Skip to content

Workforce

Category: HR Administration

Posted on March 9, 2010August 10, 2018

Reaction to New TSA Nominee Avoids Bargaining Issue

Both the Obama administration and a Republican senator who blocked its previous choice to head the Transportation Security Administration regarding concerns about unionization policy are praising the military and intelligence credentials of the new nominee, retired Army Gen. Robert Harding.


The White House announced Monday, March 8, that President Barack Obama has nominated Harding to be assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security overseeing the TSA.


Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, placed a hold on Obama’s previous selection, Erroll Southers, a former FBI agent, because DeMint worried that Southers would allow collective bargaining for TSA workers.


DeMint didn’t mention the topic in a statement about Harding that he released after the nomination was announced.


“He’s had a distinguished career in the Army and I’m interested to hear how his military experience would inform his leadership of our nation’s transportation security,” DeMint said.


Republicans also raised objections to Southers because he allegedly misused a federal database to pursue a personal matter involving his marriage.


Obama called for the Senate to confirm Harding quickly.


“I am confident that Bob’s talent and expertise will make him a tremendous asset in our ongoing efforts to bolster security and screening measures at our airports,” Obama said.


The agency, which protects the nation’s airports, railroads, ports and mass transit systems, employs about 40,000 people. The most visible TSA staff members are the security officers who work as screeners at 450 airports across the nation.


It’s not clear whether Harding will support TSA collective bargaining, an issue that has become an important item on the organized labor agenda.


The American Federation of Government Employees filed a petition in late February with the Federal Labor Relations Authority calling for a nationwide union election to determine exclusive representation for TSA workers.


Currently, the TSA workforce is represented by the AFGE and other unions but is prohibited by federal law from engaging in collective bargaining. The same restriction applies to other security positions such as FBI and CIA agents.


DeMint has argued that allowing collective bargaining for transportation security officers would limit the government’s flexibility to respond to security threats, such as the attempted bombing of a plane headed to Detroit from Amsterdam on Christmas Day.


The head of a large federal union, however, asserted that TSA was being undermined by a faulty pay system and weak worker protections.


“When TSA was created in late 2001, federalizing air travel screening work, the goal was to develop a stable, professional security workforce,” said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. “While TSA employees work diligently and skillfully, achieving that goal has been out of their reach due to serious workplace issues that erode their morale and contribute to the high turnover that continues to plague the agency.”


Both the NTEU and AFGE have vowed to secure collective bargaining rights for TSA workers. It’s likely that Harding will support the effort, according to one observer.


“I’m pretty sure any nominee would because it’s so crucial to [the union] constituency,” said Linda Brooks Rix, co-CEO of Avue Technologies Corp., an HR technology provider for the federal government.


Permitting collective bargaining at the TSA could be beneficial, Rix said, because it would help employees better communicate their concerns.


“It provides the unified voice,” Rix said. “It’s more efficient from a management standpoint.”


At a February AFGE rally, a leader of the nation’s air traffic controllers asserted that unionization hasn’t made takeoffs and landings dangerous.


“We are living proof that being a union member enhances the safety of this country,” said Paul Rinaldi, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.


—Mark Schoeff Jr.  


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 March 4, 2010September 1, 2019

The Five Biggest Lies in HR

I’m here today not to give you the normal PR spin about how strategic the HR function can be, but instead to call BS on the biggest lies in HR. It’s not that HR people want to lie. It’s just that we’ve created our own prison: the urban myths that have developed over the last 20 years as the HR function has matured.

And so we’re trapped. We’ve spawned narratives that make the HR function seem like a cross between Mother Teresa and Stuart Smalley, while the team members—aka employees—we serve actually need more tough love, a cross between Jack Welch and Dennis Miller. They need that little thing called the truth, effectively washed down with a bit of leadership, personality and, at times, humor.

I know that you’re one of the good HR pros who doesn’t subscribe to the lies. But humor me as I move through the list, and we’ll see whether you’re part of the problem when we wrap this up:

Lie No. 1: We’re responsible for the work/life balance of team members. I believe it was a man named Jack Welch who infuriated a bunch of HR pros at SHRM 2009 in New Orleans by daring to say that “there’s no such thing as work/life balance. There are work/life choices.” I’ve never met a star who didn’t absolutely outwork the competition for promotions, yet in our HR universe there’s endless talk about the search for balance.

The truth: Employees are responsible for their own work/life balance, and if they want more money, promotions and fame, they’re going to have to work harder than those around them. That holds true even if they’re as smart as Al Gore, who had to work really hard to create the Internet and get invited to SHRM 2010 as one of the keynote speakers. If you happen to be a team member reading this, the reality is that the business world is chaotic, and everyone’s winging it, to a certain extent. Most companies try to staff at levels relative to the work at hand (more revenue always helps in that regard), but it’s always going to feel like a free-for-all at times. Or, as Neutron Jack might say, it’s your choice. Either you work hard and create the Internet, or you don’t.

