Category: Commentary & Opinion

Posted on

Dear Workforce How Could We Determine Whether We Are Getting Optimum Effectiveness From Our HR Processes?

Dear Making Practices Perfect:

Let’s start with a definition: A process is a recurring set of activities, events, steps or tasks that results in a desired outcome. To determine the qualities of a “good” process, you must determine two basic things:

  1. If the process meets the requirements of the customer(s) that it serves, and …
  2. If it does so in an optimal way.

To clarify a little, the answer to the first question determines whether the process is effective, and the second question gauges its efficiency and quality. For example: Reducing the cost or time to process a benefits claim would be a measure of efficiency—and quality may be the accuracy of the process, or even the experience of the customer. You could successfully process a benefit claim with a process that is slow, but in which the customer’s experience is bad. By striving for optimal performance of a process, we are striving for a balance between efficiency and quality, and not sacrificing one for the other, if possible.

The only way to gauge these elements is to properly measure them—and you must truly understand a process before you can effectively apply metrics to it.

If you want to dig into your processes, document them and attempt to refine and improve them, there are several tools that you can use to do this, including:

  • SIPOC diagrams, which are graphical tools that can help in understanding the key elements of a process. SIPOC identifies the Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs and Customers of a process.
  • Flowcharts that can visually identify the steps used in a process.
  • Process maps that can visually represent the process beyond the steps in a flowchart to illustrate things such as timing, responsibilities and requirements.

Through the use of these tools you can increase your understanding of your processes and take steps to effectively measure and improve them.

To summarize:

  • It cannot be a good process if it doesn’t satisfy its customer. Once that is accomplished, any efforts to improve and optimize a process must still keep the customer in mind and balance efficiency and quality.
  • You cannot effectively measure and improve a process until you have a clear understanding of it and its elements.
  • A SIPOC diagram will help you establish who and what are involved in a process.
  • A flowchart will show what happens in a process.
  • A process map can show what happens and also establish who does what and when in addition to how and where the different elements fit into the whole process.

With these tools you will be on your way to improvement.

SOURCE: Scott Weston, Ph.D., SPHR, is the author of HR Excellence: Improving Service Quality and Return on Investment in Human Resources, San Francisco, May 8, 2007

LEARN MORE: Rather than myopically focusing on processes, HR professionals should set aside time to envision their strategic roles.

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

Strategic Workforce Planning in an Uncertain World

If anyone knows where the economy is headed, it’s likely to be Hugh Courtney. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was formerly global strategy practice leader at McKinsey & Co. and is one of the world’s leading business strategy experts. But here is his conclusion about the recession that struck worldwide in the final quarter of 2008: “The length and impact of the current economic downturn is absolutely uncertain,” he says.


That uncertainty poses a problem for the truism commonly used to define the goal of strategic workforce planning: the ability to put the right people in the right place at the right time. “People tend to be overconfident in their ability to predict those ‘rights,’ so they are systematically surprised,” says Courtney, who is now a professor of the practice of strategy and associate dean of executive programs at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business. “The people who are making those ‘right’ decisions need to face and take seriously the uncertainties their organizations face.”


The financial crisis has undercut what Courtney describes as a common bias toward thinking that most business decisions occur at relatively low levels of uncertainty. At these low levels, there is a clear, single view of the future, or a limited set of possible future outcomes, one of which will occur. Under these conditions, forecasting data out along defined trajectories and conducting talent-gap analysis may provide adequate workforce planning.


But for the most important decisions, Courtney says, executives are actually working at much higher levels of uncertainty, with a range of possible future outcomes or unbounded possible outcomes. Effective workforce planning can occur at these higher levels of uncertainty, but when conditions are so in flux, forecasting and talent-gap analysis are useless.


Now that the financial crisis has brought greater clarity about the levels of uncertainty that surround most business decisions, the goals for strategic workforce planning have been recast to include the ability to think rigorously about the seemingly improbable and the unknown. Some companies are now developing the discipline for that thinking as the next step in strategic workforce planning.


Beyond gap analysis
At high levels of uncertainty, companies can use systematic scenario planning that looks at bounding the range of possible outcomes and the corresponding human capital needs of the organization. “This approach outlines the ‘no regrets’ actions and constructs a hiring plan that signals movement toward those scenarios,” Courtney notes.


