Category: Staffing Management

Posted on

The Color of Richard Bolles’ ‘Parachute’? Golden

When Crown Publishing approached Richard Bolles in 1972 about publishing his book, “What Color Is Your Parachute?” Bolles
half-jokingly said his book would be a best-seller one day. Having sold more than 10 million copies, his prognostication was spot on.
Photo by Gregory Cowley

Richard Bolles never intended to be the guru of career guidance.

Before authoring what is widely considered the definitive how-to manual on job hunting — “What Color Is Your Parachute?” which has sold more than 10 million copies since 1972, been translated into 20 languages and saw its 43rd edition issued last August — Bolles was an Episcopal minister in New Jersey known for delivering his Sunday sermons verbatim.

All that sermon-writing would pay off big time when Bolles unwittingly found his true calling several years later. In 1966, Bolles was 42 years old and riding high, having landed a plum assignment as canon pastor at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. Less than two years later, however, Bolles was abruptly fired in the midst of a budget crunch. Getting sacked turned out to be a blessing in disguise, clearing his path to become one of the world’s foremost evangelists for career change and alternative job-hunting strategies.

Bolles subsequently turned down a chance to pastoranother church, instead taking a job with the Episcopal Church as roving ambassador to counsel Protestant ministers residing on college campuses in nine Western states. The job required extensive travel, another blessing, Bolles said,because it proved instrumental in the birth of “Parachute.”

Despite emerging in the post-Watergate twilight of the anti-Vietnam War era, career experts say “Parachute” remains as relevant as when it first appeared.

“Maybe even more so, considering the structural changes in how work is organized today and the fact many people have a portfolio of multiple careers,” said Rich Feller, a professor of counseling and career development to master’s and Ph.D. graduate students at Colorado State University.

'Some people are very, very aware of how to use alternate ways of doing a job search, while others are still doing exactly what was done 40 or 50 years ago.'

—Richard Bolle, author of 'What Color Is Your Parachute?'

Feller, a past president of the National Career Development Association, added the book has “nudged the field to stay current every year, not only on how to do a job search but also the notion that career development is a lifelong experience. Dick has provided the framework for us to help people transfer their skills to new possibilities.”

“Parachute” has won accolades for its impact on the world of work. The Library of Congress’s Center for the Book names it one of 25 books that have shaped readers’ lives, a list that includes such literary classics as Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird,” Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” and “The Diary of Anne Frank.” The U.S. Labor Department includes “Parachute” among books that shaped work in America since 1758, a collection that includes Benjamin Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanack,” Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” and John Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men.” Time magazine ranks “Parachute” 22nd on its list of the top 100 most influential nonfiction books.

An Inadvertent Author

But Bolles did not set out to write the book. The idea evolved gradually as he visited with on-campus ministers in his capacity as a roving shepherd. Many of the ministers he counseled also had been fired from pastoral positions and forced to accept the campus jobs — akin to a military general being relegated to a far outpost, away from the action and with little chance of advancement.

“As I talked with them, I realized many were suffering from the same problem. I probably wouldn’t have been as sensitive to it, if it hadn’t already happened to me,” said Bolles, now 87, during a recent interview with Workforce.

Frustrated, most of the ministers wanted to move into professions outside of the church, but with young families to support, returning to college to train for a second career was not a practical option. They also didn’t have much practice pursuing jobs outside of their divinity training.

“They all knew about my situation, so they asked, ‘How do I go about looking for work in secular fields?’ I didn’t know the answer, but I had a handsome travel budget and decided to research it and find out,” Bolles said.

Thus began the initial legwork that would culminate in Bolles’ iconic tome. He spent the next year crisscrossing the country, logging an estimated 70,000 miles to interview academics, business leaders, guidance counselors, hiring managers, recruiters and others on how to change careers without returning to college. “I asked anyone and everyone I thought might know,” he said.

Among the scores of people Bolles peppered with career-related questions, two Washington, D.C.-area thought leaders were most influential: Richard Lathrop, the author of “Who’s Hiring Who” — a career guide first targeted at exiting military personnel — and John Crystal, a career planner who helped popularize the idea that career development is an individual’s responsibility, not an employer’s.

Bolles spent four months interviewing Lathrop and Crystal. Both men, who have since died, became close friends with Bolles, who credits them with providing the foundation for his work on “Parachute.” (Crystal and Bolles co-authored “Where Do I Go From Here With My Life?” in 1974. The 2015 edition of “Parachute” uses one of Lathrop’s refrains as an epigram: “He or she who gets hired is not necessarily the one who can do the job best; but, the one who knows the most about how to get hired.”)

Lathrop and Crystal “didn’t think in big umbrella terms or broad strokes, such as moving from being a mechanic to being an executive consultant. They broke down capabilities into three types: skills, basic knowledge and knowing the types of people you most like to work with or to serve,” Bolles said.

