Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Staffing Management

Posted on September 7, 2011August 9, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do I Develop a Needs-Analysis Template

Dear Internalizing:

Underpinning training with a needs analysis ensures that you will see real value from the time and money you spend. Think of a needs analysis as a blueprint for getting the results you want out of a training initiative.

Two types of information should intersect: 1) information about the job, and 2) information about the individual employee. In other words, look at what it takes to perform a job effectively and consider it in light of an individual’s ability to perform.

Part one involves conducting a thorough job analysis or study of each of the jobs in question. Here’s where you determine the knowledge, skills, abilities and competencies required to perform the job. It’s also where you pinpoint specific employee goals.

Next, take a look at each individual’s performance relative to job requirements. The best way to collect this data is to use a special form designed for highlighting individual training needs for a specific job. There are other ways of collecting this data, including performance appraisals, but be aware that the information may no longer be relevant, accurate or up-to-date.

To make it relevant and effective, aneeds-analysis form should document a set of ideal performance benchmarks for the person. These benchmarks should spring from your analysis of the specific job. That way, you’ll know what to expect once the employee is fully trained. Put another way, you’ll have documentation of the employee’s expected performance level.

Also, make sure the form includes room to document each employee’s present performance or ability level relative to job requirements. Looking at each of these pieces of information side by side gives a snapshot of the type oftraining needed by each employee.

Comparing this data is important on several levels. For instance, although the form provides information on individual training needs, it also could help identify wider skills gaps in your organization. Use the information to develop (or purchase) training programs that have a broad-based impact.

SOURCE: Charles A. Handler, Ph.D., PHR,Rocket-Hire, New Orleans, July 26, 2004.

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 September 7, 2011August 9, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do We Launch a Systematic and Rigorous Plan to Build a Performance Management Strategy for Our Workforce?

Dear No Systems Go:

Staff inefficiencies are obviously a big issue for many employers, especially in industries (such as yours) where customer service levels are often a huge differentiator in the marketplace.

Your have not indicated whether–or how–you determined staff to be inefficient. Perhaps you already have a factual basis for coming to this conclusion. If not, that should be your starting point. First and foremost, you will want to better understand what efficiency standards are the norm (or the ones to beat) in your industry. In other words, before you decide which actions to take, you really must understand how your company stacks up against the competition’s standards of efficiency.

Following that, and before adopting a new or realigned system or methodology, conduct an in-depth review of your current processes. While the answer to your dilemma may indeed be that your people simply need more training, other process-related issues may prevent them from being as efficient as possible. No amount of training will improve efficiency if, for instance, people are inputting data more than once, or waiting too long for approvals. Detailed process evaluations frequently identify inefficiencies and “process traps” that are easy to isolate and relatively inexpensive to repair, and which typically lead to a rapid boost in efficiencies.

After all this, you may still find that people issues are a contributing factor to inefficiency. If that’s the case, the best way to launch a performance management strategy is to start by making sure that you clearly and specifically articulate the business issues to your employees. Clearly identifying business issues allows you to assess how well you currently hire, train, develop and manage the performance of your people against those issues.

Clearly articulating the business needs helps you establish the competencies your people need to move forward. A formal performance assessment will determine whether you have people with those competencies, which skills gaps exist and whether you are better off investing time and money to develop your current team, or recruiting people who already posses those skills.

This approach is the best way to proceed, as it allows you to link your systems and assessment methods directly to your business strategy. It also allows you to prioritize your next steps and determine the most effective use of your training investment, both in terms of effort and dollars.

SOURCE: Beth Przywara, principal, Capital H Group, Detroit, April 20, 2006.

LEARN MORE: Please read How Do We Move From Paternalism to Measuring Performance? for another viewpoint on how to cultivate performance management.

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 September 7, 2011August 9, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do We Capitalize–and Recognize–Intellectual Capital

Dear Discouraged:

You clearly have a few issues to consider here that revolve around recognizing the individual’s problem-solving skills and willingness to contribute his expertise.

The first step is getting the right stakeholders together to discuss the issue. This group should involve some key business leaders or managers, as well as a human resources partner. Use this situation to review your organization’s overall ability to manage and effectively share employees’ knowledge and expertise. Doing so positions the conversation in a positive light and avoids pointing fingers at managers who fail to recognize an individual’s contributions.

Positioning the conversation in this light is positive versus pointing out the failure of some mangers and leaders to recognize an individual’s valued contributions.

Questions to address to develop a solution

  1. Does the organization currently have formal or informally designated subject matter experts (SMEs) whom people rely on as “go to” players for deep technical expertise?

  2. If there is no formal program or designation of SMEs, consider this: Is your organization at risk in terms of highly qualified experts leaving the business, taking with them valued knowledge that is difficult to replace?

  3. Which types of technical knowledge and expertise are most highly valued? Who has this knowledge and how often does the organization rely on it?

  4. Is it imperative that you designate SMEs/technical experts in key areas, functions and levels across the business?

  5. Does your employee competency model reference deep technical expertise—and willingness to share it—as a valued behavior? If not, can this be added so that contributions are recognized in the performance management process, for example?

  6. How do you foster improved collaboration and knowledge sharing through recognition?

  7. What are the required leadership behaviors to support a collaborative environment and recognize effort and valuable contributions?

Finally, it should be stated that recognition for individuals who play the technical-expert role (as described in the question) doesn’t necessarily saddle your organization with financial or other costs. Simple recognition tools (such as designating the individual as an SME, inviting him/her to coach others, or inviting the employee to present their ideas or solution to company leadership) go a long way to ensuring the person doesn’t walk to a competitor—and take expertise your organization relies on to make important decisions.

SOURCE: Garrett Sheridan, managing partner, Axiom Consulting Partners, Chicago, June 18, 2008.

LEARN MORE: Please read about strategies on formalizing approaches to cross-training for key employees.

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 September 7, 2011August 9, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do I Become an Influential Leader

Dear Confounded:

Your first step should be to demonstrate that there is a quality problem. Gather your data, do your analysis and prepare a report on the scope of the problem. The report might include items such as: frequency of errors, the impact on delivery/completion, the costs to identify and correct the errors, and any post-product/sales-support costs that result directly from the lack of quality.

(Caution: These are examples; you would be wise to come up with metrics more meaningful for your product. Keep in mind that cost is always a good one to include.)

It is not enough just to identify a problem. You’ll gain a lot more traction in your organization if you prepare a plan of action to address the problem, with some metrics showing reductions in costs and/or time spent fixing bugs, among other things.

SOURCE: Carl Norcross holds a master’s degree in human resources and has more than 20 years’ experience leading HR departments. He has worked for several midsize and Fortune 500 firms, including GRID Systems, Colorado Memory Systems and Nortel Networks.

LEARN MORE: Companies across all sectors are wrestling with the issue of manager training.

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 July 24, 2011June 29, 2023

Newell Rubbermaid Aspires to Grow Leaders

Laurel Hurd represents the face of leadership development at Newell Rubbermaid Inc. She also represents the Atlanta-based company’s effort to keep more of its talent in house, adopt a new corporate strategy and combat an industrywide trend of failing executives.


In 2008, the consumer products giant selected Hurd, then a vice president of sales, and 11 other top managers for an exclusive leadership training program, known as Aspire. Limited to 12 participants at a time, the initiative consists of four weeks of group learning spread out over one year, including classroom instruction, required readings, structured exercises and on-the-job projects.



Up-and-coming leaders also are paired up with individual coaches within Newell to reinforce what they learn and help apply it on the job. The most meaningful part may be the frank feedback of other participants when the group meets every three months. Being forced to share her planned marketing or branding strategies—and have the rest of the group pass judgment—wasn’t easy for Hurd, 41, a 10-year company veteran who is now general manager of Newell’s baby and parenting essentials division in North America. But the constructive criticism was worth it, she says. “The team piece was incredibly powerful in that we were holding each other accountable,” she says. “It also built real trust and collaboration.”


Hurd exemplifies the type of leader Newell wants to develop on a fast track: young, upwardly mobile senior managers eager to think globally. The Aspire program targets vice presidents and functional heads that have potential to “run one of our 13 global business units within the next three to five years,” says Brian Hults, Newell’s vice president of organization and people development.


Aspire is the culmination of a “transformation effort” started in 2006 by then-CEO Mark Ketchum, who retired in June. Up to that point, Newell had been a holding company for dozens of brand-name consumer products, “very lean at the center” but lacking a global training function, Hults says.


Ketchum shifted the emphasis more toward innovation. “To do that, our leaders needed a different set of skills,” Hults says.


In addition to being skilled at point-of-sale promotions, product placement and marketing, senior executives now are required to interpret the results of consumer surveys and focus groups. “Our focus has really changed to understand unmet consumer demand in a systematic and scientific way—and then to utilize that knowledge to help bring new products to market” at higher prices, thus creating greater margins, Hults says.


Lagging leadership

Newell markets its products in three broad market sectors: home and family; office products; and tools, hardware and commercial products. The company markets nearly 40 brand-name products, including Rubbermaid plastic storage containers, Sharpie pens, Calphalon cookware, and Graco baby gear. Newell generated $5.76 billion in revenue in 2010, up slightly from $5.6 billion year over year, according to its annual report.


Major demographic shifts also fuel Newell’s drive to develop younger leaders. The Aspire program is Newell’s answer to a problem plaguing many large companies: the loss of vast institutional knowledge as baby boomer-era executives approach retirement. The invitation-only training is aimed at the 250 vice presidents and functional heads at Newell. It was created “because the greatest need was at the top of our organization,” Hults says.


Aspire also amounts to Newell’s attempt to buck an alarming trend of failing leaders in the business world. Whether they are hired from outside their organizations or promoted internally, some executives struggle with the transition to senior management, according to a joint study by the Institute of Executive Development in Palo Alto, California, and consulting firm Alexcel Group, near Oakland, California. Thirty percent of senior executives hired from outside a company fail to make the grade within two years, and end up leaving sooner than expected, according to the study.


The situation improves only slightly (23 percent) among executives who are promoted internally, according to the Executive Transitions Market Study Report 2010. The annual study culled responses from 320 executives and talent professionals in 12 countries and 21 industries.


The findings echo other industry studies on executive turnover. Companies invest huge sums of money to recruit, hire and groom people for senior roles. In spite of that, there is a 50 percent chance a new executive will quit or be fired within the first three years, and 40 percent fail within 18 months, according to a 2008 study by Aon Consulting, part of Chicago-based Aon Corp.


One possible reason for the high level of new boss busts is an overemphasis on logical prowess at the expense of domain expertise. Top business schools and many leading companies “believed they could churn out excellent managers who could be parachuted into virtually any organization and transform it through superior reasoning,” author Matthew Syed wrote in his 2010 book about the science of success, Bounce. “This approach was seriously misguided.”


Newell seems to have taken the message to heart. Hults says cookie-cutter leadership programs won’t suffice as Newell pushes aggressively into foreign markets. Rather than producing leaders who are top-down decision-makers, Aspire teaches them to learn the value of “working through others.”


“As an executive, it’s impossible to do all the work [of leadership] yourself anymore. You need to empower your employees by coaching them and enabling them to do the work—and then supporting their development,” Hults says.


Strengthening the bench

Aspire’s learning content is broken into four modules: creating followership, leading global change, coaching employees and developing “next generation” leaders.


Aspire participants also spend one week gaining firsthand knowledge of the differences between North American and overseas markets. Paris has been the destination the past two years. In addition to structured learning exercises on understanding cultural differences, the most significant learning takes place on in-store visits. Senior leaders observe and sometimes interact with shoppers, trying to get a handle on their preferences and desired product features.


Observing Parisian shoppers helped Hurd better understand their preferences. In the U.S., for example, shoppers place a high premium on utilitarian strollers that collapse easily into the trunk of a car. Parents in Paris, conversely, tend to be more pedestrian-oriented, and want the stroller to also have a more stylish look. “What they care about from a product standpoint is different,” Hurd says.


Giving managers international exposure is crucial to Newell’s plan to boost operating margins, especially in Europe. The company last year began revamping its European business operations, seeking to boost margins at least 10 percent, according to its 2010 annual report.


If retention is an indication, Aspire appears to be paying off for the company and its participants. Of the four classes thus far, 80 percent of the participants have been retained— not outstanding, but far better than a few years ago, Hults says. Nearly three-quarters of them have been promoted.


In 2010, roughly 90 percent of vice presidencies were filled from within, compared to an internal fill rate between 30 percent and 40 percent in the years prior to the program. Last year, Hurd parlayed her participation into a promotion as general manager for the baby and family essentials division. Along with bolstering her confidence, she says it taught her how to coach employees who demonstrate leadership potential.


If Hurd is an indication, the Aspire program should help other promising leaders realize their career goals at Newell. “The fact that the company was going to spend that much time and energy to help develop me as a leader was inspiring,” she says.


Workforce Management Online, July 2011 — Register Now!

Posted on July 15, 2011August 9, 2018

Longtime Safety Policy Trumps Workers Personal Needs

An employer does not have to change its long-standing safety policy to accommodate personal needs of an employee returning to work from an injury, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has ruled.


In deBoer Transportation Inc. vs. Charles Swenson, Swenson suffered a work-related knee injury in August 2005 as a truck driver. After returning to work in January 2006, he sought an accommodation to care for his terminally ill father, according to court records.


As Swenson was his father’s primary caregiver, he requested deBoer to modify a 20-year requirement that all drivers off work for more than two months, regardless of the reason, be accompanied by another driver on a “check-ride” to regain safety skills before returning to the job.


While Swenson typically drove local routes that allowed him to be home daily, he was told the check-ride trip could last several days. So he asked his employer to pay for a nurse or find someone to train him locally, according to the ruling.


When the company declined the request, he refused to go on the check-ride trip and deBoer “discharged” Swenson, the opinion states. He sought workers’ compensation benefits, alleging the company unreasonably refused to rehire him.


An administrative law judge concluded that deBoer applied its check-ride policy as a pretext to refuse to rehire Swenson.


On appeal, a review commission concluded that deBoer’s refusal to rehire Swenson “evinced an unreasonable disregard for the applicant’s circumstances, leading to the credible inference that the work injury did play a part in the discharge.”


A circuit court affirmed, but an appeals court ruled that employers do not have to assess which requests not related to a work injury merit accommodations and that it was reasonable under Wisconsin state law for deBoer to refuse to adjust its policy.


In its ruling July 12, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court and remanded the case for dismissal. The high court said Wisconsin law does not require employers to change legitimate business policies to assist employees in meeting personal obligations.


In a dissent, however, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote that a reasonable person could infer that deBoer engineered the details of the check-ride trip to force Swenson’s refusal.


Filed by Roberto Ceniceros of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.


 


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


 

Posted on June 13, 2011August 9, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do We Help a New Manager Manage?

Dear Flustered and Fed Up:

New managers often inherit a set of expectations that were established by their predecessors, which can make the transition difficult for everyone. You mentioned written expectations, which are effective only if people truly understand how to meet them and, equally important, why they should meet them.

Solving this problem requires three steps.

First, if she has not done so already, the new manager should begin with one-to-one performance discussions with employees about the written job expectations. Are they clear and do they make sense to the employee? This conversation is likely to reveal opportunities for clarification and set the stage for step two.

Next, determine whether the employee has the tools necessary to meet the new manager’s expectations. Is more training required? Are there roadblocks that only the manager can remove? Which behaviors are the responsibilities of the employees to change?

Finally, the new manager must make a very important connection for her employees: that meeting expectations will help them to achieve their personal goals. To some degree we all want to know: ‘What’s in it for me?’ If the new manager can demonstrate to her employees that meeting expectations will lead them closer to achieving their personal goals, she will be much more likely to get the results she needs.

By following this process, the new manager has:

1. Made sure that her employees fully understand her expectations

2. Have the necessary tools, skills and knowledge to meet those expectations

3. Helped employees make the connection why this is personally important.

Should some employees still fail to meet expectations, however, then your manager needs to move quickly to address this lingering issue. Many new managers struggle with giving performance feedback. By using the previous three-step conversation as a backdrop, she should address it through ongoing coaching. It will be necessary for her to explain how poor job performance is having a negative effect on the department—and therefore is just as likely to prevent the employee from reaching his professional goals.

Most employers have a progressive discipline process, which is set up to let poor performers know the consequences of their actions (in carefully measured and legally defensible steps). No manager ever wants a situation to deteriorate to this point, but if it happens, let your new manager know she is doing the right thing: striving to create an environment that enables employees to succeed. Ultimately, though, whether they succeed is entirely up to them.

SOURCE: Alan Preston, Preston Leadership Inc., Phoenixville, Pennsylvania

LEARN MORE: Supervisory jobs have very different requirements for success than individual contributors’ jobs.

Workforce Management Online, June 2011 — Register Now!

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Ask a Question
Dear Workforce Newsletter
Posted on June 5, 2011August 9, 2018

Minimizing Contingent Worker Risks

• Consider hiring someone in human resources specifically to track and manage the contingent workforce.


• Classify workers carefully and be sure they meet federal and state criteria for independent contractor status.


• Choose the staffing agencies that supply your workers carefully, and make sure your contract with them protects you from legal liability.


• Check the backgrounds of contingent workers as thoroughly as for regular employees.


Workforce Management, May 2011, p. 14 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on May 27, 2011August 9, 2018

Auto Enrollment Helps Push Record Defined Contribution Plan Participation

Aided by increased employer adoption of automatic enrollment programs, a record percentage of employees are participating in 401(k) and other defined contribution plans, according to an analysis released May 24.


The Aon Hewitt analysis found that in 2010, an average of 75.8 percent of eligible employees participated in their company’s defined contribution plans, up from 73.7 percent in 2009 and 67.2 percent in 2005.


Aon Hewitt says the increased participation rate is due in large part to increased employer adoption of automatic enrollment programs. Under such programs, employees who don’t choose one way or another are automatically enrolled, unless they specifically object.


Sixty percent of the 120 employers whose plans were analyzed had an automatic enrollment feature in 2010, up from just 24 percent in 2006. In 2006, Congress passed legislation removing certain roadblocks that discouraged employers from offering automatic enrollment, while later Labor Department rules gave employers offering automatic enrollment programs protection from fiduciary liability if they met certain requirements.


Among employees subject to automatic enrollment, 85.3 percent participated in the plan, about 18 percentage points higher than those not subject to automatic enrollment. Typically, employers only offer automatic enrollment to new employees.


While participation in defined contribution plans is rising, employee contributions are not. In 2010, employee pretax contributions averaged 7.3 percent of pay, unchanged from 2009 and down from an average of 7.7 percent in 2007.


Aon Hewitt says the growth in automatic enrollment programs may be adversely affecting the average employee contribution rate. That’s because contribution rates for employees subject to automatic enrollment averaged 6.8 percent of pay compared with an average contribution rate of 7.8 percent for those who actively enrolled. The reason for the big contribution difference rate between the two groups is that most employers with automatic enrollment programs set the default contribution rate at 4 percent of pay or less.


In addition, just under 30 percent of defined contribution plan participants don’t contribute enough to receive a matching employer contribution, the analysis found.
The analysis also found that participants’ account balances averaged $76,020 at the end of 2010, up from $70,970 a year earlier, but still below the 2007 level of $79,570.  


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


 


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

Posted on May 19, 2011August 9, 2018

Survey Shows Talent Shortage Grows Despite High Unemployment

A survey of companies’ search for talent released May 19 by ManpowerGroup revealed the number of employers struggling to fill positions is at an all-time survey high despite an unemployment rate that has shrunk only slightly during the past year.


Fifty-two percent of U.S. employers are experiencing difficulty filling key positions within their organizations, up from 14 percent in 2010, according to Milwaukee-based based ManpowerGroup’s sixth annual Talent Shortage Survey.

ManpowerGroup surveyed more than 1,300 U.S. employers, who said the jobs that are most difficult to fill include skilled trades, sales representatives and engineers, all of which have appeared on the U.S. list multiple times in the past. The survey also highlights the most common reasons employers say they are having trouble filling jobs, including candidates looking for more pay than is offered, lack of technical skills and lack of experience.


Worldwide, according to the survey, 1 in 3 employers is struggling to fill key vacancies.

“The fact that companies cite a lack of skills or experience as a reason for talent shortages should be a wake-up call for employers, academia, government and individuals,” said Jonas Prising, ManpowerGroup president of the Americas, in a news release.


“It is imperative that these stakeholders work together to address the supply-and-demand imbalance in the labor market in a systematic, agile and sustainable way,” he added. “There may also be an increasing imbalance between employers willingness to pay higher salaries in what is still a soft general labor market compared to the salary expectations of prospective employees, especially those with skills that are in high demand.”


—Rick Bell


ManpowerGroup’s 2011 list of hardest jobs to fill for U.S. companies:
1. Skilled trades
2. Sales representatives
3. Engineers
4. Drivers
5. Accounting and finance staff
6. Information technology staff
7. Management/executives
8. Teachers
9. Secretaries/administrative assistants
10. Machinist/machine operator

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 … Page 35 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