Even at the highest levels of uncertainty, strategic workforce planning can frame discussions about past structural changes and the profound workforce shifts and new human capital challenges that flowed from them. “Previous financial meltdowns have had a discernible impact on human capital,” Courtney says. “Where did the people go and why? How were they retrained? There is usually some anchor you can hold on to.”


Aetna Inc. is looking for an anchor. Over the past year, strategic workforce planning at Aetna has focused on expanding the range of thinking about possible futures and their workforce implications. The company, based in Hartford, Connecticut, reported revenues of $31.6 billion in 2008 and employs 35,462 workers.


To launch its strategic workforce program, Aetna tapped Aruspex, the strategic workforce planning solutions provider, and in July 2007 hired away from a competitor company Melissa Cummings, an MBA with no prior human resources experience.


“It is hugely valuable to come into human resources from the outside because you can lead the conversation about how to get the business to play with workforce planning,” Cummings says. “A cross-functional business background really helps.”


From the outset, strategic workforce planning at Aetna moved beyond data gathering and gap analysis. “Analytics has thrown a veil over what passes for workforce planning,” Cummings says. “Data is about what happened in the past. Forecasting is a static vision of the future. We take data and forecasts and build on them with ‘what ifs’ to create a richer vision. That’s the qualitative piece that the enterprise needs.”


In February 2008, Aetna launched a series of daylong strategic workforce planning sessions, each attended by different groups of 15 to 20 business leaders. Seven sessions have been completed. Each session begins with an environmental scan that covers dozens of labor supply and demand factors, including global economic and political issues marked by very high levels of uncertainty.


“We filter our thinking through the environmental scan,” Cummings reports. “Which factors will have the greatest impact on the business and which carry the highest levels of uncertainty, and how high or low might they go?”


The business leaders prioritize the factors and outline the big themes. “The most compelling development at this point is that you see a couple of key buckets, and one is the economy, which shapes labor pools, the business model and, at the macro level, how much business might be gained or lost,” Cummings says.


The participants then construct a simple matrix, with one axis for factors that are out of the company’s control, such as the economy, and a second axis for factors within its control, such as how the company positions itself geographically. The participants look at alternative scenarios and outcomes for the four quadrants, and then break into four subgroups, with one group assigned to each quadrant.


“One quadrant will look like utopia and one will represent the worst gloom and doom,” Cummings says. “For the gloom-and-doom quadrant, we can then ask: Are we working toward prevention? Are we mitigating the risks that we see?”


The four quadrant groups generate reports. “We talk about the themes in each quadrant and that helps us look at possible future needs,” Cummings says. “Once you get there, it’s easier to see the goals and build an action plan.”


‘No regrets’ planning
Recent surveys confirm that companies are using the current crisis to upgrade their workforce. “We know from research on business cycle management that many firms use a downturn to be very aggressive in acquiring talent,” Courtney says.


Under current conditions, however, fairly high levels of uncertainty form the context for decisions about talent acquisition. “For workforce planning, companies are now facing multiple possible scenarios, any of which carries the need to develop bench strength,” Courtney says.


Given these conditions, Courtney advises companies to ask: What are the “no regrets” moves that we could take no matter what the range of outcomes? “This forces decisions about who to hire and when to make the hire, and what will happen if you don’t,” he notes.


Courtney will not speculate widely about the human capital changes that might arise from the current crisis. “Beyond the obvious near-term unemployment and retraining issues, too much depends on how long it lasts and whether it is a cyclical or a structural change,” he says.


He does see a long-term shift toward greater government regulation that will reach well beyond financial services. “This means that companies will need different skill sets in middle and upper management positions, with more employees skilled in managing regulations and standard-setting,” he says. “This is not just a cyclical issue to get us though the downturn, but more of a structural change.”


In many companies, strategic workforce planning executives are asked to outline the workforce implications for business scenarios already constructed by top leadership. “But some business scenarios are highly contingent on human resources issues,” Courtney notes.


“For example, McKinsey & Co. always starts with its ability to attract and train the best people, and its business scenarios flow from there,” Courtney reports. “That’s an extreme example. But in a variety of industries, we need to avoid spreadsheet answers and take a more strategic workforce planning approach that looks at competitive advantage. In the best of all worlds, human resources executives are members of the team that is creating the business scenarios.”


At Aetna, Cummings is still working to align the workforce planning process with enterprise planning. The company’s strategic plan reaches out three years and is largely set in June of each year. “The planning function has connected to the workforce planning session output,” she says. “The most important step is to hook into finance.”


When Aetna’s finance function issued numbers for 2009 headcount reductions at the end of 2008, Cummings reviewed the data. “We modeled out the numbers that finance gave us,” she says. “That was an insightful exercise that fostered partnering with finance and thinking about alternatives for how the reductions could occur.”


Still in its early stages of development and operating with a limited staff, the strategic workforce planning process at Aetna is nonetheless pushing past gap analysis to create a more comprehensive plan.


“We’ve laid the tracks for thinking about the challenges we face,” Cummings says. “The process is based on a methodology designed to create some clarity. In the end, it takes us to a further level of insight and builds connectedness and a common vision. It’s the story and the dialog that get you to the future.”


Recasting strategic workforce planning to accommodate higher levels of uncertainty is not a temporary response to unprecedented conditions, however. Courtney makes it clear that the only thing that has changed since the 2008 market crash is our perception of risks and uncertainties that were already there.

Posted on

Study Links Race, Ethnicity to 401(k) Participation

White and Asian employees, regardless of pay, are far more likely to participate in 401(k) plans and to make bigger plan contributions than African-American and Hispanic employees, according to a new study.


Among those employees earning between $30,000 and $59,999, 75 percent of African-American and Hispanic employees participated in their employers’ 401(k) plans.


That compares with an average participation rate of 84 percent for Asian employees and 80 percent for white employees, according to a study conducted by Hewitt Associates of Lincolnshire, Illinois, and Ariel Education Initiative, a nonprofit affiliate of Chicago-based mutual fund provider Ariel Investments.


Participation rates also were linked to racial and ethnic backgrounds at higher income levels. For example, participation rates for those earning between $60,000 and $89,999 averaged 83 percent for African-American employees and 85 percent for Hispanic employees.


The participation rate averaged 92 percent for Asian employees and 88 percent for white employees in the $60,000 through $89,999 pay range.


At the highest income range, though, the differences in participation rates were much smaller.


For those with earnings of at least $120,000, the participation rate for Asian employees averaged 94 percent, compared with 92 percent for whites, 91 percent for African-American employees and 90 percent for Hispanic employees.


How much employees contributed to 401(k) plans also was directly tied to their racial and ethnic backgrounds. For example, on average, African-American employees earning between $30,000 and $59,999 deferred 5.9 percent of pay and Hispanic employees deferred 6.1 percent of pay to their 401(k) plans.


By contrast, Asian employees in the same pay range deferred an average of 8.4 percent of pay, while whites deferred an average of 7.1 percent of pay.


These racial and ethnic differences exist even at the highest income levels. For example, Asian employees earning at least $120,000 a year deferred an average of 12.1 percent of pay to their 401(k) plans, while white employees deferred an average of 10.4 percent. That compares with an average deferral rate of 9.7 percent for Hispanic employees and 9.2 percent for African-American employees.


The study also found that Asian and white employees, on average, take fewer hardship withdrawals and loans from 401(k) plans than African-American and Hispanic employees.


The study didn’t attempt to analyze why participation and contribution are higher for Asian and white employees compared with African-American and Hispanic employees. Still, those differences need to be addressed “if retirement security is to be a reality for all Americans,” said Mellody Hobson, president of Ariel Investments, in a statement.


“A Study of 401(k) Savings Disparities Across Racial and Ethnic Groups—The Ariel/Hewitt Study,” funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, is based on 401(k) plan information—through December 31, 2007—for 3 million employees working at 57 large companies.


Summaries of the study are available at www.hewittassociates.com and www.arielinvestments.com.



Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter


Posted on

NLRB Decisions Could Make Card Check a Reality

If the card-check provision of the Employee Free Choice Act fails to survive legislative negotiations, it may not necessarily die.


There is a possibility that the National Labor Relations Board could rule, if the right case comes along, that a company must recognize a union formed through the card-check process. Card check, also known as majority sign-up, means that a company recognizes a union if a majority of employees sign cards authorizing a bargaining unit.


Currently, employers can require a secret-ballot union election supervised by the NLRB, or they can agree to card-check authorization.


The five-member board is poised to have a Democratic majority now that a Democrat is in the White House, giving it a pro-union orientation. Currently, the board only has two commissioners—one Democrat and one Republican.


President Barack Obama has nominated two people for board positions. One of them, Craig Becker, is the associate general counsel to the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union.