Staying Relevant

Although commonly accepted now, those ideas broke new ground in the tumultuous Zeitgeist of the 1970s. Bolles eventually summarized those and other findings and self-published “Parachute,” which debuted Dec. 1, 1970. The title stems from an off-the-cuff remark he made years before during a ministerial counseling session. A minister stood up to lament the fact that he and his peers were being forced by circumstances “to bail out” of the profession, prompting Bolles to ask the rhetorical question that would yield a best-selling title.

The inaugural 115-page booklet was aimed squarely at ministers and professional counselors. Not long after its release though, Bolles started to receive requests from unexpected sources, including General Electric Co., the Pentagon, the U.S. State Department and UCLA. He expected administrators and counselors to benefit from the book, but was “astonished to be getting orders from so many other quarters. That’s when I started to realize there was a wider appetite for the book.”

Other people took notice, too. Bolles published two editions of “Parachute” on his own before Ten Speed Press (now part of The Crown Publishing Group) approached him in April 1972 with an offer to publish and distribute it commercially. Half-jokingly, Bolles told his publisher the modest little volume one day would be a best-seller. The publisher’s wry response? “He said, ‘Yeah, sure it will,’ ” Bolles recalled with a chuckle.

But Bolles proved prophetic. By 1978, the book had earned its place in the catalog of career literature. By that time, many college and university professors added “Parachute” as required reading for business students, including Colorado State University’s Feller, who said he’s used it in every course he’s taught for more than three decades.

The book has expanded from its booklet size, with the 2015 version checking in at 368 pages.

Illustrative of how Bolles keeps his content fresh and relevant, consider this excerpt on how résumés have evolved since the first commercial printing of “Parachute.” A hieratic, paper-based résumé once was the accepted standard for getting the attention of hiring managers. Although paper résumés remain valuable, the rise of the Internet and social media has upped the stakes for job seekers:

On that paper was a summary of where you had been and all you had done in the past. From that piece of paper, the employer was supposed to guess what kind of person you are in the present and what kind of employee you’d be in the future. The good thing about this — from your point of view — was that you had absolute control over what went on that piece of paper. You could omit anything that was embarrassing, or anything from your past that you have long since regretted.

Short of their hiring a private detective, or talking to your previous employers, a prospective employer couldn’t find out much else about you. That was nice. But now those days are gone forever. Since 2008, and even before, there’s been a new résumé in town, and it’s called Google. (Bolles, “Parachute”)

Despite the seismic workplace shifts spawned by globalization and technology, Bolles said people’s habits can be slow to change.

“Some people still think about job titles. Others think the only training you need for job hunting or career change is to know how to write a decent résumé or conduct a decent interview. Some people are very, very aware of how to use alternate ways of doing a job search, while others are still doing exactly what was done 40 or 50 years ago,” Bolles said.

So do the skills career-minded people need today differ vastly from when Bolles first tackled the topic? The answer: yes and no. He breaks skills into three categories, first outlined by Sidney Fine in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles: 1. Transferable skills for managing data, people or things; 2. Character traits; and 3. Various types of specialized knowledge.

“The kinds of skills that change are the knowledge skills. The have to be updated endlessly and continuously to keep pace with the discovery of new technologies. People can acquire traits, such as learning, to be persistent. The transferable skills tend to be immutable — they are things you innately know how to do, and those skills don’t change,” Bolles said.

Feller said “Parachute” will continue to have broad applicability as people seek to find meaning beyond having a vocation. “The only stability people have is being able to look at their skill set and ask: ‘Where can I transfer them?’ And Dick has kept his finger on that pulse for 42 years.”

Garry Kranz is a Workforce contributing editor. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.

Posted on

How Can Leaders Be Assertive Without Being Abrupt?

Dear High-Wire Act:

Strong communication skills are so fundamental to effective leadership that developing them is really not optional anymore. Fortunately, there are many resources available to those who want and/or need to do so.

It may be helpful to remember that what some might consider abrupt, others may hear more positively, appreciating what they might call openness, candor or transparency. But it can be a fine line as you pointed out. 

Leaders often need to be assertive. We have to be able to communicate clearly, and to direct the work of others on whom we depend. When an abrupt or abrasive delivery impedes our message, it’s time for some development. 

Mastering a more assertive communication style will take time and practice, and probably involve changing some old habits. Each of us has a set of communication preferences that determine how we typically give and receive information. Understanding styles and preferences should be mandatory learning for leaders at every level. Because it’s often not just what we say; it’s how we say it. 

In order to show assertive decision-makers how to communicate most effectively, you’ll want to engage a coach. Traditional classrooms are problematic when the subject matter is so personal. As the very foundation of every leader’s effectiveness, the ability to communicate clearly and assertively when necessary is invaluable. 

One-on-one coaching allows for repeated practice, discussions of specific examples or persons and unencumbered brainstorming. None of this can be done in a traditional classroom setting.

Great communicators use the power of style and an understanding of others’ communication preferences to speak and write more effectively with their audiences. They are typically more influential and persuasive as a result.