Lie No. 2: It’s the company’s desire to provide strong benefits to all team members. How many shades of gray are there on the color wheel? While we like to take care of team members, if it wasn’t part of the American health care system and a competitive necessity related to talent, employers would be out of the benefits business so fast it would make the collapse of Martha Coakley in Massachusetts seem glacial in comparison. As someone who has been fortunate enough to run a self-insured health care plan in a smaller business environment and witness the humanity firsthand, I can tell you the biggest component to this lie is our unwillingness to hold employees accountable for their own health. HR professionals talk about our cost increases during open enrollment, but most of us never really try to change employee behavior through incentives or penalties.

The truth: If we had the guts, we’d tell employees: We’re not Mom. We only provide benefits because it’s an expectation we have to meet in order to compete in the talent game. We have little to no control over insurance costs incurred, and due to our collective unwillingness to penalize smokers and team members who are gold members at Krispy Kreme, we never will. Employees have to take the cost increases we give them as a result, and if we ever get brave enough to try to change the behavior of the outliers, we’ll find we’re too late due to a legislative environment that protects those making unhealthy choices. Wow, that was depressing to write.

Lie No. 3: We’re into pay for performance. Everyone loves seeing a high performer get a 10 percent raise just for being a star—a reward that’s unrelated to a promotion. It doesn’t happen enough, and the reason is pretty simple: In this Darwinian world we call global business, cost pressure is everywhere. As a result, we’ve got to budget for salary increases and then live by the budget to make sure razor-thin margins stay intact. That means that in order to give Sally the superstar an 8 percent increase at review time, we’ve got to give nothing to Johnny and Rickey, who are good cogs in the wheel, but average at best.

The truth: We (business leaders and HR pros) need average performers to make the business formula work. In a world where 90 percent of team members think they’re in the top 10 percent of all performers, we’re screwed from the jump. We’d rather find unbudgeted money for the star than tell the average performers they’re getting nothing, which is what it takes to put pure pay for performance in place within a merit budget system. Our managers are unwilling to do that, and we’re unwilling as HR pros (perhaps rightfully so) to be a Han Solo-style mercenary.

Lie No. 4: We want only “A” players. I gave Neutron Jack some love earlier, but now allow me now to take a Tonya Harding-like whack at his kneecaps. Like many of you, I love the sexy GE thought leadership and the Netflix slides that say you’re either up or out. I’d love to say that our companies should be on a quest to fill our ranks with nothing but “A” players. There’s just this one little problem with this theory.

The truth: “All ‘A’ players” doesn’t work. We can’t find enough of them, and even if we could, the world needs ditch diggers too. We need steady people who come into the office and crank out a solid day’s work, don’t bitch and don’t act like divas when the company doesn’t stop the operation to thank them personally every Tuesday. Granted, we still have the little issue with 90 percent of team members thinking they’re “A” players, but that’s a puzzle to solve another day. For now, we appreciate the fact that employees understand where to put their noses: to the grindstone.

Lie No. 5: Everyone’s equal here. It’s true that we are the stewards of ensuring discrimination doesn’t occur in the organizations that we serve as HR pros. While the world’s still not a perfect place, the American workplace has progressed tremendously when it comes to people of different backgrounds having equal opportunity to succeed. However, it gets dicey once individual performance becomes visible. At that point, no one is truly equal; people actually make different levels of contribution to the enterprise.

The truth: Everyone’s equal until we see business results, then decisions get made and conflicts are resolved with an eye toward who produces. The good news is that producing results is a process that is free of race, gender or national origin bias. The bad news is that it feels unfair that someone with a drinking problem gets three strikes instead of being thrown out at two, all because he was the top-performing salesperson nationally. Welcome to the show, kid, where the curveballs curve and all the hotels have room service.

That’s my list of the top lies in HR. If you’re a good HR pro and don’t feel like you fib every day, I’ve got one question for you: If you don’t actively pitch the lies outlined above, do you actively preach the truth?

If the answer is no, you’ve got work to do before you’re part of the solution.

Workforce Management Online, March 2010 — Register Now!

Posted on March 3, 2010August 31, 2018

Obama Signs Stopgap COBRA Subsidy Extension

President Barack Obama on Tuesday, March 2, signed into law legislation that provides a stopgap, 31-day extension of federal subsidies of COBRA health care premiums.


The measure was approved earlier that day by the Senate on a 78-19 vote, while the House cleared it last week.


Under H.R. 4691, the 65 percent, 15-month premium subsidy for laid-off workers is extended to those involuntarily terminated from March 1 through March 31.


Without the extension, employees laid off after February 28 would have been ineligible for the subsidy.


The measure also will allow employees to receive the subsidy if they first lost group coverage due to a reduction in hours and then were terminated after enactment of the legislation, if certain conditions are met.


Meanwhile, the Senate on Wednesday, March 3, will continue consideration of legislation, H.R. 4213, that would extend the premium subsidy to employees laid off through December 31, 2010.


 


Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail 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 March 2, 2010August 31, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do We Determine the Best Ratio of Administrators to Other Employees in Our Health Care Organization

Dear Size Matters:

The short answer, as you may have suspected, is that there is no typical ratio of administrative support to other employees in health care. We conducted an unscientific poll of 19 health care organizations, including hospitals, long-term-care companies and a couple of organizations that offer primary, inpatient and long-term care. We threw out two outliers, whose numbers were way off the beaten path, and with the remaining 17, here’s what we found:

The smaller the organization is, the higher its proportion of administrators to total employees. There’s a minimum level of support needed, even for the smallest of providers, but the need does not increase in direct proportion to the number of employees overall, or the number of patients served.

Secular not-for-profit and faith-based health care organizations seem to be able to get by with a smaller proportion of administrative support personnel than do for-profit organizations.

The numbers here represent ratios of administrative employees to total number of employees.

The for-profit hospitals we polled ranged from a ratio of 1-to-10 (one admin support person for every 10 employees) to about 1-to-12.

One secular nonprofit hospital reported 2,486 employees, 177 of whom were in administrative support jobs, or a ratio of about 1-to-14. At the other end of this category was a hospital with a ratio of 1-to-17.5.

The faith-based health care organizations we surveyed ran leaner, for the most part, than the other organizations we looked at, ranging from a low ratio of 1-to-15 to a high of 1-to-22.

The consensus among the health care human resources professionals we spoke with is that the administrative support staff, as a proportion of the total number of employees, has diminished somewhat over the last 20 years. Even as the administrative burden on health care has increased in recent years, technological advances in general, and specifically in health care, have allowed many providers to shift human resources away from administrative tasks and toward patient care. Most see this trend continuing.

SOURCE: Richard Hadden and Bill Catlette, co-authors, Contented Cows Give Better Milk, March 15, 2007

LEARN MORE: Please review a series of tools, including worksheets, for workforce planning. Also of interest: how health care organizations can determine the best staff-to-manager ratio.

Workforce Management Online, March 2010 — 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 N ewsletter
Posted on February 19, 2010August 31, 2018

HR Groups Use Scholarships, Discounts to Keep Members

Holding on to their jobs and positioning themselves for better career opportunities when the economy improves has motivated many HR professionals to seek education and training, even as the recession puts a premium on financial aid.


Demand for a new scholarship program at WorldatWork has exceeded expectations so much that the global HR association is already thinking about expanding it. The Society for Human Resource Management has seen a similar spike in interest for its educational and certificate offerings.


In early January, WorldatWork, which focuses on compensation, benefits and total rewards, began offering scholarships for courses that lead to professional certification in those areas.


In the first two weeks, the organization received 32 applications, bestowed seven awards and had 2,800 visitors to its Web site where qualifications are outlined.


A one-year scholarship covers a WorldatWork membership (about $330 for a new member), e-learning courses, materials and exam fees. The monetary value varies. For instance, someone might receive a scholarship of $13,000 to take the nine courses or $4,000 for three.


The number of scholarships was originally set at 20 but could increase to 50 or more, says Anne Ruddy, president of WorldatWork.


She says that education is valued by both HR practitioners and companies as a way to cope with the recession. WorldatWork granted 2,400 certifications last year.


“People are trying to build their own personal brand,” Ruddy says. “Companies realize that they need to invest in the development of key staff.”


SHRM also has experienced increased traffic for its array of education and certificate offerings, according to China Miner Gorman, chief global member engagement officer.


“We’re seeing more interest in them as more of our members are in transition,” Gorman says.


SHRM offers 155 scholarships—valued from $500 to $10,000—for its learning programs. At the top end of that range is the Sue Meisinger Fellowship, a new award named after the former SHRM president that is given to a member who is headed to graduate school.


Running promotions is a standard practice throughout the year for SHRM, where annual membership costs $160. For instance, a nonmember can register for the SHRM annual conference in San Diego in June and also receive a one-year membership for $1,395, compared with the standard nonmember conference price of $1,665.


“The majority of our new members come to us through some kind of discount,” Gorman says.


WorldatWork and SHRM say that their total membership levels are holding steady at 30,000 and 250,000, respectively. They attribute their retention to the timely substantive help they provide for professionals.


WorldatWork is benefiting from an intense focus in Washington on executive pay.


“There are so many fiduciary, legal and accounting responsibilities that a company and a practitioner have in today’s world,” Ruddy says. “It’s too difficult to do compensation by accident.”


SHRM members are turning to the organization for insight on how the Obama administration and Congress might change the workplace. They’re also clamoring for guidance on such issues as pay, employment law and HR’s role in helping businesses survive the recession.


“We got great feedback that [information aggregation] was hugely valuable to our members last year,” Gorman says.


—Mark Schoeff Jr.


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 February 18, 2010June 29, 2023

Strength in DiversityLarge Corporations Find Working With Minority-Owned Firms Is Good Business

Companies that understand supplier diversity see it not as an expense to be trimmed in a slow economy, but as an investment in the future, a way to find new clients and an integral part of their business strategy.


For these corporations, a diverse supply chain is as essential as marketing or product development.


For minority-owned businesses, meanwhile, corporate diversity programs can be a critical lifeline, especially in a down economy.


Crain’s Chicago Business, a sister publication of Workforce Management, asked minority-business advocates, business owners, academics and consultants to identify the major corporations with the best reputations for building and maintaining supplier diversity in the Chicago area. The results are hardly scientific, but offer a ground-level assessment of seven major Chicago companies viewed by many as going the extra mile to maintain diversity, even in hard times.


PepsiCo 

Since 2006, the Purchase, New York-based food and beverage conglomerate has been run by a woman of color, CEO Indra Nooyi. Many of the company’s core brands, including those with headquarters in Chicago such as Tropicana, Quaker Oats and Gatorade, count large numbers of minorities among their customers.


“Diversity is a selling point that strengthens the bottom line,” says Ernest Freeman, PepsiCo’s senior manager for supplier diversity.


Freeman says his goal is to increase the total dollar amount spent with diverse suppliers by double digits each year, a goal the company has met every year since 2003. In 2008, PepsiCo spent more than $1 billion with diverse suppliers, up more than 10 percent from 2007.


Freeman says that getting his suppliers to increase their commitment to diversity as well has reaped benefits for everyone along the supply chain.


“Their efforts to diversify have identified minority companies that we didn’t know about; those companies can also do business with PepsiCo directly,” he says.


AT&T

The telecom giant once known locally as Ameritech considers supplier diversity a competitive advantage.


“Having diverse suppliers improves AT&T’s products and services,” says Joan Kerr, executive director of AT&T’s global supplier diversity program. “By reaching out and including the full spectrum of suppliers, we’re getting better ideas, faster service and better quality.”


Gregg Ontiveros—owner of Group O, a provider of marketing, supply chain, printing and packaging services in Milan, Illinois—seconds Kerr.


“We’re seeing a lot of opportunities from AT&T to bid, which is all you can ask for: to be in the game,” he says. “In their supply chain, in marketing, and in advertising, they’ve shown a willingness all through their procurement ranks for diversity suppliers to participate.”


AT&T’s Kerr says the commitment to diversity has come from the top down for the past 40 years.


“Our goal is 21.5 percent of everything AT&T procures, and we have met that goal in the past,” Kerr says.


Because of recent mergers with wireless companies, many of whose supply chains weren’t as progressive, AT&T’s diverse suppliers accounted for only 12 percent of spending in 2008. Still, the total of $6 billion spent with women- and minority-owned businesses placed AT&T among the top 15 companies in the world on this score.


Aon 

   “It’s not about diversity, per se,” says LaShana Jackson, director of diversity and inclusion at the Chicago-based insurance and consulting giant. “It’s about integrating diversity into our overall strategy of ‘hire the best, build the best, be the best.’ ”


Aon is a member of Chicago United’s Five Forward Program, an initiative that encourages corporations to establish relationships with five local minority-owned firms. Chicago United also honored Aon this year with its Bridge Award for its contributions to diversity in Chicago’s business community.


Rather than cut back its diversity efforts in this economy, Aon is expanding them. Earlier this year, the company launched Cornerstone, a program designed to offer the products and services of its minority business partners to Aon’s diversity-seeking clients.


Northern Trust

When the economy started to founder in 2008, Northern Trust saw an opportunity to prove that supplier diversity wasn’t just the right thing to do; it was a business imperative.


The bank has long considered a diverse supplier base as a profit center because helping minority-owned businesses succeed often turns suppliers into customers.


The bank “has been at the forefront of bringing minority entrepreneurs together with potential investors, says James Lowry, a Boston Consulting Group advisor.


Even as the downturn intensified, Northern reaffirmed its financial commitments to the Chicago Urban League and similar organizations. It also provided financial expertise to its existing suppliers to help them respond to the economic crisis.


“We realized some cost savings from using a single African-American supplier in the office products space,” says Deidra Jenkins, Northern’s director of supplier diversity. “All they needed was scalability, which they achieved by coordinating with a large, global supplier.”


United Airlines

Grace Puma, the Chicago-based airline’s senior vice president of strategic sourcing, says of her company’s diversity efforts: “It’s not a ‘nice to do’; it’s a smart business strategy. We’re aligning to the diversity of our customer base.”


The airline industry started feeling pressure to cut costs long before the rest of the economy contracted, yet Puma says United has not considered trimming its supplier diversity program. That’s not to say all diverse businesses have weathered the recession, however.


“We’ve seen the effects of suppliers who are no longer with us, and we’ve tried to counter that as much as possible,” she says.


During the past 12 to 18 months, she says, the airline has asked its biggest suppliers to increase the business they subcontract out to minority-owned businesses.


“We want them to be as serious about supplier diversity as we are,” she says.


BP

The British-owned energy company that merged with Chicago’s Amoco Corp. in 1998 believes supplier diversity ensures that it gets the best products and services at the lowest price, says Debra Jennings-Johnson, BP’s director of supplier diversity.


“Because most of our purchasing is done through competitive bids, it’s pretty likely that women- and minority-owned businesses are adding value through efficient cost structures,” Johnson says.


The company is an active supporter of diversity-advocacy organizations such as the National Minority Supplier Development Council and the Women’s Business Development Council because “we get to meet suppliers we wouldn’t otherwise meet.”


BP has “some significant challenges because they are not U.S.-based,” notes Shelia Hill, president of the Chicago Minority Supplier Business Development Council. “But they have been at it for a long time, and they have good people in place.”


Johnson says the company spent about $800 million with women- and minority-owned business in 2008.


Exelon

The Chicago-based utility operator serves “a very brown population,” in the words of supplier diversity manager Emmett Vaughn.


Vaughn says Exelon aims to spend no less than 5 percent of its procurement budget with women- and minority-owned businesses, a goal he says the company has met or exceeded every year. That includes 2009, in “an environment where we are spending less than we’ve ever spent since I’ve been here.”


An additional hurdle for a company such as Exelon is that there are no minority-owned businesses in some of the industries in which they purchase.


“There’s just some stuff, like uranium, where there’s no diverse supplier for us to buy from,” Vaughn says.


It’s his job to make up the difference by spending more with minority-owned firms in areas such as legal or professional services.


Workforce Management Online, February 2010 — Register Now!

Posted on February 18, 2010June 29, 2023

Minority Ownership Status Alone Isnt a Plan for Business Success

Just being a minority business owner isn’t enough to win deals. Even at companies thoroughly committed to diversity, suppliers must show they add value to the bottom line.


“You can’t lead with diversity,” says Gregg Ontiveros, owner of Group O Inc., one of the largest Hispanic-owned businesses in the country. “Diversity will get you in the door, but the products and services you provide are what matters.” Here are some more tips from the experts.


Get big: In the global economy, corporations are streamlining their supply chains, replacing local businesses with national and international providers. For minority-owned enterprises, the message is clear: Get bigger, whether it’s by rapidly expanding operations, partnering with firms outside the U.S. or merging with other companies.


“You need a national footprint to be able to play in the game of supplier diversity,” says Ralph Moore, president of Ralph G. Moore Associates, a Chicago-based diversity consulting firm. He recognizes that consolidation runs counter to most minority business owners’ entrepreneurial nature, which is why he advises them to “put your ego aside.”


Yoshio Dan Gotoh, a former co-chair of the Chicago Minority Business Development Council, advises looking beyond U.S. borders. “Chinese companies are maturing and want to export products with their own brand, but they need a U.S. partner,” he says.


Join as many chambers of commerce as you can afford: “We can provide business owners with help getting certified, services like loan packaging, and technical assistance that will ensure they have the capacity to compete,” says Roberto Cornelio of the Illinois Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.


“We always try to get businesses involved in local chambers of commerce that are not their own ethnic group,” says Rose Olea, president of the Chicago chapter of the National Association of Asian Professionals. “They’re not expensive to join, and doing so expands the scope of who you can approach and offer your services to.”


Network, network, network: The business adage of “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know” still holds true.


“A lot of business deals have to do not only with the quality of the firm and services rendered, but also with relationships at the highest level,” says James Lowry, a senior advisor at management consultancy Boston Consulting Group. “That’s why I tell minorities you have to establish these relationships.”


Workforce Management Online, February 2010 — Register Now!

Posted on February 2, 2010August 31, 2018

Dear Workforce: What Is the Best Way to Hire the Right HR Director?

Dear Criteria-Challenged:

Hiring a new HR director is one of the most important decisions your company will make. In addition to being a strong “culture fit,” your HR director must bring the technical know-how and specific leadership competencies that will be needed in the future.

Your top HR exec plays a critical role in coaching employees at all levels, driving organizational change, shaping performance expectations and building people programs, as well as leading by example. Does your CEO know what changes will be needed from employees in the future? Your HR director must be able to demonstrate these new expectations while also coaching and influencing others to adopt them.

In addition to up-to-date technical competencies—such as knowledge and experience with best-practice recruiting strategies, compensation and benefit plan design, employee relations programs, leadership, and technical training and development—the HR exec needs to be a good manager of budgets and of the people who work as internal consultants to the organizations.

The ability to help organizations find their way through change is an advanced competency, and may not be as easy to find in a candidate as a good cultural fit or technical know-how.

As you prepare for candidate interviews, aim to get double value from interview questions such as these:

• What have you done to address your organization’s need for change in its employment practices?

• How did you go about installing new workforce health and safety measures? Where did you find the most helpful ideas for new programs?

• When you developed the company’s new pay-for-performance programs, what resistance did you face, and how did you handle it?

You can modify any of these questions for other areas of HR where the candidate installed or updated programs, e.g., training curriculum, compensation plans, etc. The idea is to get a sense of technical knowledge and skills, as well as the leadership competencies that were required to match programs to business strategy, and to coach and influence others to accept the new programs and practices.

Structure the HR director interview to be sure the candidate has a good handle on the three key building blocks for success that are specific to the HR director role: technical know-how/best practices, culture fit and leadership competencies.

Finally, here’s a short list of leadership abilities you might want to consider as you build your HR leadership competency model:

• Strategic thinking ability

• Change management ability

• Coaching ability

• Creativity

• Diplomacy

• Emotional intelligence

• Managerial courage

• Negotiation skills

• Decision-making skills, good judgment

• Resourcefulness

• Strategic ability

• Tolerance of ambiguity

SOURCE: Patsy Svare, managing director, the Chatfield Group, Northbrook, Illinois, December 7, 2009

LEARN MORE: The best way to find top HR talent is through behavioral interviewing, says Workforce.com contributor Kris Dunn.

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 January 20, 2010August 31, 2018

Employee Free Choice Act Supporters Press On Despite Longer Senate Odds

Health care reform isn’t the only issue dealt a major setback by the stunning political upset in Massachusetts. A bill that would make it easier for workers to form a union now faces longer odds in the Senate.


When Sen.-elect Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, is sworn in to the seat once occupied by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, he will be in a position to deliver a potentially decisive vote against the Employee Free Choice Act.


Brown will become the 41st Senate Republican, which gives the caucus precisely the number of votes it needs to sustain a filibuster. Republicans used the parliamentary tactic to kill EFCA in 2007. The number of Senate Democrats will drop to 59 after Brown joins the body.


Brown, who beat Democratic Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in a Tuesday, January 19, special election to replace Kennedy, opposes the bill.


The measure has stalled since its March introduction. Even when the Democratic Senate caucus numbered 60, EFCA supporters couldn’t bring enough moderate Democrats on board to overcome a filibuster.


Organized labor is signaling that it won’t back down on EFCA, even though leaders didn’t mention the bill by name in their reaction to Brown’s election. 


“The American people are urgently expecting RESULTS from Washington,” AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said in a statement Tuesday. “If elected officials want the support of working families they need to fight to win legislation on jobs, health care and financial regulations.”


Labor supporters argue that EFCA should be part of the economic recovery conversation because it would give workers leverage to increase their wages and benefits through collective bargaining.


“We believe that Congress will be anxious to consider legislation that will help rebuild the middle class as part of its focus on jobs and the economy,” said a labor official who didn’t want to be quoted on the record talking about EFCA strategy.


Labor has been battling fiercely with business interests for nearly a year regarding the bill.


Employer groups aren’t letting their guard down. They’re wary of labor trying to use jobs legislation to pass EFCA.


“The margin against EFCA still remains razor thin,” said Glenn Spencer, executive director of the Workforce Freedom Initiative at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “We’re going to remain vigilant on any effort to ram EFCA through, especially any effort to cram any provisions into a jobs bill.”


In its original form, the measure would enable a union to form once a majority of workers signed cards authorizing one, effectively eliminating secret-ballot organizing elections. It also would impose mandatory binding arbitration on first-contract disputes and substantially increase penalties against employers for violating workers’ rights.


EFCA is the top priority of organized labor, which is seeking ways to increase its numbers. Currently, about 7 percent of the private-sector workforce is unionized.


With midterm elections looming, the challenge to pass EFCA will only get tougher after this year. Democrats might lose more Senate seats in November.


In a January 11 speech at the National Press Club in Washington, Trumka said that the measure would gain congressional approval by April.


“It’s kind of now or never for them,” said Brett McMahon, vice president of Miller & Long, a concrete subcontractor and a member of Associated Builders and Contractors. “If the chances are [lower] now to get something done, they may become truly impossible in the next Congress.”


—Mark Schoeff Jr.



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 January 12, 2010August 31, 2018

Laying the Groundwork for HR Outsourcing

The past 10 years have been an epic journey for companies outsourcing HR and for the providers of those services. Both endured significant challenges as they labored to find formulas that worked. In the end, the struggles yielded two important truths:


• After years of technology implementations and process improvement efforts, most HR functions still are far from operationally efficient,


• The benefits of HR outsourcing will not be fully realized without at least some degree of functional transformation, such as process optimization, role redesign or other service delivery improvements.


As we enter the second decade of HRO, it is clear outsourcing is here to stay: It has become a critical component of a cost-effective delivery strategy. By building outsourcing efforts upon the above truths, HR will be better prepared to navigate the challenges of implementation and create a model for improved operational effectiveness.


A short history of HR outsourcing
Although the modern era of enterprise HRO began in 1999 when British Petroleum agreed to outsource almost all of its HR processes to Exult, HR outsourcing itself was not new. Organizations had outsourced payroll and benefits administration services for decades. The processes were mature, well-standardized and easy to parcel out to an outside provider.


As we approached the 21st century, three technology and management trends converged to launch the modern era of HRO, propel the broader application of outsourcing across all of HR and define the cornerstones of HR operational transformation:


1. In the late 1980s, HR technology progressed from cumbersome data repositories to powerful engines for holding, accessing and reporting HR data and information. No longer was HRIS a glorified filing cabinet, but rather user-friendly and supported by relational databases that made it easier to manage and manipulate data with greater flexibility.


2. The 1993 publication of Reengineering the Corporation by Michael Hammer and James Champy launched the process- improvement revolution, creating efficiency efforts within corporations that eventually made their way to the HR department. More important, HRIS vendors integrated the capability into their tools, so HRIS did more than manage data; it helped manage HR process.


3. With the addition of Web technology, data-entry tasks and other transactions could be pushed to managers or employees without having to train them how to operate HRIS software.


These enablers drove efficiency and made it possible for businesses to restructure and, ultimately, to outsource. Now HR could bundle up all of the data-entry tasks for recruiting or learning management, for example, and move them from a $40-per-hour generalist to a $7-per-hour clerk. The notion of shared services was born as organizations evaluated which HR processes could be moved to lower-cost internal or external providers.


Enterprise HRO (the outsourcing of six or more processes at one time) was seen as a dream solution because it was designed to accomplish all the objectives of HR transformation simultaneously: drive down burgeoning HR costs, bring needed improvements to HR technology and process, and take HR transformation to its next and most strategic level.


The dream, however, quickly turned into a nightmare as organizations experienced extreme implementation challenges. Enterprise HRO initially employed a “lift and shift” model that moved the existing data structure, processes and components of staff of an HR function to a single provider. This model proved disastrous because even the “best in class” HR functions were still far from streamlined. Providers underestimated the extent of the decentralized, tailored processes and, as a result, struggled significantly with service delivery.


When HRO providers tried to create the efficiencies required to achieve profitability, they arm-wrestled with buyers who resisted change from the tailored models. Once deals were signed, buyers no longer proved as willing to standardize process or use offshore data entry and call centers. Although HRO did eventually bring cost savings and needed technology, the implementation exhausted project teams and made it difficult to maintain day-to-day operations.


By the spring of 2008, industry surveys reported that:


• 70 to 80 percent of outsourcing agreements required some sort of restructuring during their contract term.


• Only 30 to 35 percent of companies planned to renew their contracts with their initial providers.


• 5 to 12 percent of companies that outsourced changed their minds and decided to terminate their contracts and build internal HR capability


• 50 percent of buyers planned to change the mix of outsourced and insourced capability.


As buyers and providers begin to rethink enterprise HRO, single-process outsourcing—such as total benefits outsourcing or recruitment process outsourcing—continues to grow at a healthy rate. Single-process outsourcing has had its challenges too, but the focus on outsourcing a single, repeatable transactional process has minimized complications and created higher levels of buyer satisfaction.


Where to go from here: five steps for better HRO
We begin the second decade of HRO with a much more balanced perspective of outsourcing and a clearer understanding of its strengths and limitations. But if the promises of outsourcing are to be achieved, there are a few important considerations that should guide its use.


HR outsourcing requires transformation: According to Towers Perrin’s 2008 study “Progress and Performance: The Continuing Evolution of HR Outsourcing Effectiveness,” buyers that invested the greatest effort in transforming HR before outsourcing achieved the greatest total satisfaction with the outsourcing process. This does not mean that HR transforms completely before implementation, but rather that it transforms just enough to take advantage of the outsourcing capability. Put simply, mend it before you send it.


When organizations transform HR, they make changes to HR’s operating model in order to improve the function’s ability to deliver required services. For example, business growth may require HR to fill open positions more rapidly, or competition from lower-cost competitors may require HR to reduce the cost of operations. In response, HR might apply a new technology or outsource specific activities. It also might streamline processes or redefine structure and roles.


HRO, and the resulting HR transformation, require a variety of integrated initiatives that can change people, process, structure, technology and governance. These changes must be supported by well-designed change management processes focused on the HR organization that is retained and the “customers” of HR: executives, managers and employees.


Outsourcers are at their best when they are left to provide technology and inexpensive labor and to manage processes efficiently. They are not at their best in helping organizations decide how they want to transform. It’s true that a good provider should have best-practice recommendations that maximize the capability of the technology. But navigating organizational politics to determine, for example, whether all 527 management reports are really needed or whether 150 would do, is best achieved when the buyer has thought through these issues prior to an HRO implementation.


Recognize also that while outsourcing and transformation are inseparable, they may have contrasting objectives. Outsourcing’s overriding purpose is to use technology, process standardization and labor arbitrage to provide a low-cost, scalable platform to manage HR operations. Transformation, while it may be in part about improving operational effectiveness, usually aims to provide something of greater value to the organization.


For the outsourcing effort, be mindful of what you want to deliver strategically, but stay focused on the drive to execute operationally. An organization can survive without a succession plan, but it will shut down if employees go unpaid. Managers will eventually figure out how to develop a talent forecast, but can’t function if they don’t have a pipeline to fill vacant positions. Operational effectiveness is where HR and providers earn their credibility. And ultimately, it is operational effectiveness that provides the data and information required for strategic insight.


Identify the right scope: It is less likely that buyers and providers will undertake the enormous effort of enterprise HRO now that its challenges are better understood. Nonetheless, it is important to identify the right scope for your outsourcing efforts, even if the focus is limited to a single process, such as payroll or recruitment process outsourcing.


The right scope, and whether a process lends itself to outsourcing, can depend upon a number of factors. Does the technology match your needs and preferences? Will business-unit and country requirements allow for standardization? Are the benefits sufficient to offset the business disruption during the transition, or will the gain be too little to offset the investment? Will you be able to commit full-time resources to each component of the implementation?


Asking the tough questions will ensure the implementation and corresponding transformation are well-focused and achievable.


Understand the gaps between the current and future state: Once you have identified the scope of the outsourcing project, you will have a clear picture of your desired future state. At this point it is essential to work backward to identify the gaps between where you are headed and where you are now. This calls for a warts-and-all assessment of your current capability to ensure you manage risk associated with the areas of your organization that will be affected by outsourcing.


For example, a new self-service onboarding technology will replace a current paper-form process and allow new hires to complete all benefit sign-ups from their home computers. This not only will change how data are collected, but likely will change the data requirements as well as. The revised process will remove tasks from some jobs (generalists) and add tasks to others (HRIS). This, in turn, may change the skills required for jobs or may eliminate jobs altogether. In addition, all the changes will require communication to managers and HR staff, and potentially require training for those who may be called upon to answer questions.


Understanding the gaps is not just about grasping the technical specifications for the software or mapping the knowledge transfer required for an HRO provider to take over a process. It is about understanding all of the business transformation requirements—the areas outsourcing will affect—and building a plan to address them.


Manage the change: Unlike other functional areas, HRO affects the entire organization rather than just one functional department. Even when well-planned, this complexity requires more effort than is typical of most organization change initiatives.


This point was underscored by an HRO project leader for a global pharmaceutical firm who said, “We started this initiative with textbook change-management support. But when we started to see both technical hurdles and push back from the divisions, we were caught by surprise. We missed important cues along the way because we were too focused on executing the technical plan. We thought the people challenges would work themselves out and we didn’t react fast enough.”


Because HRO fundamentally changes the way employees receive HR services, it is extremely visible within the organization. That visibility affects managers, business unit leaders and project team members whose jobs may change or be eliminated. As a result, HRO change-management efforts must not only address the needs of end users, but also the concerns of all stakeholders touched by the transformation.


Establish partnerships with your providers: Because HRO affects the entire organization, the relationships require an approach similar to merger integration, rather than the arm’s-length interaction that is more typical of buyers and providers. So while it is important to apply good governance to administer the contractual and business performance of the relationship, it is equally important to integrate culturally to manage the emotional aspects of the relationship.


Providers become your HR organization. Their call-center employees are the first point of HR contact for your employees. The look, feel and functionality of their technology set the tone for your organization’s HR culture. Consequently, culture match should become part of the criteria for selecting a vendor. Cultural integration must become an objective once the relationship begins.


The challenges, innovation and research over the last 10 years of HR outsourcing have taught us a great deal about how to make it work. It is an exciting time because these lessons teach us how to implement outsourcing so we can include the capability in our strategy for service delivery. Most important, by paying careful attention to the requirements for successful implementation, we will be able to help organizations achieve the promise of HR transformation and deliver the insight, tools and services to manage talent more effectively.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 … Page 45 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress