock Works as Employee Engagement Tool

While voting is an important right for Americans, some employees don’t get the chance to cast a ballot because of strict workplace attendance policies.

As the 2018 midterm elections near, employee engagement and recognition company O.C. Tanner asked more than 1,000 workers around the country about their organization’s rules concerning voting during standard office hours.

In the October 2018 study, 62 percent of participants said their company allows them the flexibility to vote during the workday, and 34 percent of survey participants said their company offers its employees paid time off to vote.

O.C. Tanner Institute Vice President Gary Beckstrand said the data proves that companies aren’t tremendously supportive of their employees voting.

“Organizations could do a better job at allowing their employees time off to vote and express their support of the activity,” Beckstrand said.

A significant finding was how employees who were given flexibility to vote during the workday reacted. Beckstrand said employees who are given the flexibility to vote are more positively engaged.

“Employees who feel that their employers care about their overall report well-being report high feelings of well-being,” Beckstrand said. “Allowing employees time to vote is a simple way to acknowledge and support social and emotional wellness.”

According to the study, 65 percent of people say they would recommend their company to a friend as a good place to work, as opposed to the 47 percent of respondents who can’t vote during work. Also, 69 percent of participants said they want to work for their current employer a year from now, contrasting from 48 percent of respondents who can’t vote during office hours.

A 2018 Society for Human Resource Management differs from the O.C. Tanner report, citing that 44 percent of companies give paid time off to vote. While benefits can come from accommodating an employee’s civic duty, employers may be considering employee productivity issues when it comes to allowing time on the clock to go to the polls.

Dean Carter, vice president of human resources and shared services at clothing company Patagonia, said employers can use voter flexibility to their advantage, regardless of financial ramifications.

“If citizenship and democracy are part of your values, then there is no greater way to show it than to make sure your employees have time off to vote,” Carter said. “This is why we’re proud to be part of the Time to Vote [campaign], which has more than 300 companies leading a nonpartisan effort to engage in democracy and increase voter turnout.”

Workers should make sure they know their voting rights.

Employee voting rights and restrictions vary by state. In Illinois, for example, employees are allowed up to two hours’ leave if their company’s hours begin less than two hours after polls open and end less than two hours before polls close. In Michigan, it is a misdemeanor for an employer to discharge or threaten to discharge in an attempt to influence employee’s vote, according to employment law firm Constangy’s Employer’s Guide to Employee Voting Rights.

David Chasanov is a Workforce editorial associate. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

October 18, 2018June 29, 2023

When Dealing With D&I Naysayers, Avoid These 3 Pitfalls

It’s tempting to focus on the naysayer. It’s easy to give those loud voices of dissent all our attention. It’s not our fault.

We evolved to be somewhat anxious and pessimistic since hedging our bets and lowering our risks kept our ancestors safe. We focus on the loud voices of dissent because they might be right, and heeding their warnings might avert disaster. But sometimes the naysayers are simply afraid, and not only is there no significant danger in the valley beyond, its abundance could sustain us for generations to come.

When it comes to leading diversity and inclusion efforts in an organization, there are three major pitfalls in the way D&I champions treat D&I naysayers.

Allowing efforts to be distracted or derailed by the naysayers. Change theorists have found about 14 percent of people are “early adopters” who immediately jump on board with a new idea, while up to 15 percent resist. D&I changemakers who focus most of their attention on converting the small minority of D&I naysayers allow early adopters to languish with no direction for their crusading energy. Meanwhile, the undecided or neutral majority stays neutral — or worse, begins to be swayed by the naysayers. Either way, precious time and opportunities are lost.
Ignoring the naysayers’ voices completely. Depending on who the naysayers are and what they’re saying, ignoring their voices completely can stall or destroy progress. When I was the internal D&I changemaker in a former organization, I made a critical error by trying to minimize and circumvent a naysayer who also happened to be the chief human resources officer. While his political influence was waning, and that of my C-suite boss was on the rise, the CHRO still had the ear of the CEO, and he was the ultimate decision maker regarding personnel policies and the training and leadership development department. If I had been more strategic in my relationship building and more patient with the pace of power shifts in my organization, we could have gained traction more quickly and I could have increased my credibility and influence more easily.
Dismissing or shutting down naysayers during trainings. An unskilled facilitator may minimize the questions or opinions of a person pushing back on D&I concepts during training, communicating indirectly (sometimes directly) that their point of view is less important than others in the room. The facilitator may try to convince the naysayer to “get on board,” wasting precious time proselytizing to the D&I naysayer while neglecting the session objectives and ignoring other participants’ learning needs. Both tactics are ineffective because they are not inclusive behaviors and therefore lack integrity with D&I principles. The first is disrespectful to the naysayer; the second is disrespectful to the entire group. Both are unwise because D&I naysayers are often bright, caring people who raise valid concerns, or important fears that must be taken seriously and addressed to ensure the success of the initiative, especially if the naysayer is a major stakeholder!

To avoid these three pitfalls, implement the following best practices for easier, quicker D&I success:

Harness the enthusiasm of the early adopters. Give formal and informal D&I champions something to do right away. Make sure these tasks are meaningful and aligned with broader strategic D&I goals so you don’t waste energy and lose momentum.
Focus on converting the undecided middle. Harnessing the early adopters will do much of this work for you. In addition, determine what the barriers are for the undecided. Are they overworked? Tired of flavor-of-the-month initiatives, waiting to see if this one is for real? Unsure why the organization is launching a D&I initiative? Unsure what it has to do with their job? Invest in internal marketing and communication to ensure your messaging is simple, accurate, inspirational, aligned and addressing the barriers of the undecided. Tell people what to expect, why it matters, and how they can contribute. Also, give change time!
Listen to, and involve, the D&I naysayers. This may be especially difficult for D&I changemakers if the naysayers represent a demographic or political affiliation the changemakers find difficult or threatening. But naysayers typically express their concerns because they care about the organization and want to make a difference, and inclusion includes everyone. Listen openly and with curiosity to their concerns — one-on-one, in training sessions, and in meetings. Role model inclusive leadership by checking your assumptions and seeking to understand. The naysayer may give you the gift of identifying a misperception that can be clarified, a valid concern that must be addressed, or a blind spot you missed. I’ve found that some naysayers become powerful allies once they’ve been heard, taken seriously and included in problem solving.

Leverage the skills and energy of your natural champions, focus most of your efforts on the undecided middle and don’t ignore the power of the D&I naysayer. Because while any change requires fired-up champions equipped with the proper tools, there are few with more zeal than the convert!

Susana Rinderle is a principal consultant with Korn Ferry, and a coach, speaker, author and diversity and inclusion expert. The postings on this website represent my own personal views and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Korn Ferry International or any other organization with which I may be affiliated. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

May 31, 2016June 29, 2023

Business Case for Diversity, My Foot

I’m feeling a little mean today. I’m facing some sweeping tech system changes at work, which always puts me in a bad mood. So I thought I’d take this time to kvetch about something that just gets on my nerves. I’m talking eye rolling, lip smacking, facial expressions — the works.

What is it that creates such a strong, negative reaction you ask? It’s when someone asks for the business case for diversity.

I usually think, really? Then I think, are you kidding? Would you like to clarify that question, maybe be more specific if you need hard data with which to persuade the budget keepers to fund a new program or initiative? That I get. But if someone asks that question expecting someone else to explain to them why an organization or a leader should care about diversity, I say, poo.

Let me repeat that — poo.

If you’re a business professional — especially at a more senior level — working in almost any capacity in the global or even local marketplace, diversity is all around you, and it should be apparent why it’s important. That is essentially what people are saying when they ask, “What is the business case for diversity?” They’re asking, why is this important? Why does this deserve my time and attention? Why should I care to take action?

These are valid questions — if it was 1960 or even 1970 or 1980. But today? When changes in global demographics are obvious in the workplace and everywhere, when trends in buying power and discretionary spending center firmly on minority groups, when the most promising talent pools to combat skills and other shortages are also targeting minorities, those questions aren’t valid; they’re long overdue.

If a senior leader asks their chief diversity officer for the business case for diversity, I would heartily encourage that CDO to look for a new gig. I’m sorry. But any business leader worth their salt should know almost instinctively why diversity is important — if they have both eyes open, are willing to embrace change and to do what is necessary to build a culture that encourages innovation and growth, and sustain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

It’s one thing to have questions about inclusion; that’s procedural, process-oriented. It requires changes in systems and infrastructure that take time, thought and concentrated, consistent effort to build and sustain. But to question the actual value of diversity — which is what the business case is — that’s unacceptable.

To make such a query smacks of heads in the sand, and a willful, almost criminal dismissal or ignorance of changing realities in the marketplace. That question should be a historical footnote at this point in the game. It should be a part of the foundation you started building some time ago. We should all be figuring out the nitty gritty behind strategic diversity and inclusion management in recruiting, retention, development, rewards and recognition, and performance management, among other things.

I’m sorry, leaders. Unless you come from a monolithic society where everyone buying, selling and working looks exactly the same, if you’re asking your diversity executive for the business case for diversity, you’re out of order.

It would be like me asking our copy editor why do we have to deal with changes in AP Style? Language, like the marketplace, like the workforce, evolves. You either move along with the changes happening around you, or they move along without you. Diversity and inclusion is such a change. At this point, you can’t get on board. The train left the station awhile ago. Just be ready and willing to jump on the next one.

Kellye Whitney is Workforce’s associate editorial director. Comment below, or email editors@workforce.com.

December 14, 2015January 13, 2020

Re-engaging With William Kahn 25 Years After He Coined Term Employee Engagement

Photo courtesy of Adobe Stock.

Today it’s not uncommon to see article after article about the ubiquitous term employee engagement, such as: “This percentage of employees are disengaged,” a study finds; “How do I keep my employees engaged?” one article asks; and “How does engagement affect overall business?” another wonders.

Although a popular talking point now, the term “employee engagement” is relatively new. Professor William Kahn of Boston University coined “engagement” in terms of the workforce setting 25 years ago in his 1990 paper, “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work.”

Workforce caught up with Kahn via email to discuss the genesis of the term, its evolution over the past 25 years and what leaders can do to re-engage the disengaged.

Workforce: Before you first used the word ‘engagement’ in the business setting, how did you identify the problem of employees being disengaged?

William Kahn: The presenting issues revolved around employees’ lack of motivation and involvement. People were often doing only what needed to be done, as defined and directed by others, and their work had very little of their own personal selves, very little of what they thought and felt ought to happen as they went about their work. Managers did not really understand the problems, which they thought had to do with employees not being the right fit for the job or not being rewarded enough for their work.

WF: What was the ‘aha’ moment when you hit on engagement as a business case? Why did you use that word, that terminology?

Kahn: There was no particular ‘aha’ moment. It was simply the accumulation of noticing, studying and writing about employees who were unfulfilled at work, and why that might be. I used ‘engagement’ and ‘disengagement’ because those words evoke very clearly the movements that people make toward and away from their work, other people and the roles that they had. Engagement is a word that suggests betrothal — the decision to commit to a role, an identity and a relationship that offers fulfillment.

WF: Why was it an issue then?

Kahn: Leaders of organizations had very little understanding of modern concepts of empowerment, and believed that motivating others was mostly a matter of hiring the right people and giving them the right incentives. The engagement concept was developed based on the premise that individuals can make real choices about how much of their real, personal selves they would reveal and express in their work. That premise was radically different than the operating assumptions of the time.

WF: Has employee engagement evolved or is it still rooted in the same problems as 25 years ago?

Kahn: The problems are much the same, although there is more sophistication about how they appear and are dealt with. The problems of giving people voice over what they do and how they do it, of ensuring that people find their work intrinsically meaningful, and enabling them to craft their roles still exist, as managers wish to exert control over others when they are made anxious by the demands to produce and perform.

WF: What’s your one key way to improve engagement?

Kahn: Approach employees as true partners, involving them in continuous dialogues and processes about how to design and alter their roles, tasks and working relationships — which means that leaders need to make it safe enough for employees to speak openly of their experiences at work.

June 18, 2014June 29, 2023

3 Surprising Reasons Diversity Training Fails

One of the most common requests that companies like mine receive from organizations is to do training. When done right and well, training increases knowledge, builds awareness and teaches effective behaviors. When done wrong or poorly, training is a waste of money at best, and harmful at worst.

To be effective and provide a high return on investment, diversity training should:

Be directly and clearly tied to measurable, meaningful business goals.

Yield a measurable improvement in participants’ awareness, knowledge and skills.

Be conducted by a company or individual who:

Conducts a thorough needs assessment around your training request, listens well and makes specific, well-supported recommendations that will meet your goals (which may look different from what you initially requested).

Is a good fit for your organization’s culture, values, goals, geography and stage of the D&I journey you’re in.

Is a strategic partner in meeting your needs — which means he or she will advise you and even push back in service of your goals and excellent results!

Demonstrates a concrete, meaningful return on your investment of dollars and the time participants spend in training. (If your training partner doesn’t know what a level 3 or 4 evaluation is, find someone who does!)

Build skills that are supported and sustained by your organization’s culture, systems and processes.

Be only one element of your organization’s broader commitment to excellence and high performance.

Having these elements in place will probably get you a B or B+ training. But to obtain a high ROI and an “A grade” diversity training, ensure the training includes at least two of these three additional surprising — yet critical — pieces:

Knowledge of how our brains work and why “bad stuff” persists despite all “the good stuff” we do. Exciting advances in brain science and evolutionary biology give us new and inspiring insight into our mammalian and primate heritage, and how most of our behavior is driven by unconscious biases outside our awareness, control and intention. Educating participants about how unconscious bias works and why our brains function the way they do opens up dialogue, awareness and receptivity in a way that the old “respect each other and be sensitive to differences” script hasn’t. It also tends to inspire buy-in, individual responsibility and meaningful change as long as unconscious bias training includes teaching effective behaviors that mitigate the negative effects of bias.

Sufficient work on the necessary internal self-awareness and emotional skills which build long-term competence that can apply to a variety of situations. A training that provides lists of tips or “do’s and don’ts” is narrow and even dangerous. Not only do such lists tend to (unintentionally) narrow our thinking or provide a false sense of security, they can reinforce stereotypes. They can also be incomplete or simply inaccurate since any identity group is extremely diverse and cultures are constantly changing. Effective training should build emotional intelligence, critical thinking, resilience, creativity, problem-solving abilities and a well-stocked toolbox of communication skills.

Attention to power differences and how these affect relationships, communication and outcomes. True, the workplace isn’t a democracy. But ignoring the existence of power imbalances — in your organization, on your team and in the world at large — is a tremendous blind spot. Poorly navigated power structures and ineffectively wielded power are demoralizing, inefficient and expensive. Looking at power differences and how these are working (or not) may be messy, but offers tremendous potential in clearing a path to the brilliance and excellence that are the rewards of a meaningful commitment to D&I.

September 24, 2012June 29, 2023

Firing an Employee? Tell Them! (Don’t ‘Milton’ the Termination)

Office Space is one of the great movies about the modern workplace.

One of its key plot lines involves sad sack employee Milton Waddams, who mumbles through the movie about his missing stapler and ever-moving desk. Amazingly, the company had laid off Milton years earlier without anyone telling him. When the company fixed a computer glitch that had accidentally kept him on the payroll, Milton finally cracked and burned down the office.

Lawrence v. Youngstown (9/21/12) [pdf], decided last week by the Ohio Supreme Court, gives employers a reason other than arson-avoidance to tell employees that they’ve been fired.

Ohio’s workers’ compensation retaliation statute (Revised Code 4123.90, for those counting) is an odd-duck. It has a two-part statute of limitations. First, the aggrieved employee must provide the employer “written notice of a claimed violation … within the 90 days immediately following the discharge, demotion, reassignment, or punitive action taken.” If the employee sends that written notice, he or she then has up to 180 days from the adverse action to file suit. The 90-day notice requirement is “mandatory and jurisdictional,” and no employee is permitted to file a workers’ compensation retaliation claim without sending the written notice.

In Lawrence, the Court answered a question of timing — does that 90-day period begin to run on the effective date of the discharge or when the employee receives notice of the discharge?

The facts of Lawrence illustrate the potential problem. On January 7, 2007, Youngstown suspended Lawrence without pay from his position with the city. Two days later, the city converted the suspension to a termination, and mailed, via regular mail a letter notifying him of the termination. Lawrence claimed he did not learn of his discharge until February 19, 2007. On April 17, 2007, Lawrence’s attorney sent the city a letter stating that Lawrence intended to bring a lawsuit claiming unlawful workers’ compensation retaliation. When he filed his lawsuit a few months later, the city sought, and obtained its dismissal on the basis that Lawrence’s letter was untimely based on his termination date.

The Ohio Supreme Court reversed. It held that normally the start of the 90-day period triggers from the actual discharge date. It also created an exception when the employee both did not know of the discharge and could not reasonably have learned of it:

A limited exception to the general rule that the 90-day period for employer notice … runs from the employee’s actual discharge…. The prerequisites for this exception are that an employee does not become aware of the fact of his discharge within a reasonable time after the discharge occurs and could not have learned of the discharge within a reasonable time in the exercise of due diligence. When those prerequisites are met, the 90-day time period for the employer to receive written notice … commences on the earlier of the date that the employee becomes aware of the discharge or the date the employee should have become aware of the discharge.

As the Court reminded us in the Lawrence opinion, “Usually, an employer will make a good-faith effort to communicate the fact of the employee’s discharge to the employee when it occurs…. The employer commonly will use a method like personal notification, hand delivery of notice, or a certified letter.” In other words, if you are going to fire an employee, don’t you owe it to him as a human being to at least tell him?

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

March 21, 2011December 30, 2019

Deloitte Gets Physical with $300 Million Learning Center

Consulting giant Deloitte is putting serious cash behind its stated priority of training and development. Many companies have hoarded money in an uneven economy, but the New York-based firm is dipping into its profits to build Deloitte University, a $300 million “learning and leadership development” campus near Dallas.

Slated for completion this summer, Deloitte University will feature 35 classrooms, each outfitted with technology for interactive learning. The 712,000-square-foot complex also will be self-contained, including 800 hotel rooms on site to house visiting Deloitte employees who attend training. The company plans to hire a hospitality management vendor to operate the hotel.

Deloitte University’s primary purpose will be to help consultants buttress their technical proficiency with leadership, collaboration and team-building skills, says Bill Pelster, a Deloitte managing principal for talent development, who is based in Seattle. More than 45,000 consulting professionals make up Deloitte and its U.S. subsidiaries. Worldwide, the company has nearly 170,000 employees.

Deloitte consultants specialize in highly technical fields, such as tax accounting, auditing and risk management, corporate financial advice and regulatory/legislative matters. They also have expertise in selected business sectors.

It is unusual for consulting firms to adopt the corporate-university concept, says Sue Todd, president of the Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania-based Corporate University Xchange, a research and advisory firm. In fact, Todd says most consultancies still cling to older models in which consultants specialize strictly in one strategic area.

However, the need for continuous learning by technical professionals is greater than ever and likely to remain so given the rapid pace of the changing business climate.

“Consulting firms are slowly finding the models they’ve used to define jobs need to be significantly expanded. Either they get more value from their consultants, or they risk losing whole hunks of business to competitors,” says Todd, whose organization is not directly involved with Deloitte University.

Still, it is unusual for companies in the current economy—even large concerns like Deloitte, which posted global revenue of $26.6 billion in 2010, up 1.8 percent—to sink vast sums of money in a physical learning campus. But Deloitte has been transforming the learning curricula across its varied lines of business, including switching last year from a regional to a national model for talent management. Construction of the leadership center dovetails with that effort, officials say.

As the most visible outgrowth of the strategy, Deloitte University will sprawl across 107 acres in Westlake, Texas. When operations begin—probably in October—it will deliver 1 million hours of training per year, or roughly one-third of all Deloitte’s U.S. training.

All told, more than 420 learning programs are scheduled during the first year of operation.

“It embodies our commitment to developing professionals in a much more dynamic way” than traditional learning formats, Pelster says.

Deloitte University plans to jettison traditional learning methods. Lecture-based learning is out. Instead, interactive training activities will force employees to anticipate hypothetical problems and devise solutions as a group. Computer-simulated business scenarios, case studies and role-playing will be the norm.

The participatory format should help consultants see things from a client’s point of view—an important attribute when addressing business issues fraught with ambiguity and complexity, Pelster says.

Some of Deloitte’s U.S. partners, managers, and executives will serve as instructors at the Dallas campus, facilitating small groups of cross-disciplinary teams and providing feedback. For roughly every five participants, one Deloitte leader will be on hand as a sounding board.

“It’s basically a leadership laboratory that gives us the opportunity to see how teams react, and then provide immediate feedback on their decisions. It’s important that our leaders be in the classrooms to teach and mentor the next generation of Deloitte professionals,” Pelster says.

Deloitte decided to invest money in a learning campus largely because it will provide flexibility in how learning is delivered, Pelster says. Video and other interactive technologies are being installed to connect classroom learners with colleagues in Deloitte offices, including another learning center in India. Classrooms also can be reconfigured to accommodate different types of learning events, Pelster says.

It’s not a true corporate university, however, in which employees can choose to enroll in professional courses. Rather, participants will be invited to attend by business units or sponsors of specific learning programs.

Deloitte’s sizable investment also comes amid growing optimism by senior executives, 70 percent of whom expected to spend more on all types of capital projects during the first quarter, according to a February survey by the Corporate Executive Board in Arlington, Virginia. That’s up from 52 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010.

Deloitte isn’t alone in pouring money into a building dedicated to employee development. This year, Planned Cos. is celebrating the second anniversary of its 2,000-square-foot interactive educational facility. The company, which provides building management and maintenance services at commercial and residential properties, built the $200,000 center next to its headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey.

It features 14 workstations, each providing simulated exercises on a specific area of building management. A front-desk module, for example, enables employees to watch a live feed from a luxury condominium in Jersey City. “It lets them visualize what it means to man a front desk in a professional manner,” says Robert Francis, president and CEO of the company his family has owned for four decades.

Planned Cos. uses the facility as a retention tool for existing customers, as a sales tool to persuade new prospects, as well as a way to improve employees’ skills and help them plan their careers, Francis says.

The learning center also helps Planned Cos. hold onto its employees—a key goal in an industry with volatile turnover. “The higher our retention rate, the more it helps our bottom-line productivity,” says Francis, whose company’s efforts at career development earned it the 2010 Optimas Award for Vision from Workforce Management.

Even with the rise of e-learning and virtual technologies, Deloitte placed a high value on having its own leadership campus. The decision to build Deloitte University came after extensive internal research, including surveys across its multigenerational workforce. Pelster was surprised to find that throughout the company, including millennial employees, support for a physical learning facility was strong.

“It’s one place we’ll all go at key milestones in our careers, and it’s one place we’ll all have in common,” Pelster says.

Workforce Management Online, March 2011 — Register Now!