It’s also important to remember that some degree of assertiveness is expected from leadership. We have to overcome resistance and negotiate all the time. 

In addition to coaching, if you want your leaders to be assertive decision-makers without coming across as abrupt, you’ll need to start with your C-level executives. Setting the tone, which in this case is also leading by example, should be deliberate. 

If your company has a PR or corporate communications professional, you have a tremendous resource at your disposal for coaching your leaders on communication skills. When that’s not available, an investment in coaching would be a good choice. 

It’s critical that leaders be able to express the entire spectrum of human emotion at work without becoming antisocial. There are disagreements, there is frustration, and there is anger, among other normal human feelings. Communicating clearly and directly, in ways that signal respect, will assure a leader’s best chance at inspiring, motivating and retaining hard-won talent.

SOURCE: Alan Preston, Preston Leadership/JustEnoughHR.com, Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, Dec. 8, 2014.

Posted on

How Do We Put Logic Behind Talent Management?

Dear Theory:

This is an excellent question. Of course, every organization is different, but if there is a single universal factor that most affects talent management and engagement, it is weak managers. They are the primary cause of low productivity, low innovation, low engagement and high turnover.

In my experience, the next most powerful impact factors are rapid learning and giving employees the opportunity to “do the best work of your life." Firms like Apple are highly successful despite a relatively harsh and secretive management approach, simply because the work itself is important and exciting.

Having unclear career paths also negatively affects engagement and thus performance, but here, too, there are anomalies. Firms like Google and Apple are notorious for having imprecise career paths, yet they remain productive and innovative.

It’s also true that the performance appraisal processes is mentioned as being too subjective, but this is true at almost every firm (except in rare cases in which managers rely on metrics and data, rather than their own assessment opinions). The Gallup organization has a list of productivity factors (i.e., the 12 questions) that have been developed over many years. I find it to be quite accurate.

SOURCE: Dr. John Sullivan, professor of management, San Francisco State University

Posted on

Cybersecurity and the NLRB

A few months ago, I wrote how the National Labor Relations Board was exploring new areas of potential protected concerted activity to regulate. One such area is information and data security.

According to Employment Law 360, the NLRB potentially is looking to expand its reach in the area of cybersecurity, this time investigating whether an employer was required to bargain with its labor union over the impact of a data breach on its employees:

A postal workers union has lodged a charge with the NLRB over the U.S. Postal Service’s handling of a recent data breach, a novel move that adds union negotiations to the already sprawling list of concerns companies must contend with in their race to mitigate cyberattacks.

In a November 10 charge filed with the NLRB, the American Postal Workers Union accused USPS of engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, by failing to give the union advance notice “that would enable it to negotiate the impacts and effects” on employees of the cyberattack….

The union specifically took issue with USPS’ offering employees affected by the incident one year of free credit-monitoring, a decision that the postal workers characterized as a unilateral change to wages, hours and working conditions that an employer is generally not permitted to make without first bargaining with the union.

Responding to a cyber-attack is complicated and complex. The Federal Trade Commission, along with a patchwork of divergent state laws, requires quick communication of various levels of detail and complexity to individuals and regulators following a data breach. If employers need to add communications to labor unions to this list of constituents (and this issue remains very much open), it will create additional burdens on employers, which could potentially slow down a company’s other response efforts.

To avoid these issues, employers should consider bargaining these issues into the terms of collective bargaining agreements, so that you have a game plan in place before you have to respond. Otherwise, when faced with a data breach, you could be faced with running your response programs through the filter of your labor unions, which could hamper your other response efforts, and subject your company to potential liability from the cyber breach.

Posted on

Women in Leadership: ‘Bossy’ Rants

Photo courtesy of Thinkstock.

Beyoncé Knowles, Condoleezza Rice and Sheryl Sandberg have something in common.

They’re all successful women — and they’ve all been called “bossy.”

By middle school, many young girls are less interested in leadership than boys because they fear that being assertive and speaking one’s mind is seen as unfeminine.

This pattern unfortunately continues well into adulthood. Numerous studies, including a survey by the U.K.-based Institute of Leadership & Management, found that the gap in confidence between genders plays a role in holding women back from leadership roles.

Leaders have tried to change this mentality. Earlier this year, the #banbossy campaign videos started by Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, in which Beyoncé states, “I’m not bossy, I’m the boss” went viral.

But it might take more than a video campaign to remove the deep-rooted stigmas against women in leadership positions.

The Research

A study from Palo Alto Software, a Eugene, Oregon-based technology company, shows that the women who do grow up to be leaders and display characteristics like confidence and decisiveness are almost twice as likely to get called “bossy” as men.

In the study, both men and women acknowledged that the word “bossy” comes with a negative connotation — pushy, controlling or stubborn. Not what you’d want from a leader.

On the other hand, men who displayed similar characteristics were told they had leadership qualities, or at the very worst, were considered “rough around the edges.”

Sabrina Parsons, CEO of Palo Alto Software, says that the current workplace mentality needs to change in order to close the gender gap.