Each side in the EFCA debate has a different view of whether the new board will—or even can—make card-check recognition compulsory. Those who support EFCA say it is plausible. Those opposed to EFCA say that the NLRB lacks the authority.


In 1947, the National Labor Relations Act was amended so that the NLRB had to resolve representation disputes through a secret-ballot election. In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that an employer does not have to recognize a union even if a majority of workers have signed authorization cards. Instead, it could insist on a secret-ballot election.


But in making its ruling, the Supreme Court relied on the expertise of the NLRB in reading the labor statute, according to William Gould, a professor of law at Stanford University who was NLRB chairman from 1994 to 1998.


Gould says that the board frequently reverses itself in its interpretation of labor laws. A new NLRB could take a fresh look at card check and decide that is an acceptable way to create a union.


“The board could develop new expertise based on new evidence and new facts and come to a different conclusion,” Gould says. “In my judgment, yes, the board could issue such a ruling.”


An employer-side attorney, however, says that the NLRB has always favored secret-ballot union elections, regardless of its political leanings.


“That’s been a consistent philosophy of the NLRB through Democratic and Republican administrations,” says Matthew Damon, a shareholder at Halleland Lewis Nilan Johnson in Minneapolis. “It’s a pretty fundamental point.”


But precedent doesn’t stand for much at the NLRB, and its new chair, Democrat Wilma Liebman, may be inclined to bolster card check through adjudication, according to Jim Rowader, vice president and general counsel at Target.


“She’s very open to rule making to make significant changes to labor law,” Rowader says. “It will result in a lot of conflict and litigation all the way up to the Supreme Court.”


Before the board gives new life to card check, it should more effectively use enforcement mechanisms that are already available, says Arnold Perl, a partner at Ford & Harrison in Memphis, Tennessee.


For instance, the NLRB can issue a bargaining order that would effectively authorize the formation of a union through card check. The board doesn’t often make such a move, and it usually comes in response to egregious employer behavior.


“The Obama board can be much more aggressive in their administration of the statute by providing effective remedies to address serious instances of employer unfair labor practices,” says Perl, who served on an NLRB advisory panel during the Clinton administration.


Rowader favors strengthening the board’s punitive options. For instance, it should be able to impose economic damages on employers, such as forcing cost-of-living benefit adjustments, or to impose mandatory arbitration. But the latter should be a board option, not a codified mandate, as it would be under EFCA.


“If employers are going to violate the law, then let’s come at them with a remedy that would disincent them from doing the wrong thing in the first place,” Rowader says.


It’s difficult to predict whether the new NLRB will address card check. But experts agree that the board will revisit decisions made during the Bush administration.


One previous board ruling held that employees could file a decertification petition within 45 days of voluntary recognition of a union.


“That case will clearly be overturned by the Obama board,” says Charles Craver, a professor of law at George Washington University.

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.

Posted on

Going After Gossip

In this economic downturn, employees are fearful about losing pay, benefits or their very jobs. Not surprisingly, these concerns can translate into water-cooler discussions about who may be next to get the ax or who is making how much money. In fact, executive bonuses, compensation and perks are not just the topic of idle chatter. They are headline news. And what used to be talk around the office is now ferried by e-mail, text messages, IMs, blogs and Twitter. Word can spread beyond the company walls instantly, to virtually anyone. Recently, layoffs at a large law firm were widely publicized before they had been internally announced, thanks to a firm shareholder whose cell phone discussion was overhead on a subway. At a time when companies are facing serious business challenges, office gossip is yet another hurdle that must be cleared.


Gossip generally takes two forms. It can consist of rumors about company changes such as mergers, layoffs, managerial promotions or staffing changes. Or, it can be personal gossip, centered on who in the organization is doing well, having an affair or grappling with personal problems. Gossip is a behavior that we all engage in at some point, and it sometimes serves to cement personal bonds. But both kinds of rumor mongering—business gossip and personal gossip—can be detrimental to the workplace. Here are some of its effects:


Time wasted: The time spent on office gossip, whether about personal issues or possible company changes, can take away from time that should be devoted to work. Individual employee effectiveness is obviously hindered when a great deal of time is spent on office gossip. Additionally, the morale of the employee who is the focus of gossip will decrease, along with that employee’s ability to be productive. Even seemingly casual remarks between co-workers can disrupt an otherwise peaceful office.


Legal liability: Office gossip that targets individuals, based on legally protected characteristics such as race, age, sexuality, gender, pregnancy or disability, can expose the company to legal action for violation of anti-discrimination laws, harassment laws and other civil rights statutes. Assuming that the gossip is not true, there also may be a cause of action for defamation. If an employee’s confidential health information is the subject of gossip, there may be a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Family and Medical Leave Act.


Management breakdown: If management takes no action in response to injurious office gossip, or—even worse—if management participates in the gossip, employees may view management as completely ineffective. Employees may also assume that inaction means that other kinds of misbehavior—such as harassment or discrimination—also will be ignored or even tacitly encouraged.


Employee and third-party reaction: If employees hear that the company is considering layoffs or may be in financial jeopardy, they may begin to look for other employment. The employees who will most easily find other employment opportunities are probably the very people the company would most like to retain. Additionally, if rumors of financial failure or other negative performance indicators of the company become public knowledge, the stock price could be affected. The media’s interest may be whetted, and—depending on the industry—governmental agencies may even begin investigating.


Fortunately, there are solutions for the pernicious effects of gossip and rumor. Here are some of them:


Communicate: Since employees’ natural curiosity regarding the affairs of the company will never be eliminated, the company should fill the void by communicating. Managers must set aside time to regularly deal with the employees as a group or as individuals to quickly reveal decisions—such as office relocation, promotions or layoffs—that may cause some anxiety. Companywide meetings are also a good approach. These give employees opportunities to ask questions and voice concerns about rumors that they have heard. When questions arise and employees are unable to approach management for information, that’s when the gossip mill will start spinning.


Confront rumors: Organizations should deal with rumors promptly, particularly when they involve individual employees and personal topics. Management should be direct but tactful, talking to employees involved, individually and in a group. Management should listen to both sides, set up one-on-one meetings between the injured party and anyone involved in spreading the rumor, and schedule follow-up meetings for everyone who might have been involved. One tool that is especially useful is having an employee hot line where concerns can be reported immediately and confidentially. The existence of such a hot line can be helpful if the organization has to defend itself in any litigation that results from employee rumor-mongering.


Develop policies: Companies are wise to develop broad ethics, company values and professionalism policies that outline appropriate behavior and actions at work. Additionally, the company should have an electronic communications policy that prohibits the sending of messages that may be considered harassing or otherwise inappropriate. Finally, the company should have a policy that prohibits all employees from communicating any confidential information regarding the company to any third party in any form, including electronic communications.


Another wise move is to build performance evaluation systems that measure the effectiveness of employees’ communication skills. These expectations should be passed along through meetings, counseling or during annual reviews. Employees who are spreading rumors should be warned that their behavior is not acceptable and may lead to termination.


Developing a specific policy to deal with gossip and rumors is next to impossible. Although certain comments might be clearly inappropriate, others may be within a gray area. And there is one very important cautionary note: It is an unfair labor practice for any employer to prevent employees from discussing the terms and conditions of their employment, which includes compensation and who may be affected by an impending layoff. If the employer does tell employees that they may not discuss these issues among themselves, they would be subject to action by the National Labor Relations Board. That action may include being required to post notices informing employees that they in fact have the right to hold these discussions.


The lies, rumors and gossip spread by certain employees can hurt reputations and could even sink a company. Honesty and consistency in communication is the key to avoiding these perils. It is essential, especially in these times, for companies to set appropriate boundaries and a tone of mutual respect.


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.

Posted on

Dear Workforce How Do We Persuade Management to Spend Money on Data Integrity for Recruiting, Hiring

Dear Not Winning Them Over:

 

If you want support for your initiative, tie it to business-success indicators. Consider that your top executives are not particularly concerned with how well you perform recruiting functions and report headcount, overtime and turnover. But they are interested in improving profitability, productivity and other bottom-line outcomes. Redefining yourselves as talent solution experts, instead of recruiters, may help you think creatively about how your expertise could more directly benefit the business.

If you can use your expertise to solve a productivity deficiency, for example, by reducing turnover, improving the quality of new hires or reducing time-to-hire—and you are able to quantify the resulting improvement in productivity—you have a much stronger case for investing in your work group.

To win approval, you must first demonstrate how your ability to acquire high-quality people leads to measurable increases in client profitability, efficiency and customer service. Second, gain credibility by implementing solutions with results that delight your clients, and document your impact on the bottom line. Third, develop your proposal for obtaining financial support to include a promise to return a substantial benefit to the business as measured by management.

If you do all these well, it will be very easy for management to see the value of your proposal and give you the resources you need. Do them poorly, or skip a step, and you will most likely be perceived as simply one more overhead function requesting capital that could otherwise be invested in revenue-generating activities—a tough sell regardless of your persuasion skills.

SOURCE: Kevin Herring, Ascent Management Consulting, Oro Valley, Arizona, December 18, 2007

LEARN MORE: Many companies struggle with incomplete data when hiring or recruiting.

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

Dear Workforce How Do We Improve Our Performance Evaluations

Dear Everybody Is the Same:

 

What has been referred to as grade inflation or expansion can be attributed to five primary causes.

One is that the organization has not clearly defined to managers and employees what “good” or “expected” behavior looks like.

Another cause is that neither managers nor employees are properly trained how to measure and report performance results.

A third reason is that it is not unusual for both managers and organizations to make the mistake of viewing and using a performance appraisal process as a means of rewarding employees and staying in their good graces.

A fourth cause may be that managers have not experienced a model of a proper performance appraisal as a step in a comprehensive employee development system.

The fifth and final possible cause of grade inflation is that the final result is not challenged. In some instances a manager is permitted to submit a performance appraisal with a high rating and it goes unchallenged by his or her manager and is not compared with other employees.

Any of these reasons—or especially a combination of two or more—may indicate that your process is broken and in desperate need of repair and possibly replacement.

This space does not permit the opportunity to fully outline a detailed process, but I can offer a few suggestions.

First, audit your process. Take a close look at what you have and compare it with what you think you have and what you want. You may discover that what you have is exactly what you wanted when the process was implemented years ago. Try to see how your performance appraisal process fits in with the company’s staff development goals. Then determine whether or not they are consistent with the company’s mission to provide quality service, products, etc.

Develop focus groups to determine the perception of the process to members of the management team and line employees. There should be at least two teams: one group of only supervisors or evaluators, and another group of employees who are evaluated. You may want to have a third group that consists of both managers and employees.

Clearly define what the company wants from a performance appraisal process that supports staff development consistent with the company’s mission. Design or commission a process to be designed that addresses the company’s needs. This may require the development of multiple evaluation forms. You may discover that you need separate instruments to clearly define the performance of managers, non-managers, professionals, line employees and specific departments. Clearly define “good” or “expected” performance for each performance competency being evaluated.

Introduce the process to the company one layer at a time. The senior management team should experience the process first. Middle- and/or first-line supervisors should be introduced to the process in the second phase, and finally other employees should be brought in.

All company employees must be trained on how the new process works. It is important that managers fully understand the importance of how accurate assessments affect the organization. In the same respect, line employees must clearly understand how the process works and the definitions of “good” and “expected” performance. Without that knowledge they will not be able to properly assess their performance; if they cannot assess their performance they cannot fully participate.

Most important, the performance appraisal should be a step in the employee development process. The form is merely a documented summary of employee outcomes supported by a series of interactions and communication meetings with the employee’s supervisor or manager.

The final performance rating must be challenged. The appraisal form should be reviewed by at least one level above the evaluator and human resources for consistency. Each performance rated either above expectations or below expectations should require documentation that justifies the rating. Any final performance rating above or below expectations should be pre-approved by the evaluator’s manager prior to the evaluator reviewing it with the employee, so that the employee does not receive an evaluation that management does not fully support.

SOURCE: Lonnie Harvey Jr., SPHR, president of the Jesclon Group, Rock Hill, South Carolina, December 18, 2007

 

LEARN MORE: In a related matter, please read about how to separate merit raises from performance scores.

 

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

Dear Workforce Why Are Companies Taking an Interest in Health Audits

Dear We May Be Overpaying:


Eligibility audits are designed to spot inadequate procedures—and lack of enforcement—that contribute to overpayment of health claims. Although employees often resist the idea, most audits provide an amnesty period during which ineligible dependents can be removed with no penalties.

 

Correcting eligibility requires plan sponsors to develop an employee documentation process. This concept is not new, but it does result in decreasing claims exposure.

Specialty audit firms can be helpful in performing eligibility reviews since they have the necessary staff to handle the administrative requirements of the process. These requirements include developing and sending initial notification letters to all employees with dependent coverage; collecting documentation; answering calls from employees wanting clarification or information; and providing updated eligibility information to other plan vendors.

Eligibility audits should be considered, for example, if a health plan:

 

  • Does not require certified dependent documentation.
  • Recently changed administrative service providers.
  • Has recently experienced a merger or acquisition.
  • Has a high turnover rate or collects enrollment information from multiple sources.
  • Does not receive monthly adds/drops from the plan administrator.

Eligibility audits can also help plan sponsors answer such questions as:

  • Are system updates timely?
  • Are overpayments identified and recoveries pursued following retroactive changes?
  • Is there exposure to high-dollar claims for dependents not qualifying for stop-loss coverage?

It’s easy to see why employers are looking at eligibility audits as a way to combat rising benefit costs, but they cannot be the only arrow in the quiver. There is no substitute for a well-thought-out health benefits plan aligned with an employer’s objectives that is diligently administered.

SOURCE: MaryAnne Watson and Don Cardone, the Segal Co., Phoenix, November 28, 2007

LEARN MORE: You can learn how companies are using dependent audits.

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

A First for a SHRM Conference a Career Transition Center Offering an Assist During Tough Times

It’s a first for the annual SHRM conference, but it may not be the last time career management firm Lee Hecht Harrison provides a booth specifically to help people with employment advice.


Quietly isolated from the congested exhibit hall in the entry ballroom of New Orleans’ Morial Convention Center, the Lee Hecht Harrison Career Transition Center offered hourlong workshops as well as half-hour one-on-one career coaching sessions with some of the organization’s top professionals.


“This is our first year doing this at SHRM,” said Robert H. Saam, senior vice president and career-transition practice lead. “With so many job losses in this economy, we set up this center for anyone who wants coaching on their own career. Maybe they lost their job, want to move within the company or completely change industries. We have 15 people here to facilitate face-to-face career coaching.”


Saam said there’s a lot of anxiety over job security among employees, no matter what the industry. One session, “Finding Opportunities in Challenging Times,” has some different perspectives on career transition, he said.


“If you ever thought about job sharing or going part time, now is the time to bring it up to supervisors,” he said. “They’re looking for ways to save money and you’re helping them do that while making a career change you can live with.”


While the SHRM conference seems an unlikely location for counseling unemployed workers, Rod Cox, vice president and director, professional services for Lee Hecht Harrison, was busy coaching people on finding their next job.


“About half of the people I’ve talked with left their company and are looking for their next opportunity,” said Cox, who is based in Portland, Oregon. “They’re taking advantage of their SHRM membership and now have free access to career counseling.”


The conference also provides a key opportunity for finding a new job, added Cox, who had a constant stream of clients Sunday.


“Most jobs are filled through networking,” he said. “This is a great place to meet a lot of people who can help you find a job.”


Saam said his company will assess the value of the career center later this week. But he’s impressed with the response during the first two days.


“This may just be the right time at the right place, considering the economy,” he said. “But there have been a ton of job losses in recent months, and others are seeking opportunities to move on. This is our gift to the SHRM community, our chance to give something back.”

Posted on

Some Attendees and Vendors Optimistic About SHRM 2009 Despite Low Attendance


While it may have seemed like the thin gathering that this year left vendors at SHRM’s 61st Annual Conference & Exposition in New Orleans with little to do, one attendee wished the folks in the booths would have done a little more than stand around with their hands in their pockets.


“I wish they’d be more aggressive and come out to talk to me,” said Tameka Flowers, operations recruiting manager for the University of Phoenix. “I want them to reach out and engage me.”


According to numbers released Monday, June 29, there were 6,853 attendees at the Society for Human Resource Management’s 2009 conference as of Sunday night.


That’s less than half the final tallies from the organization’s two previous gatherings, according to figures provided by SHRM officials that were included in stories published by Workforce Management. In 2008, 13,435 people attended the 2007 show in Las Vegas.


Despite the sparse crowds, traffic was good for the Employment Guide, said creative director Michael Godina.


The Norfolk, Virginia-based firm has 20 employees working the 30-by-30 booth, Godina said.


“Sure, the smaller crowds are a function of the economy,” said Godina, who is attending his fourth SHRM conference. “The networking with other companies has been extremely beneficial. But we got over 200 leads in just three hours Sunday night. Traffic has been great for us.”


—Rick Bell


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter