Category: HR Administration

Posted on

Dear Workforce How Should We Conduct Performance-Appraisal ‘Calibration’ Meetings With Managers?

Dear Managing to Succeed:

Every organization has nuances within its performance management system, such as the use of rating scales, competencies, weighting, overall rating and so on. Therefore, here are some general guidelines and tips. Many clients find these helpful when incorporating “calibration” meetings into their performance management process.

Calibrating across individuals is often important as well to ensure consistency in the use of the ratings. The approach that works best is to conduct calibration meetings in which managers reach agreement on how the ratings are applied to roles with similar job expectations. For example, trying to calibrate nurses with accountants would be an exercise in futility. Thus, it is wise to first aim for intradepartment calibration and, once achieved, to strive for interdepartment calibration.

In preparation for a calibration meeting, a manager should complete the following for each employee: all performance data, individual ratings for each goal and competency, and a proposed overall rating. Appraisal conversations should not be held until after the calibration meeting. During the calibration meeting, the managers then review the proposed overall ratings and reach consensus. An effective ground rule for the meeting is that the manager must agree to change the rating; it should not be forced on the manager.

Let’s assume your overall rating uses a five-point scale, with five being the highest rating. To make the meeting most efficient, begin with the individuals whose proposed rating is five. Each manager who has proposed a five gives rationale for the rating. Other managers may ask questions and introduce additional performance data, provided they have firsthand knowledge of the individual being discussed. Once all individuals rated to be at level five are discussed, their managers are asked if they want to change any ratings. Other managers may indicate that one or more of their employees deserves a five rating as well, and they are given an opportunity to provide rationale. Once all discussion is complete, the group reaches consensus on that group of individuals.

Discussion then moves to the individuals rated at one, and follows a similar structure, until the managers reach a consensus. Once that group is completed, discussion moves to the individuals rated at four, and then the individuals rated at two. For individuals rated at three, do a quick check to see if any manager believes an individual should be given a different rating. Once all groups are considered, a final check for consensus can be completed.

Calibration meeting tips:

• Begin the performance management cycle with SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-Bound) objectives.

• Confirm understanding of what “meets expectations” means; this is the goal.

• Rely on the data to determine level of performance.

• Remain objective; avoid the “halos/horns” effect.

• Secure an impartial meeting facilitator.

When the process is conducted in a fair manner, managers not only walk away with confidence in their ratings, but also have a strong group understanding of how to apply the ratings in the future.

SOURCE: Linda Miller, Development Dimensions International, Pittsburgh

LEARN MORE: Managers sometimes need reinforcement to complete timely performance reviews.

Workforce Management Online, February 2011 — Register Now!

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
Posted on

Pro-Union Employee Trying to Organize Target Store Is Fired

She was the face of the failed campaign to make a Long Island, New York, store the first unionized Target in the country. Again and again she told media outlets she was struggling to raise her daughter on what she earned as a Target sales floor team member.


Now, Tashawna Green, 21, of New York City, no longer has her $8-per-hour job. A Target supervisor fired her earlier this month, seven weeks after workers voted not to join United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500.


The union immediately filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging Green was fired “because of her activities in support of the union.”


In a letter to the board, a union lawyer wrote that Green served as an observer for the election and gave statements to the board in support of charges the union filed against Target. The lawyer wrote that Green was fired after she was seen being dropped off at work by a union representative.


In a written statement, Target said Green was fired because she “recently acted in an overly hostile, disruptive manner that is inconsistent with Target’s policies.”


Green said she was told on Aug. 5 not to report to work the next day because supervisors were investigating allegations that she had spread rumors that all staff members of Jamaican descent would be fired. (Team members who hailed from Jamaica, including Green, had been the most vocal in support of unionizing.)


Early the next morning, she got a call from a supervisor with news of her termination.


“I believe I was fired because of my participation in the union campaign,” Green said. “Because I’m for the union, they wanted to get rid of me.”


Green, who had complained of being scheduled for 20 hours or fewer a week, said she was picked on because of her age and influence on other young workers at Target. She said the firing would set her back because “I do have a 6-year-old daughter to take care of.”


Alvin Blyer, regional director of the labor board, said his office received the charge and is investigating. He said the labor board planned to rule soon on dozens of other unfair labor practice allegations brought both by the union and by Target.


Local 1500 issued a formal challenge to the election, alleging workers were bribed and intimidated into voting against the union, and is seeking a rerun election. And late last month, Target filed charges of its own, contending union representatives threatened and physically assaulted employees as they continued to seek support after the election loss.


All Target stores are nonunion.  


Filed by Daniel Massey of Crain’s New York Business, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.


 


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on

Dear Workforce How Do We Handle a Mutiny in Our Senior Ranks?

Dear No Captain Bligh:

Anonymous letters like the one you’ve described are a pain for human resources professionals, who are the ones commonly tasked with running them to ground. Although it is difficult (if not impossible) to respond to such letters, resist any urge you have to ignore them: They often provide much-needed information. At a minimum, you should do two things:

  1. Determine whether the allegation has any substance. In other words, is there any fire accompanying the smoke?
  2. If possible, find out why more preferred feedback mechanisms (including the chain of command and your HR office) apparently weren’t used.

Obviously, if the letter contains any threats or hints of impropriety, a rigorous professional investigation to discover the author or authors becomes relevant, as well. Since you didn’t mention any, we’ll assume that isn’t the case here.

While we don’t know if the letter represents the legitimate concerns of a real group or simply the ranting of a lone individual, the fact that it purportedly comes from the management ranks is of special concern. If it did have the complicity of a group, this could certainly be an indicator of a debilitating trust deficit in the organization. Either way, it suggests a breakdown in the company’s feedback mechanisms.

Here’s what we’d recommend as appropriate responses, in sequential order:

  • Quietly approach a couple of individuals whom you trust—people who have their fingers pretty firmly on the pulse of the organization. Privately and confidentially ask if they think the letter accurately represents reality. If so, ask what things they have observed that supports the claims made in the letter.
  • Conduct a robust, broad-scope employee survey—now, not later. If yours is at all a labor-intensive business, you should probably be doing them anyway. A well-designed and implemented survey process has legitimate built-in anonymity. This is not a do-it-yourself job. Hire an experienced service provider with a track record of successful implementations. Insist on discreet reporting by managers, and pay close attention to the findings. If the survey, the private interviews, or both, corroborate the anonymous letter, you’ll need to devise—with input from your CEO—a plan to treat the symptoms and root cause. Depending on what you find, your CEO may need to brief the board of directors
  • Lastly, encourage (insist, if you’re in a position to do so) the CEO or another senior officer to meet with the management team as a group to discuss the anonymous letter, its contents and its tone. The message should be clear and unambiguous:

“The following letter was received. We obviously don’t know who sent it, but it purports to come from one or more of the people in this room. There are a number of legitimate and helpful ways to make concerns of this type known, but this is not one of them. If at any time, any of you (or someone in your organization) ever has a concern of this sort, you/they are encouraged and expected to talk with your reporting senior, our HR executive, compliance officer, or me promptly, openly, and honestly about it. You’ll never be punished for respectfully airing what you believe to be a legitimate concern.”

The way in which you handle this matter has the potential to earn additional trust and appreciation from your senior leadership. You’ve gotten off to a good start by seeking the benefit of outside perspective. Best of luck as you move ahead with addressing these issues.

SOURCE: Bill Catlette and Richard Hadden, Contented Cows, Memphis, Tennessee, and Jacksonville, Florida

LEARN MORE: All levels of management are needed to help rebuild trust in leadership.

Workforce Management Online, July 2011 — Register Now!

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
Posted on

Optimas Award Videos

See and hear what winners from 2010 are saying as they explain their award entry, program goals and what the Optimas Award means to their company.


GENERAL EXCELLENCE | Tata Consultancy Services

brightcove.createExperiences();



 


COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE | Infosys Technologies


brightcove.createExperiences();



 


FINANCIAL IMPACT | Ultimate Software Inc. 


brightcove.createExperiences();



 


GLOBAL OUTLOOK | IBM Corp. 


brightcove.createExperiences();



 


MANAGING CHANGE | OppenheimerFunds Inc. 


brightcove.createExperiences();



 


PARTNERSHIP | Protective Life Corp. 


brightcove.createExperiences();



 


SERVICE | U.S. Navy  


brightcove.createExperiences();



 


CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP | Microsoft Corp. 


brightcove.createExperiences();


Workforce Management Online, July 2011 — Register Now!

Posted on

Staffing Firm Randstad Announces Plan to Buy SFN Group

Randstad Holding, the world’s second-largest staffing firm, plans to acquire SFN Group Inc., the world’s 13th-largest staffing firm. The combined company would be the third largest staffing firm in the U.S.—Randstad currently ranks No. 6 and SFN Group No. 7—based on 2009 estimated U.S. staffing revenue.


Randstad plans to pay $14 per share equaling $771 million for SFN, the company reported. The transaction must still be approved by SFN shareholders, but SFN’s board has unanimously approved the deal.


The deal is expected to close in September, according to Randstad.


The companies had combined North American revenue of $4.6 billion in the last 12 months as of March 31, according to Randstad. Total revenue at Randstad in the past 12 months, on a pro forma basis including SFN, would total $22 billion.


Based on 2010 revenue of both firms, the deal would make Randstad the second-largest information technology staffing provider in the U.S. It could also become the second-largest provider of office clerical staffing.


“SFN Group is a great company with professional and dedicated people, a good match with Randstad,” the company’s CEO Ben Noteboom said in a written statement. “The future combination will increase opportunities for growth and development of all employees. And by sharing best practices and leveraging the cross selling potential, we will be well-positioned to offer our clients and candidates an unrivaled portfolio of services.”


SFN Group president and CEO Roy Krause said in an interview July 20 it will be business as usual at SFN for the next 60 days. While the deal still needs shareholder approval, the management team at SFN is committed to making this work as a combination, he said. In addition, plans call for Krause to be involved in the integration of the companies.


“This has happened very quickly,” Krause said. The company wasn’t up for sale, but Randstad approached it with an offer and the board evaluated it, he said.


“I think it will give a great opportunity for our employees and our customers,” Krause said. A significant number of U.S. companies have large operations overseas, and this merger will allow them to get worldwide services from the combined company, he said.


Randstad posted revenue of $18.8 billion in 2010, according to its annual report. It had 521,300 staffing employees and 3,085 branches and 1,110 on-premise sites. Based in the Netherlands, Randstad operates in 43 countries.


It’s expected the SFN deal would create $30 million in annual run rate pretax cost synergies. The deal would also be immediately accretive to Randstad’s earnings. Randstad plans to finance the deal under its existing credit facility with a group of seven banks.


Randstad’s last major acquisition was in October 2010 when it acquired FujiStaff of Japan, the world’s 38th-largest staffing firm, which had revenue of $620.2 million in its fiscal year ended March 31, 2010. However, in 2008, it acquired Vedior, at that time the fourth-largest staffing firm in the world, for $5.4 billion in cash and stock.


SFN, based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, posted revenue of almost $2.1 billion in 2010. It had a network of 559 locations in the U.S. and Canada in 2010, according to its annual report.


Its operations include temporary staffing (both professional and commercial), direct hire, managed service provider service and recruitment process outsourcing.  


Filed by Staffing Industry Analysts, a sister company of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.


 


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on

Workplace Regulations Provide Relief to Pregnant Women and Breastfeeding Moms

New regulations under health care reform, combined with the American with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, or ADAAA, should have a positive impact upon pregnant women and new moms in the workplace—and their employers.


According to the U.S. Labor Department, 80 percent of the more than 26 million working women will become pregnant at some point in their careers. And, according to the website Happy Worker, 55 percent of women with a child under the age of 1 will choose to return to work after giving birth.


The good news for working mothers is that ADAAA guidelines established in March by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission broaden the range of people considered by law to have a disability. For example, a woman who develops a pregnancy-related condition that prevents her from performing her job might be considered temporarily disabled and should be provided with reasonable accommodations, such as telecommuting or shorter hours.


Additionally, the workplace breastfeeding support provision within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, states that employers shall provide reasonable, unpaid break time and a private, nonbathroom location for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for one year after the child’s birth. Employers with less than 50 employees are not subject to the requirement if it would cause “undue hardship,” according to the health care reform legislation signed into law in March 2010.


How are employers responding to the new regulations? For some, like Mid-Columbia Medical Center in The Dalles, Oregon, it’s business as usual.


Celeste Morgan, a recruitment consultant at Mid-Columbia, says the medical center has had private lactation rooms at all of its locations for several years now and was in compliance with health care reform provisions before the regulations were enacted.


“Our focus with ADAAA has always been to make it work,” says Morgan, who is also a board member for the Schaumburg, Illinois-based Certification of Disability Management Specialists Commission. Morgan says that the medical center, which employs 900 people, recently revamped its job descriptions, paying close attention to the physical requirements of each position and documented its process for dealing with disability issues, including those related to pregnancy. Managers receive disability training at least twice a year, and are encouraged to lean on human resources for assistance, she says.


While applauding implementation of the new laws, Dana Marlowe, principal partner with Silver Spring, Maryland-based Accessibility Partners, thinks they are long overdue.


“These regulations are important but are years too late in my opinion,” says Marlowe, whose company helps organizations nationwide implement accessible information technology solutions for disabled people in the workplace. She cites lactation rooms as one example of reasonable accommodations employers should make for pregnant women and new mothers.


“Not every mother has her own office, and using a breast pump in a bathroom stall is not sterile, clean or comfortable,” Marlowe says. “Thousands of new moms are experiencing this every year, and accommodating their needs is inexpensive and should be commonplace wherever there is a workplace with an abundance of new moms. They should be considered as people who may need additional accommodations, because balancing work and life takes its toll.”


The ADAAA regulations should help eliminate some of the stigmas associated with pregnancy, says Stephanie Davis, president of Employment Practices Solutions, a human resources consulting company based in Dallas. She says many women are subjected to discrimination related to pregnancy and motherhood and are treated differently.


“I experienced this first-hand during my own pregnancy,” she says. “We make assumptions about moms and what they are able to do and not able to do; we have to steer people away from this stereotype and give them a chance to do their job without judgment. No one should be treated differently or denied career opportunities because they are pregnant or are a new mom.”


Mothers who are pumping breast milk in the workplace are magnets for unfair treatment, “because it freaks some people out,” Davis says.


Accessibility Partners’ Marlowe agrees. “Lactation rooms are not a perk. Pumping milk is not a pleasant experience, but it shouldn’t be unpleasant either. Minor accommodations and common sense provide the best work environment and leads to more productivity.”


She may be right. The report The Business Case for Breastfeeding, published in 2008 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, shows a significant return on investment for employers that provide workplace lactation support, including lower health care costs, absenteeism and turnover rates. Employees whose companies provide breastfeeding support consistently report improved morale, better satisfaction with their jobs and higher productivity, according to the report.


Davis says the ADAAA is helping employers avoid the technicalities associated with qualifying disabilities and put the focus on how they can treat people fairly.


“The more clarity employers have about pregnant workers as a result of ADAAA and health care reform provisions, the better it will be for new moms who want to do their jobs to the best of their abilities,” Davis says. “If you have a pregnant employee, ask yourself: ‘Am I being fair?’ ”


Workforce Management Online, July 2011 — Register Now!

Posted on

Headhunter Firm Taps Insider Trina Gordon for CEO

Executive search firm Boyden World Corp. named Trina Gordon president and CEO, formalizing a post that the Chicago-based executive has held on an interim basis since last December.


She succeeds Chris Clarke, who stepped down last December after 11 years with the Hawthorne, New York-based company. The firm also named Gerhard Raisig to chairman from interim chairman and managing partner of Boyden Germany.


Gordon, 55, earlier was managing director of the Chicago office and chairman of the board. Her second two-year term as chairman expired in May and had exceeded the firm’s term limit. She is one of the highest-ranking women in the executive recruitment industry.


“We are moving forward with a new global strategy so it was an opportune time in the evolution of the firm as we built upon an old strategy and took it in a new direction,” she said in an interview. The new strategy will use a global account model for client companies growing or expanding worldwide.


Gordon joined Boyden in 1990 from William H. Clark Associates Inc. where she was a partner when the two companies merged. She has been a member of Boyden’s board since 2001.   


Filed by Crain’s Chicago Business, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.


 


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on

Heightened Union Activity Putting HR on Notice

Relief over failed attempts to revive the Employee Free Choice Act may be short-lived as employers face new pressures posed by a resurgent labor movement and a more union-friendly National Labor Relations Board.


Recent actions by the NLRB, including a June 22 proposal that would speed up the union election process, have some private-sector employers bracing themselves for a renewed organizing push. While union membership has been steadily declining since its peak in the 1950s, recent battles over collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin and other states and a more labor-friendly Obama administration appear to have re-energized labor activists.



“Over the next several months you’re going to see a renewed emphasis on organizing,” says Mike Asensio, with a partner in law firm Baker & Hostetler in Columbus, Ohio. “This will put a big burden on employers to get involved in labor relations issues on a day-t-day basis rather than waiting until there is a threat.”


Asensio says that the recent NLRB proposal, which would shorten the time between the filing of a petition to take a vote on joining a union and the actual election, will “deprive employees of an opportunity to hear an opposing or contrarian view and that will be extremely detrimental to employees.” An organizing campaign lasts about 40 days, but the new proposal could compress it into as few as 10.


Asensio has dubbed the plan “EFCA light,” referring to the 2008 federal legislation that would have eliminated secret ballot elections, which are how unions are formed under current law if organizers could get the majority of workers to sign a union authorization card. Efforts to resuscitate the bill have so far foundered.


While private-sector employers are being advised to be watchful of any signs of union activity, fears over a private-sector organizing push are premature, according to Josh Goldstein, a spokesman for the AFL-CIO, a federation of labor unions representing about 12 million workers.


The proposed rule is “a very modest change to a seriously broken labor law,” Goldstein says. “I think the effect on organizing is yet to be seen. I don’t think anyone expects this to have the same effect of EFCA. It’s a very small tweak in removing a barrier to a process that doesn’t work for employees or management.”


Goldstein says that employers have been lulled by a largely inactive NLRB under the Bush administration, making even the most modest proposals by the current board seem “like the sky is falling.”


“What people are seeing now is an NLRB that’s actually doing its job after 10 years of not doing it,” he says. “From the first board decisions, corporate interest groups have been up in arms that an independent government agency is actually doing its job. Is it a drastic change? Possibly.”


In addition to the NLRB proposal to accelerate elections, the Labor Department issued a June 22 proposal to clarify when employers must publicly disclose agreements made with labor relations consultants advising them during an organizing campaign. The move to regulate what the Labor Department calls “persuader activities” is widely viewed as another boon for unions.


Business leaders have also decried the NLRB’s recent unfair labor practice complaint against aerospace giant Boeing Co. Charging that the Chicago-based manufacturer was retaliating against its largest union by moving production of its 787 Dreamliner to a nonunion plant, the NLRB recommended in April that Boeing shift the work to a union facility in Washington state.


That same month, the NLRB filed lawsuits against two of four states with constitutional amendments barring private sector employees from organizing using the card check method, which was a key component of EFCA.


Given these recent developments, Kevin McCormick, a partner with the law firm Whiteford Taylor & Preston in Baltimore, urges HR practitioners to review their policies to ensure compliance with the National Labor Relations Act, to stay informed on laws and regulations and union tactics, but most of all, to stay connected with their employees.


If these proposals take effect, “employers won’t know what hit them,” McCormick says. “The train will be coming ’round the bend faster than they can imagine, and they won’t have time to get their side of the story out. This would be a very significant blow for employers.”


McCormick says that HR can have a huge impact by making sure that employers are ready. “Companies get organized because someone’s asleep at the switch,” he says. “Make sure you have opendoor policies, that employees are engaged and don’t see work as drudgery. Above all, listen to them.”


There is no doubt that organized labor is becoming “palpably more aggressive,” according to Maria Anastas, a shareholder in the San Francisco office of the law firm Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart.


“I try to impress on my clients in HR that you can’t underestimate the powerful connection these organizations make with the rank and file,” she says. “It absolutely affects how you connect with your employees.”


A still-flagging economy and concerns about layoffs and cutbacks in benefits has given organized labor a chance to be heard, she says.


“People feel they’re working harder for less,” Anastas says. “The union message resonates with a lot of employees.”


Workforce Management Online, July 2011 — Register Now!

Posted on

Explaining the Labor Department’s ERISA Regulations

The Labor Department issued an interim final regulation July 16, 2010, which would require certain pension plan service providers to give detailed information on fees and possible conflicts of interest to plan sponsors.

On June 1, the Labor Department formally proposed to extend the effective date of this interim final regulation, known as Section 408(b)(2) of the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act, to Jan. 1, 2012, from July 16, 2011. It is expected the rule will become final in late summer or early fall.

A second regulation, under Section 404(a) of the same federal pension law, was finalized in October 2010. It requires plan sponsors to give participants with self-directed accounts like 401(k)s, specific information on administrative and investment costs. This regulation starts for plan years beginning on or after Nov. 1. The June 1 notice proposed to change this rule’s 60-day transition provision to up to 120 days.

The department said in the June proposal that all these extensions should help service providers and plan sponsors comply with the requirements by these new effective dates.

An interim final rule is different from a final rule in that it asks for public comments and has the potential to change. In the example of the provider disclosure, the Labor Department signaled in February that it would extend the effective date to January 2012. Also, it carries the full weight of a final rule, and those affected are required to comply by its start date. Last, federal departments and agencies are allowed to modify a final rule, like in this case changing the compliance date with the participant disclosure regulation.

Workforce Management Online, July 2011 — Register Now!

Posted on

SHRM Agrees to Meet With Protest Group Regarding Differences

After months of frustration over ignored invitations to meet about their concerns, a splinter group of former leaders of the Society for Human Resource Management announced at a news conference on June 26 that SHRM’s board of directors has voted to accept the group’s invitation.


Kathryn McKee, a former SHRM board chair and a spokeswoman for the SHRM Members for Transparency, reading from an email sent by Henry Hart, the HR association’s general counsel, said that SHRM hopes to “re-establish a relationship of understanding and respect between the two groups.” She called the surprise development “a miracle.”


“It doesn’t exactly take the wind out of our sails, but it takes us in a new direction,” she said.


The announcement was made across the street from the Las Vegas Convention Center where the world’s largest HR professional association is holding its 63rd annual conference from June 26 to 29.


The transparency group, which formed last year, has a detailed list of grievances against association leaders that includes the SHRM board’s 2005 decision to pay board members an annual honorarium to allow reimbursement for business-class travel for board members. Another key issue is the number of board members without credentials from the HR Certification Institute, which is affiliated with SHRM. Currently, only four of 11 board members have this certification, which is viewed as the industry standard for evaluating human resources practitioners’ expertise.


The transparency group had wanted to force a meeting with the board by launching a push to enlist the support of 10 percent of the SHRM membership, according to the organization’s bylaws, said Gerry Crispin, a transparency group member. He said that he is “almost positive” that the board was unaware of the group’s plans, but added that “it’s nice encouragement for them [the board] to come to our meeting in good faith knowing the alternative.”


SHRM officials were unavailable for comment.


—Rita Pyrillis