“When women are being called bossy twice as often as men, it means that as a society we do not accept women as leaders,” Parsons said.

The Ban Bossy campaign was created to encourage women to become leaders.

 

 

Brianna Huy, a senior media supervisor for public relations firm Edelman, said a put-down about women in leadership roles is the same regardless of whether the word “bossy” is actually used.

“The terms that I hear are basically saying the same thing as bossy. Sometimes you’re called too demanding or too direct and to the point or condescending,” Huy said. “When I’m direct, I maybe come across as not being as ‘nice’ as people would want me to be.”

The majority of women perceive a double-standard in leadership styles that are acceptable for women. The Palo Alto survey found that women feel they are treated differently in the workplace. Fifty-two percent of those surveyed said they felt discriminated against based on gender vs. just 9 percent of men.

Strong and direct women and men in leadership roles are received quite differently by their peers, especially when giving tough feedback.

“Here at Edelman where I work, it’s very common that a lot of the men, especially senior leaders, are direct and to-the-point,” Huy said. “They have their expectations and people want to meet them. People make sure they’re meeting them.”

On the other hand, women are expected to be “nicer” when giving feedback, which can lead to difficulties in outlining clear expectations and for female leaders to get what they need from their employees.

Julie Coffman, a partner at consulting firm Bain & Co. and chair of the company’s Global Women's Leadership Council, said that the company recognizes that women are some of their best talent, but factors like low confidence and dissatisfaction with unsupportive workplace environments ultimately keep women out of the board room.

“Women are over 50 percent of university graduates. They are in the upper 30-40 percent at the MBA schools we recruit at, so in order to continue our growth, we have to be the place where top-notch women want to come and start their careers, formulate their careers and stay in their careers,” Coffman said.

Once in the workplace, however, women may be less direct in delivering harsh feedback or hesitant to speak up in meetings, making their superiors pass them over for consideration for executive positions. Women who are direct and exhibit so-called “leadership qualities” are labeled as “bossy” or “demanding.”

Huy said that she is at an advantage working in the PR industry where two-thirds of the workforce is women as opposed to heavily male-dominated industry like science, technology, engineering and mathematics, commonly known as STEM fields. However, even in the public relation industry, only 1 out 3 leadership positions are held by women.

In a recent study from Bain, men and women entered the workforce with equal aspirations toward jobs and confidence that they could get those top jobs. A few years later, however, those numbers had dropped dramatically for women.

Being Direct

“It’s hard to walk the line,” Huy said. “As a business person, it’s important to build good relationships with people. You’re going to do that a lot better if you’re known for being someone good to work with, someone who’s nice. The problem is that women are held to a higher standard in that and are more easily painted in a negative light if they are put in tough situations and have to give tough feedback.”

Huy says that although her annual performance reviews are by far very positive, but there are always a few comments about people taking her direct style as condescending — feedback that she has to take with a grain of salt.

“I want to be very receptive and I don’t want to put anyone down, but at the same time, being a leader, not everyone’s going to like you. If somebody is not doing their job and you’re giving them feedback and providing them with the direction to do a better job, then I think that’s doing your job.”

Parsons encourages CEOs to support their female employees and constantly evaluate how they are promoting gender equality in their offices.

“It’s easy to let subtle biases slip under the radar,” Parsons said. “But monitoring promotion and employee evaluation processes can shine a light on what keeps women from moving up in your workplace.”

HR can also play a role by giving women a clear path to pursue leadership roles, perhaps around an unsupportive supervisor who is not giving them those opportunities.

“It’s not enough that you have diversity. You have to truly have an inclusive work environment and make sure that people are able to do their best,” Coffman said.

 “Bossy” might not be going anywhere soon but that doesn’t mean women can’t embrace it.

“If someone calls you bossy, it means that you are a strong leader, know how to make decisions and can take charge of a situation,” Parsons said. “We as women will be the ones to decide what bossy means going forward, so we need to take the time to build a new definition that signifies leadership, not harsh dominance.”

Lara Walsh is a Workforce editorial intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.

Posted on

What Employers Should Know (and Do) in Response to the Ebola Threat

Even though the Ebola virus disease has infected relatively few people in this country so far, fear and anxiety over possible spread of the virus are reaching a frenzied pitch.

Employees have expressed serious concerns about co-workers who have traveled overseas, the safety of air travel and even whether they should worry if a colleague sneezes in their vicinity. There are reports that some employees have gone so far as to refuse to performing duties they consider to be hazardous. Employers must therefore begin educating workers and implementing measures to protect and reassure them. While there is no simple solution, companies can take steps to help ease employees' fears, reduce potential liability and improve productivity.

A first positive step for employers is to begin engaging employees and customers about the current situation. For example, employees are far more likely to catch the flu than Ebola.  Companies should begin by designating someone to be in charge of gathering information, implementing protocols and handling all pertinent communications within the organization.

These communications should include providing information, such as current CDC guidance and standards, to managers and workers. More importantly, they should explain concrete steps the company is taking to protect everyone in the workplace and articulate the employer’s dedication to protecting everyone. This dedication of course is not limited to safeguarding against Ebola.  Especially this time of year, companies should emphasize fundamental practices like frequent hand-washing and getting flu shots.    

An important and legal step employers can take is to ask employees about their travel plans. For example, travel through West Africa opens the door to make further inquiries, as long as those inquiries are narrowly tailored.

The company can ask whether an employee has had contact with anyone who has or may have Ebola and whether the employee is experiencing any flu-like symptoms, particularly a fever. These questions are consistent with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance and do not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

If an employee who may have been exposed to Ebola is experiencing flu-like symptoms, further confidential medical screening should be required. An asymptomatic employee who has potentially been exposed to Ebola may be monitored during the virus' recognized incubation period. The company needs to be cautious not to ask questions that would expose an underlying disability, however.

Even though the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission considers taking an employee's temperature to be a medical examination, this can still be done ifit is job-related and consistent with business necessity. So the likelihood of whether the employee has been exposed will determine what the employer can do in terms of monitoring temperatures. This is a fact-specific inquiry, but using the CDC's recommended algorithm and questions makes the employer's actions much more likely to be legal in the eyes of the EEOC.

Another concern arises if employees refuse to work because they fear being exposed to Ebola, for any number of reasons. Depending upon the circumstances, such a refusal could be protected under OSHA or similar state law whistleblower provisions.

Under OSHA, the employee's fear does not have to be actual, only reasonableunder the circumstances. If one or more employees refuse to work because of mutual fears about exposure to Ebola, their actions would probably be protected under the National Labor Relations Act. So employees should consider this before disciplining or terminating the employees involved.

As this situation evolves, employers should continue to follow CDC guidance and avoid knee-jerk reactions, no matter how provocative an employee's activities may be. Employee safety should, of course, always be the company's highest priority, and the actions described above can help employers effectively manage related situations. As always, companies should consult legal counsel regarding specific situations.

A. Kevin Troutman is a partner in the Texas offices of national labor and employment law firm Fisher & Phillips and chairs the firm’s national Healthcare Practice Group. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

 

Kevin Troutman is a partner in the Texas offices of national labor and employment law firm Fisher & Phillips and chairs the firm’s national Healthcare Practice Group. 

Posted on

Your ‘No Loitering’ Policy for Employees Could Be Unlawful

It’s no secret that the NLRB is waging a war against facially neutral employment policies. You can add “no loitering” rules to its list of victims.

In EYM King of Michigan, a National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge considered the following policy, implemented by a Burger King franchise:

Loitering and soliciting either inside or outside on Company premises is strictly prohibited. You should arrive some minutes before your entry hour and leave the as soon as you finish your shift. Employees are not authorized to remain in the restaurant after work. If you are not working or eating in a store, your conduct may be construed as loitering. If you are off-duty and return to the store to speak with employees who are working, your conduct may be considered loitering. Former employees who return to the store to speak with employees who are working are loitering. This policy is designed to prevent the disruption of company business due to unnecessary interaction with non-working employees or non-employees. Employees who violate this policy may be subject to discipline, up to and including termination.

The ALJ concluded that this policy unlawfully restricted employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity because it impeded employees’ ability to gather, and, by implication, discuss wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. The judge also was not persuaded by the employer’s professed “safety” concerns for its employees:

Respondent’s justification for its rules is that its restaurants are located in high-crime areas.  To give credence to such an explanation would effectively deprive millions of the lowest-paid workers in the United States of the ability to assert their Section 7 rights….

Respondent’s professed concerns regarding safety in justifying its loitering and solicitation rules are manifestly specious. The company has made no showing as to how this rule enhances safety. In this regard, it does not prohibit customers from eating food purchased at its restaurants while sitting in their cars in the restaurant parking lot. Moreover, people are just as likely to be the victims of violent crime at Respondent’s drive thru windows as anywhere else on the exterior of the restaurant.

No employment policy that could potentially impact employees’ ability to discuss work is safe from the NLRB’s scrutiny. If you have not had a labor and employment lawyer review your handbook and other policies, you are doing your business a severe disservice, and taking a huge risk, in this hyperactive regulatory environment.

Posted on

What Are the Benefits of Performance Measurement Rankings to Determine Employee Performance?

Q: Like many companies, we have an annual performance review of employees. At the beginning of the financial year, KPAs, goals, targets are mutually agreed. There is a quarterly review of performance followed by annual review. Employees are rated on predefined performance criteria on a scale of 1 to 5. Subsequent to rating, we wanted our line management to rank employees against each other in order to have ranking order. Line management is not inclined to ranking, for obvious reasons. Is there any way to know if ranking is the right approach for our performance management?

—Really Clueless, assistant GM, manufacturing, Hyderabad, India

A. Your performance management system appears to have the three main components necessary for its success — goal setting, performance measurement and periodic feedback to each employee. If these processes are well designed and executed, both employee and supervisor can properly gauge progress toward job specific requirements and the development of skills and attributes needed for future advancement.

Performance management’s primary focus is “this employee.” Employees compete against known job standards and goals, not other employees. Mention of others’ achievements are typically done only to provide performance measurement and goal creditability (“They did it; you can too.”). As such, ranking is rarely done as part of a performance management process.

Ranking is, however, an important part of other legitimate business processes. Without a good performance measurement ranking process, for example, meaningful succession planning would be hard to accomplish. Organizations need to know which employee is best qualified for a specific future position, and who is second best.performance measurement

The pushback you are getting from line management may be because, unlike a well-designed performance management system, the competition inherent in ranking systems makes managers uncomfortable. Getting executives to agree on something as simple as which of a limited number jobs is the most important is difficult. Getting them to agree on which employees, in their and other departments and types of jobs, are the most skilled and worthy of career advancement is many times more challenging.

When you rank employees through performance measurement among other methods, you impact their potential for advancement. Opinions and politics are rife in most ranking systems; defendable metrics scarce. A “champion’s” position or influence often has more impact on decisions made than the employee’s demonstrated abilities.

As a result, I’ve seen numerous performance measurement ranking systems fail to achieve their goals during my career. Most don’t deliver any better results than would be expected from admittedly subjective selection processes. It isn’t unusual for someone ranked highly for a particular future position to be passed over when the position finally becomes available or to fail miserably when they receive the position.

Ranking also causes some people to feel “less than.” If you are No. 3 on the list for a position that you really want, it may negatively impact your motivation. This is especially true if the ranking process is perceived to be less than fair.

You can reduce the pushback on rankings and improve their value to your organization by taking the time to develop the process. Ensure that the ranking system you develop is transparent, based on the demonstrated attainment and attributes of each employee, the actual needs of each job and that the effectiveness of the decisions made are periodically audited, leading to process improvement if needed, and you will significantly improve everyone’s willingness to use performance measurement ranking.

SOURCE: Rick Galbreath, Performance Growth Partners Inc., Bloomington, Illinois, Sept. 13, 2014.

Posted on

Soliciting Is One Tough Cookie

Last year, a story went viral about a mom fired from her job for selling her daughter’s Girl Scout cookies at work.

As extreme as this seems, this reaction may not be as outrageous as you might think. In fact, there is a great legal reason to ban Girl Scout cookie sales and other similar solicitations in your workplace — it might prove to be one of your best weapons against a union organizing campaign. The catch is that you need both a sufficiently broad no-solicitation policy, and to enforce it in a nondiscriminatory manner.

A lawfully drafted and sufficiently broad no-solicitation policy prohibits anyone from soliciting during work time and in work areas. To the contrary, an overly restrictive policy would either ban union-related communications on its face or operate to treat union-related communications differently than similar nonunion solicitations.

The former is easy to spot. What does the latter look like?

Consider an employer with a strict no-solicitation policy that ignores Girl Scout cookie sales or March Madness college basketball brackets. If that employer disciplines an employee for engaging in union-related solicitations, has the company enforced its no-solicitation policy discriminatorily?

The answer depends on whether the exceptions are so common that they swallow the rule or are merely isolated incidents.

For example, in United Parcel Service v. NLRB, a federal court concluded that because employees “routinely distributed such materials as fishing contest forms, football pool material, and information about golf tournaments,” the employer could not enforce its no-solicitation rule against union-related distributions.

However, in Cleveland Real Estate Partners v. NLRB, the same court concluded permitting occasional and sporadic distributions did not demonstrate discriminatory enforcement of a no-solicitation rule.

In the meantime, word comes from the National Labor Relations Board that it is looking to rewrite workplace solicitation rules and turn this issue on its head. In the NLRB ruling in Register Guard, the National Labor Relations Board held that an employer’s solicitation or other communication policy can lawfully bar employees’ nonwork-related use of an employer-owned email system, unless, on its face, it discriminates against employees’ exercise of Section 7 rights. Thus, under Register Guard, a policy that prohibits employee use of an email system for “non-job-related solicitations” does not violate the National Labor Relations Act, even if the very nature of that ban includes union-related solicitations.

The NLRB decided Register Guard in 2007, near the tail-end of the Bush-era board. Now it’s 2014, and the Obama-era NLRB is taking a look at Register Guard.

In early May, the NLRB posted a notice asking advocates to submit position briefs on whether Register Guard should be overruled.

By all appearances, the NLRB appears to be looking for a reason to reverse Register Guard and issue a rule under which a facially neutral email policy is nevertheless illegal if one could reasonably read it restricts employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity. While this re-imagining of Register Guard would be consistent with the NLRB’s more recent positions in social media and other workplace communication cases, it is nevertheless concerning for employers.

As for me, I am immune to the charms of the Girl Scout cookie. While I love a Thin Mint as much as next person, my son has celiac disease, so I avoid bringing into my home treats with gluten that he can’t enjoy.

For the rest of you, however, consider whether permitting your employees to sell cookies or engage in other innocent solicitations is worth the risk that, if a union organization drive rears its head, you will be left powerless to engage one of your key weapons — the no-solicitation policy.

And keep a close eye on the NLRB for actions that will severely hamper your efforts to limit solicitations in your workplace.

Posted on

Inside Outplacement

Nearly 20 million Americans were either laid off or discharged from their positions in 2013. While it’s a startling figure, it’s still 928,000 less than the total in 2012 and 4.1 million less than in 2008 as the Great Recession hit its peak, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

While the path toward full-fledged economic recovery is still far from complete and layoffs continue, executives are increasingly recognizing that the ways in which restructuring is implemented and organizations are positioned for growth are directly affected by the way they treat both exiting and remaining employees.

The benefits of offering outplacement services to affected employees — one-on-one career coaching and support that the employer provides to employees leaving the organization because of a restructuring, layoffs or a reorganization — goes beyond the altruistic motivation of helping them get back on their feet. Outplacement can help drive an organization’s productivity, profitability and brand value, as well as support former employees in need at a critical time.

Although a half-century has passed since outplacement services were first initiated, they are increasingly tied to employer brand during times of change. Such branding is of the utmost importance to companies, as it can have a direct impact on attracting prospective employees, driving engagement and overall productivity. In fact, research from LinkedIn Corp. reports that employees are driven by employer brand twice as much as company brand when it comes to seeking new positions. Thinking about a company as a good place to work is becoming as important as knowing about a company’s products and services.

48 Hours

By offering outplacement services
within 48 hours of job-loss notifications, companies will gain positive returns
on investment, as well as an enhanced employer brand.

Timing matters when it comes to protecting your employer brand during restructurings. Whether your departing employees speak highly of your company and recommend it to friends and family, or discuss their terminations negatively, lies primarily on how they were exited and how quickly they were offered outplacement support.

The first 48 hours after being notified of a job loss are critical. Early intervention makes a difference in encouraging individuals to look forward to a new future, rather than look backward angrily at their former employer.

Needless to say, looking backward has a much greater incidence of negativity, litigation and potentially harmful social media exposure. By receiving guidance early on, affected employees can start their new job search with a forward-looking mindset that helps them engage early and often with personalized coaching, assessments and all the tools and technology that can really set their job search apart from others.

As you help exiting employees re-enter the job market easily and quickly, they will be more secure about their futures and be more willing to endorse your company online and in person, and especially among their peers and former colleagues.

At the same time, remaining employees will be comforted to know that even when terminations are happening around them in the workplace, their companyis doing the right thing by taking care of departing colleagues and providing them with the support they need to restart their careers quickly. In the end, timing matters. The sooner you prepare exiting employees for their future careers, the sooner you can reduce your unemployment benefit costs and further enhance your employer brand, both in-house and publicly.

For a noticeable return on investment, enact your outplacement services in a timely manner — preferably within 48 hours of job loss notifications.

—Bram Lowsky

With employer brand becoming a vital initiative, Right Management recently commissioned a survey to examine how organizations make decisions on outplacement. (Editor’s note: The author works for Right Management.) Our survey also focused on how employers assess the benefits of outplacement and how these services can contribute to future growth after times of change.

At face value, top employers choose outplacement to manage their obligation to help exiting employees find new employment. However, in today’s world, where social media can generate both positive and negative brand awareness in minutes, there are additional corporate motives to offer outplacement. Our survey showed that 85 percent of organizations that offer outplacement reported it was either “very” or “extremely important” for them to maintain positive relationships between current and departing employees. In addition, 82 percent believe outplacement is a necessary service to initiate in order to protect their company’s brand during times of change and economic uncertainty.

There’s more than what meets the eye when thinking about outplacement as a benefit to the bottom line. And to learn more about the employer motivations for investing in outplacement services, Right Management surveyed more than 1,700 business leaders and human resources professionals from 10 countries in 2013. The research identified critical ways outplacement services positively affect productivity, engagement and cost reduction.

Companies that offer outplacement services to former employees reinforce their commitment to their workforces, even in the midst of change management, acquisitions, mergers or financial losses. This commitment has a big impact on the employees who remain on staff, as they also must accept new responsibilities and working within a leaner team. The survey found that more than a third of companies offering outplacement services notice an increase in worker productivity within 12 months of a major restructuring.

Outplacement also positively affects employee morale, as workers have more confidence and trust in their employers. As evidenced by the survey, outplacement has a measurable effect on employee morale, which rose for 28 percent of the employers that provided it to transitioning staff compared with 20 percent of employers that did not offer outplacement after announcing a major restructuring or layoff.

At the same time, 38 percent of employers offering outplacement services reported a rise in employee satisfaction within one year of a company downsize, compared with only 14 percent of employers that do not provide outplacement services to individuals leaving the organization.

“At Procter & Gamble we care about our employees, and during times of change we offer outplacement services to those impacted to give them career guidance and support to find new employment and lead successful careers,” said Bruce Williams, North America associate director of employee relations at Procter & Gamble. “What’s more, employees that remain are reassured of our company’s commitment to our purpose and values, knowing that we are being responsible and respectful with our change management.”

Last year, LinkedIn’s Hiring Solutions Insights team conducted a survey of 7,250 LinkedIn users focusing specifically on employer brand. The survey found that respondents under the age of 40 were 61 percent more likely to relate job consideration with employer brand than older employees; furthermore, companies’ turnover rates were 28 percent lower if they had reputable brands, in comparison to companies with weaker brands.

As the LinkedIn survey suggests, the growing importance of employer brand adds a new dimension to HR’s role in protecting and building employer brand during times of change for the organization. By offering outplacement, HR can help minimize the risks of creating negative employer perceptions among future job candidates. 

Ultimately, exiting employees are more motivated to speak highly about their former employers if they receive outplacement assistance, whether they are sharing their viewpoints during in-person conversations or on social media outlets, job boards and employer review websites. When former employees describe companies in a positive light, their employer brands will be protected and promoted, ultimately making it easier to recruit “cream of the crop” employees in the future.

Although a main motivation for offering outplacement is to treat exiting employees with support and respect, and to help them find new jobs quickly, the importance of building relationships and engagement within the organization cannot be overlooked.

The Aberdeen Group, a business intelligence research company, found that 48 percent of surveyed companies, which offer outplacement programs, have mostly “highly engaged” employees — more than 60 percent of their staff members in all. To compare, only 33 percent of companies not offering outplacement had as high of a percentage of highly engaged workers. Moreover, sick days decreased for 28 percent of Right Management’s survey participants that purchased outplacement programs, compared to 18 percent of respondents that did not.

Reduced Exposure to Litigation

Outplacement also can have a positive influence on employees departing from companies, especially with regards to litigation. When offered outplacement assistance, laid-off or discharged employees are typically less discontented with their former employers and tend to focus more on their future careers.

According to the survey, within the Americas, only 34 percent of businesses offering outplacement programs reported lawsuits from former employees, whereas 42 percent of companies that did not offer outplacement services were sued. Litigation is certainly one of the top concerns for companies that discharge or lay off employees. It’s clear that offering outplacement and encouraging exiting employees to participate in the program helps to limit legal risk.

For a wide array of reasons, employee recruitment and unemployment benefit costs often decline when outplacement solutions are in place. Employers can experience significant decreases in turnover, employee recruitment expenses and unemployment costs as a result of outplacement. 

Case in point: 17 percent of survey respondents with outplacement service programs verified their employee turnover diminished ever since they initiated the programs. Our survey also reports that 24 percent of outplacement purchasers in the Americas documented a decline in employee recruitment costs — double the amount of nonbuyers that reported cost containment. And as outplacement accelerates connections to new employment for those leaving the organization, unemployment benefit costs regularly diminish. After all, the total cost of unemployment benefits is directly influenced by the frequency and duration of employees’ joblessness.

Outplacement offerings have come a long way with the advent of job boards and new technologies that accelerate connections between candidates and employers. That said, nothing can replace the value of one-on-one coaching that provides individualized assistance to landing a new opportunity. Right Management data show that career assessment, counseling and résumé support are viewed as the most valued and frequently used component of an outplacement program.

Bring in the Coach

Career coaches provide personalized assistance that helps reset the employability mindset of someone who may be uncertain about how to build a winning job search plan and who may also have low self-esteem and lack of confidence after being laid off. When individualized coaching is combined with new technology, separated employees receive the multiplier effect that enables successful and accelerated outcomes.

• Personal website technology. Personal websites help individuals establish personal brands, clearly communicate strengths and break through the clutter from other job seekers. Increasingly, hiring managers are turning to personal websites when vetting candidates. An outplacement provider should have access to and provide coaching on how to build personal websites for transitioning employees.

• Career fairs. Virtual and in-office career fairs are changing how candidates connect with employers across industries and geographies. New virtual technology bridges the gap between a captive hiring audience of leading employers and skilled professionals looking for employment after a transition. The best outplacement providers offer innovative technologies to connect employers and candidates readily and easily.

• Exclusive job platforms. Insider job platforms that offer access to hidden jobs and hiring decision-makers must be an essential component to any outplacement solution. There’s real value in providing quality, targeted job postings and insights that are not offered to the general public.

• E-learning connections to build skills. At times, exiting employees will decide to pursue new job opportunities within entirely different industries or they simply need to upgrade a particular skill set. To prepare employees for new career opportunities, outplacement experts will provide training options and e-learning courses to help candidates advance their knowledge and/or develop transferable skills to help them land the new job.

Whether companies are shrinking their labor forces to cut costs or readjusting their strategies, outplacement services can help brand image, bottom-line performance and provide needed assistance to employees transitioning to new jobs.

Bram Lowsky is group executive vice president of the Americas and global head of career management for Right Management. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.