Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Technology

Posted on April 24, 2011August 9, 2018

Five Things to Consider When Developing a Social Media Strategy

The use of social media has exploded over the past several years. It is easier than ever to connect with hundreds, even thousands, of people in an instant through social media websites.


At the same time, the line between personal and private time is becoming increasingly blurred as more people telecommute, bring their laptops home to work after hours and stay in touch with the office virtually around the clock through technology.


By their design, social media sites foster a blend of the professional and the personal. On any given user profile, a person is likely to have contacts ranging from college roommates to current clients and colleagues to old flames.


Given their ambiguous nature, social media sites can create a tricky confluence of factors in the workplace. It can be challenging for HR managers and company leaders to develop a policy that satisfies employees, allows people to access the benefits of the technology, and protects the company from the darker side of these sites.


Some HR managers, so overwhelmed by the complexity of regulating the use of these sites, try to pretend the technology doesn’t exist. Others leave it up to individual managers, and still others believe that employees can police themselves—“We trust our employees to make appropriate choices” seems to be a common refrain.


However, here are five things HR managers should consider when putting together a social media strategy:


1. No policy is a risky policy. Unfortunately, not having a policy can expose the organization to an embarrassing incident, bad publicity or even legal action. There are several lawsuits working their way through the courts involving people who have sued their former employers after being terminated because of a post on a social media site. While it is noble to trust employees, some people—especially if they are new to a site—may not know how to use the technology appropriately. All it takes to create a potentially cringe-worthy situation is one novice user posting in the wrong place.


2. Blocking sites may hurt the organization. Other HR managers address the challenge by blocking these sites from the company’s server. Of course, this action comes with its own risks. By cutting access to these networking sites, organizations may also be turning away business.


Many companies attribute a significant portion of their annual sales to these sites, and some organizations request that their employees maintain Linkedin and Twitter accounts. Blocking these sites can also put your company at a hiring disadvantage as they can be valuable recruiting tools.


3. A policy should be explicit and specific. It only takes one employee who doesn’t understand the ramifications of using a social networking site incorrectly to put the company at risk. Assume everyone knows nothing when developing your policy. Be specific about the dos and don’ts for employees.


Some questions you might want to consider are: Can employees list the company as their workplace? Can they befriend clients and vendors? Can they post about clients, vendors, colleagues or the competition? Give examples of what is OK and what is off-limits. Also let employees know the consequences of inappropriate actions. Additionally, having a policy takes the pressure off employees who may not know what is expected of them when it comes to how they should be using these sites at work.


4. Define private. Many people are under the impression that what they do (or post) during their personal time with their personal computer remains private. Remind employees that posting on public forums is never private. Cyber-bullying a co-worker or badmouthing the organization on the Internet is akin to writing the message in spray paint on the office building and signing your name. Just because the action took place after hours and the person supplied the can of spray paint, it is still an attack on the company. Employees need to know that they will be held accountable for what they post on these sites, and that company representatives will be checking sites periodically.


 5. Give employees the tools to use social media effectively. You wouldn’t put employees on a manufacturing floor without being trained in how to use the heavy machinery. The same philosophy applies to social media sites. Organizations can take advantage of the vast business potential of these sites, but they must give employees the training they need to do it properly.


There is tremendous opportunity for organizations to tap into social media websites to increase their profits. With new users joining every day, it seems irresponsible for companies not to take advantage of this growing pool of customers, clients and future employees.


Yet, these sites can be dangerous because with the click of a mouse, employees can broadcast any message or photo they choose across the Internet. HR managers can help their organizations utilize these sites while mitigating risk by creating a detailed policy for employees to follow and giving them the training they need to use the sites correctly.


By giving employees reign to use the sites at work along with education and guidelines, they can post, link and tweet their way through cyberspace while growing the business as well.


Workforce Management Online, April 2011 — Register Now!

Posted on March 6, 2011August 9, 2018

Virtual Job Fairs Becoming More of a Reality

After failing to find a supply-chain or purchasing-agent job through networking and career websites, Antonio Beasley turned to the Big East Virtual Career Fair last November.


The 30-year-old Louisville, Kentucky, resident was pleasantly surprised to find roughly 30 firms there, and he contacted all of the recruiters online by writing a pithy introductory letter. About 10 to 12 answered with automated e-mail responses, and five recruiters even wrote a personal note. He obtained e-mail addresses from the recruiters and stayed in touch with several who said more supply-chain jobs could open up in the first quarter.


For job seekers, virtual career fairs are appealing because they’re a way to get your foot in the door without having to walk out the door. Similarly, virtual fairs are growing in popularity with employers because they can significantly expand their reach nationally and internationally at minimal expense. The Virtual Edge Institute, an organization in Pleasanton, California, whose member firms build online platforms for job fairs, says the number of fairs jumped 31 percent from 2009 to 2010, and its members expect 40 percent growth in 2011. The group declined to release the total number of fairs.


Wes Reel, a military recruiter for Houston-based Waste Management Inc., tested out three virtual job fairs last year, including Milicruit, which targets former military personnel, and Unicruit, which is aimed at college students. He sought to fill about 1,000 positions, including management trainees, maintenance directors, mechanics and accountants.


Virtual fairs usually last about five hours, though recruiters can receive


résumés online for as long as a week after the event. In its virtual “booth,” Waste Management provided links to its online career site, obtained résumés from candidates and interacted with applicants in a live chat room. Reel prepared a brief written statement that he sent to applicants online, describing available jobs. After he reviewed résumés, he sent a personal note to promising applicants.


Reel and other recruiters have found that traditional job fairs don’t always pay off. In addition to the time and expense of attending them in person, recruiters often find them inefficient because many people stop by their booth who don’t possess the right skills.


What’s more, Reel points out, transcribing e-mail addresses from lists after a job fair is time consuming. At virtual fairs on the other hand, recruiters pre-screen résumés, contact candidates who are a potential fit and store e-mail addresses automatically in their company’s computer system. If applicants pass the initial screening in the virtual fair, they typically must complete a questionnaire, take a behavioral test and do a telephone interview before meeting a recruiter in person.


Online fairs “are designed to be a first wave for recruiters. That’s it,” says Clark Walter, senior program manager at CDW, a Vernon Hills, Illinois-based company that sells computers and computer-related accessories. He used a virtual fair, for example, to interview students at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business in November 2010. “CDW collected 61 résumés of potential hires,” he says. “It saved the company time and money and allowed students, even with their busy schedules, to meet employers.” Already, CDW has hired one sales account manager from the Kelley School and is considering other candidates from the university.


Felicia McKinney, another CDW recruiter who attends MBA virtual fairs to fill sales jobs, says that she must observe a candidate in an in-person interview for eye contact, confidence and general demeanor. Even so, she finds virtual fairs a valuable starting point and plans to begin recruiting information technology engineers, along with sales reps, online.


Dan Erling, author of Match: A Systematic, Sane Process for Hiring the Right Person Every Time, notes that some virtual job fairs include video content and webcams and that more will likely incorporate video because employers prefer to observe applicants. Without video, he says, virtual job fairs are “one-dimensional, lacking body language.”


But even with video, it is still easy to get distracted at a virtual job fair. Kevin O’Brien, vice president for business development at Chicago-based UBM Studios, which runs Milicruit and Unicruit, urges recruiters to man their online booths at all times. Too often, he says, recruiters try to multitask and leave the booth vacant.


It’s too early to determine the return on investment for Waste Management, Reel says, but virtual job fairs tend to be cost effective because of travel expense savings. Most online job fairs cost companies about $1,000, he says, but those organized by business schools can be free. There’s always the risk, however, of poor attendance. Reel attended one fair where virtually no one showed up. “The problem,” he says, “was poor execution of marketing and advertising to the targeted candidates.”


Workforce Management, February 2011, p. 11 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on February 17, 2011August 9, 2018

Federal Agency to Award $241 Million for Insurance Exchange Technology

The Department of Health and Human Services announced it will award several states a total of about $241 million to design and implement the information technology infrastructure needed to operate health insurance exchanges.


On Feb. 16, the agency announced that Kansas, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Wisconsin and a consortium of New England states will receive the cooperative agreements from HHS to become so-called “Early Innovator” states that have committed to making sure the technology they develop is both reusable and transferable.


“Using the grants, they will develop the building blocks for exchange IT systems, providing models for how exchange IT systems can be created,” HHS said in a news release about the contracts. “This will help states to establish their exchanges quickly and efficiently using the models and building blocks created by the Early Innovator states.”


According to the department, the seven grantees offer diversity because they represent different regions of the country, as well as different exchange governance structures and information systems. This diversity, the agency says, will help ensure that a wide range of IT models are developed.  


Filed by Jessica Zigmond of Modern Healthcare, 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 September 9, 2010June 29, 2023

Legal Static Over Issuing Smart Phones to Workers

For the past three years, the Chicago Police Department has handed powerful new tools to officers in the field—BlackBerry smart phones. But the BlackBerry may have backfired on the department, which is now being sued by a sergeant in the gang investigations unit for the overtime he claims he earned while using his smart phone off the clock.


The department “has willfully violated the FLSA [Fair Labor Standards Act] by intentionally failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees all compensation due them under the FLSA” for their after-hours Blackberry use, Sgt. Jeffrey Allen said in a suit filed in May as a proposed class action. A judge has to certify the case as a class action for it to proceed.


The case is one of a handful nationwide in which employees have claimed overtime pay for smart-phone use—and apparently the first involving public employees. But lawyers say such cases are a clear warning to employers to put a smart-phone usage policy in place before they end up in potentially costly litigation. Smart phones “are very dangerous and risky for nonexempt employees to have if you’re worried about overtime,” says Jeremy A. Roth, a partner at San Diego law firm Littler Mendelson.


“Clearly there’s a tremendous benefit to being able to access work remotely,” says Howard S. Lavin, an attorney at the law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan in New York. “It’s a fabulous tool. The problem is when you take technology and apply it to longstanding laws, there are unintended consequences.”


Employers can minimize the risk of litigation by restricting smart-phone use to exempt employees or by instructing nonexempt employees to take calls from customers or clients only during regular work hours.


Under the FLSA, nonexempt employees are entitled to overtime compensation for “time spent working” beyond a 40-hour workweek. An employee does not even need to be required by the employer to work overtime but must merely do so for the employer’s benefit.


Allen said the police department provided him with a BlackBerry so he could “access work-related e-mails, voicemails, and text message work orders regardless of their location. Chicago Police Department work was routinely accomplished through” using his BlackBerry. An attorney for the Chicago Police Department could not be reached for comment.


In a class-action suit filed last year in Wisconsin, a former CB Richard Ellis employee said the real estate brokerage required him to answer messages and calls on his smart phone within 15 minutes “regardless of and without receiving compensation for the time spent doing so.” CB Richard Ellis did not return calls seeking comment.


While an employee’s off-the-clock smart-phone use may amount to only a few minutes here or there—and the FLSA provides an exception for “de minimis” overtime—legal experts say an employer’s liability can mount up in a class action.


Moreover, the electronic records stored on smart phones may give an employee solid evidence on which to base an overtime claim.


None of the suits has reached an adjudication on the merits. T-Mobile recently settled a case filed by sales representatives who claimed they were entitled to overtime pay because they were required to monitor their smart phones “at all hours of the day.” As part of the settlement, the parties agreed not to disclose the terms.


Workforce Management, September 2010, p. 8, 10 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on July 23, 2010August 9, 2018

Plenty of New York Jobs Await Tech Workers

Fluent in geek speak? You’re hired.


While the latest unemployment numbers for New York City still show a gloomy prospect for many would-be workers, recent reports from Dice.com and Pace University show just the opposite for those in the information technology industry—employers can’t seem to fill competitive high-tech positions.


Some companies are even engaging in battles for hard-to-find tech talent, said Tom Silver, a senior vice president at Dice, a career website for technology and engineering professionals.


“Filling talent voids can be painful and expensive,” he said.


According to July’s Dice Report, New York-New Jersey was ranked No. 1 across top metro areas by the number of new job posts on the website, with more than 8,200 tech positions. That’s almost twice the number of postings for tech jobs in Silicon Valley (which came in at No. 3) and more than Chicago (No. 4), Los Angeles (No. 5) and Boston (No. 6) combined. Washington-Baltimore came in second place, with 7,400 posts.


“It’s the fifth straight month of companies posting more jobs on the site,” Silver said.


In Manhattan, the information technology job market showed remarkable strength during the second quarter, according to the Pace/SkillPROOF IT Index Report, also known as PSII. The index, which provides a snapshot of IT job openings at major firms, saw a 47 percent increase, from 74 to 110. It was the largest quarterly gain since the index began tracking data in 2004, according to the report.


Farrokh Hormozi, a professor of economics and public administration at Pace University, said the index behaves much like a leading economic indicator, in that the IT employment market rises and falls before the economy does. He sees the index growth as a sign that companies are feeling optimistic and are looking to “take advantage of the technological advancements.”


Indeed, while the overall unemployment rate for New York City was 9.5 percent in June, experts estimate the rate is half that, or even lower, for the high-tech industry.


The caveat, however, is that although demand for IT professionals is high, computer programming skills are not enough (on their own) to get a job, experts said. Business, sales or administration experience is also essential.


“Schools are preparing them in this capacity” to be able to wear many hats, Hormozi said. For instance, computer science students can take marketing classes, he said.


For IT professionals already in the workforce, Hormozi said that they can increase their value with a business or public administration certificate, rather than learning another programming language.


In fact, job postings for IT managers and network/data communications analysts were the largest contributors to the growth of the Pace index in Manhattan, while the Dice Report shows that the tech skills currently most wired for success are C#, Java/J2EE, and SAP or Oracle know-how.


Moreover, the companies engaging in battles for these coveted skills, Silver said, is likely to make retention the issue this year in technology departments.


“Companies need to think about how to build long-term relationships with technology professionals,” he said. “Understand that you have a lot of competition.”  


Filed by David Montalvo of Crain’s New York Business, 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 June 24, 2010June 29, 2023

Special Report on HR Technology In SaaS Battle, Customers Win

A holy war is under way among HR product vendors over “software as a service,” or SaaS.


The phrase generally refers to providing software applications over the Internet rather than installing them on a company’s internal computers. But as this approach to software delivery has grown more popular and branched into multiple methodologies over the past decade, vendors have staked out contrasting positions on the subject.


The battle over what’s sometimes called “on demand” software comes with strong rhetoric among combatants. But it’s not clear whether customers need to choose sides—they may benefit from all the competition.


On one side of the fight are the fervent believers. These are vendors, including Workday and SilkRoad, that say a pure form of software as a service—in which all customers run just one or two versions of the software and it is provided only over the Internet—is the way to go.


On the other side is a range of software providers offering some sort of hybrid approach. They may allow for their software to be installed on customers’ machines or accessed via the Web. They may focus on delivering their software over the Internet, but put customers on a dedicated copy of the application.


Hybrid backers say their products offer benefits such as improved data security and more customer control over software settings and the timing of upgrades.


But SilkRoad co-founder Brian Platz says “pure” SaaS is used by the vendors of the best talent management software products. (Talent management software refers to tools for key HR tasks such as recruiting and performance management.) Platz also says the pure SaaS model has the lowest costs. Maintaining many versions of software is expensive, Platz says. And those costs increase further if the vendor also sells software to be run on customers’ internal computers, because extensive testing may be needed in advance of new releases.


“There’s no doubt that pure SaaS is going to win out,” Platz says.


Companies shouldn’t worry too much about the sectarian software strife, says Jason Averbook, chief executive of consulting firm Knowledge Infusion. Instead, they should appreciate their options and choose what’s best for them. “It truly is the Baskin Robbins 31 flavors of software as a service,” he says. “There really isn’t one way that’s better or worse.”

(To enlarge the view, click on the image below. Adobe Acrobat Reader is required.)


 



Appetite for SaaS
Companies like the taste of SaaS. According to a 2009 survey of North American and European companies by Forrester Research, just 14 percent of respondents said they were not interested in adopting software as a service. And in late 2008, Forrester found that 29 percent of companies had tapped HR software through SaaS, making human resources one of the business functions that is using SaaS most heavily.


“SaaS adoption will become the direction of choice for many large and small companies,” Forrester said in a January report on HR software. “Application flexibility, cost predictability and ease-of-use make SaaS very attractive.”


Software as a service is largely a reaction to the way companies bought and ran business software for most of the 1980s and 1990s. Under the “perpetual license,” “on-premises” model, organizations purchased copies of applications and installed them on their own computers. In this scheme, customers typically pay vendors annual maintenance fees that can be 20 percent of the original license fee and entitle clients to tax updates and more substantial upgrades with new features.


The on-premises approach lets companies tailor applications extensively. But software delivered in this way is costly and time-consuming to implement and upgrade.


About a decade ago, vendors pitched the idea of hosting applications remotely and letting companies access the software over the Internet. This approach reduced hardware and maintenance headaches for organizations. But having to manage many customized applications for customers was not cheap.


So the idea of “multi-tenancy” gained ground. Just as the many tenants of an apartment complex share the same roof and infrastructure, applications with a multi-tenant design are run for multiple clients simultaneously—and at a lower cost for vendors. The principle is similar to the way consumer-oriented websites such as Google and Yahoo serve many visitors at once.


As the term “software as a service” emerged over the past several years, it typically meant a multi-tenant application delivered over the Web. It also generally referred to subscription pricing, in which customers paid to use the application for a fixed period of time. SaaS, then, offered the benefits of quicker implementations, lower upfront costs and fewer technology aggravations.


Still, the approach raised fears that a company’s sensitive employee data could be seen by unwanted eyes. Another concern has been that a single shared application would not be able to match companies’ idiosyncratic business processes.


But SaaS products have proved themselves on the privacy front and have become quite flexible by giving customers the ability to configure a variety of settings, says Karen Beaman, chief executive of consulting firm Jeitosa Group International. At the same time, she says, customers have realized that extensive software customizations lead to major hassles when it comes to updating the software later.


“Large companies are now understanding that SaaS has tremendous advantages,” Beaman says.



(To enlarge the view, click on the image below. Adobe Acrobat Reader is required.)


 


Hybrid approaches
Nonetheless, some organizations prefer to stick with on-premises software, says Lisa Rowan, an analyst with research firm IDC. She says security-sensitive government agencies and large, complex businesses in fields such as manufacturing are more likely to shy away from SaaS.


“You’re still going to have a certain segment of clients for whom that just doesn’t work,” Rowan says.


HR software provider Accero gets most of its revenue from clients with applications installed on premises. But the company has joined the SaaS world in its way. Accero, whose human resource management and payroll system used to be called Cyborg, offers to host its software for customers and let them access it over the Internet. For its Accero On-Demand product, Accero does not have a multi-tenant setup. Each on-demand customer has its own dedicated “instance,” or copy, of the application. But Accero uses “virtualization” software to allow multiple clients to be running on the same computer server.


Virtualization software allows a single computer to create multiple virtual computer systems. By slicing up computer resources in this way, Accero’s operating costs are just a fraction more than a pure SaaS vendor, says Accero CEO Tom Malone. And Accero can continue to meet the needs of large customers who want more than a plain-vanilla version of HR software.


“They need a degree of customization,” he says.


Lawson Software has taken a similar approach. For customers that want software delivered over the Internet, Lawson provides dedicated copies of applications and uses virtualization technology to optimize its computer resources.


Lawson customers can choose between a version of SaaS where no customizations are possible or pay a higher price for the ability to make modifications that Lawson will maintain over time, says Larry Dunivan, the vendor’s senior vice president of global human capital management products. Lawson also offers its HR applications for on-premises installation.


As part of its overall SaaS strategy, Lawson is tapping the computing power of Amazon, which provides access to its computer servers via a product called the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud. Dunivan argues that companies opting for a “single-tenancy” model of SaaS may prove to have the leanest model in the long run.


“As virtualization technologies are leveraged in combination with cloud computing, it’s possible that multi-tenancy won’t offer the lowest long-term cost of ownership,” he says.


Software vendors that insist on the purist approach to software as a service are “multi-tenant SaaS bigots,” Dunivan says.


Others in the hybrid SaaS camp include Softscape and Halogen Software. Softscape sells on-premises HR software, a multi-tenant application typically used by midsize businesses, and what it calls “Secure-SaaS,” in which each customer has a dedicated instance of the application and additional security features.


Steve Bonadio, vice president of product marketing at Softscape, says Secure-SaaS is appealing partly because it means customers aren’t forced to take upgrades, an aspect of pure SaaS that can throw off users and create problems with the way the software integrates with a customer’s other business applications.


Those upgrades, typically zapped out several times a year by SaaS vendors, come with new features but “can break what customers have already launched across their organization,” Bonadio says.


For its SaaS product, Halogen employs virtualization technology and gives each customer its own instance of the application. The company also sells its HR software for on-premises installation. The on-premises product entails testing new versions on a variety of computer operating systems to mimic customers’ computer setups. But the company says testing for those customers is largely done through software tools. “We work very efficiently,” says Donna Ronayne, Halogen’s vice president of marketing.


Vendors of hybrid SaaS products also make the point that the debate over SaaS purity is largely inside baseball: Customers don’t care about it nearly as much as vendors.


But the particular flavor of SaaS did matter to Nebraska. The state signed a deal with Cornerstone OnDemand last year for a suite of talent management software tools to be delivered over the Internet. Cornerstone is among the more pure SaaS players, keeping all customers on the same code.


Carlos Castillo Jr., the state government’s director of administrative services, says state officials appreciate the way pure SaaS prevents extensive customization by clients and thereby “encourages consistency across our organization.” Castillo says custom modifications in the state’s on-premises system for core HR tasks are expensive to maintain when the application is upgraded. “Customization always translates into higher costs for us,” he says.

(To enlarge the view, click on the image below. Adobe Acrobat Reader is required.)


The purist argument
Even so, pure SaaS advocates say their products can accommodate even the largest, most complex companies. Workday points out that its single line of code is working at firms including Chiquita Brands International, Lenovo and Flextronics, which employs 165,000 workers worldwide.


Purists also downplay difficulties from the upgrades that SaaS vendors impose on customers. Roughly 10 percent of the changes sent out quarterly by Cornerstone OnDemand are mandatory, and typically involve the user interface.


“The remaining 90 percent of updates are optional for clients, and they can decide whether they want to activate them for use in their organization,” says Michelle Haworth, Cornerstone’s director of corporate communications.


SaaS flavor matters in terms of software vendors’ long-term viability, pure SaaS vendors say. If there are fewer lines of software code to develop and maintain, that translates to a “leaner model,” says Deepak Rammohan, director of product management for Taleo Enterprise, Taleo’s software product for large organizations.


“A pure SaaS model … leads to a leaner sales model, a leaner consulting services model and a leaner support model,” Rammohan says. “A leaner model for the vendor then also means a better price point for the customer.”


Taleo keeps its largest customers on one of two versions of its Taleo Enterprise application.


It has emerged to be one of the leading talent management firms, and a profitable one. Its revenue grew 18 percent last year to nearly $200 million, and it recorded a profit of $1.3 million.


Another major HR software firm pursuing the pure multi-tenancy SaaS model is SuccessFactors. “We actually turn away companies that will only do on-premise,” says Dominic Paschel, director of global public and investor relations. SuccessFactors, which spent $80 million on sales and marketing last year, posted a net loss of $12.6 million for 2009, but revenue grew 37 percent to $153 million.


Platz of SilkRoad says a typical customer company of a couple thousand employees can expect to pay about $80,000 per year for one of SilkRoad’s six modules.


“Hybrid SaaS vendors are fairly competitive with price. They have to be, or else they wouldn’t sell any,” Platz says. “They tend to, however, have less innovation and functionality. They are tied to that boat anchor of their licensed software.”


SilkRoad’s pure SaaS is selling fast. New sales grew 30 percent last year, Platz says.


But hybrid SaaS vendors also are doing a brisk business. Halogen, for example, enjoyed a 41 percent increase in recurring revenue last year.


Averbook of Knowledge Infusion says it’s generally a good time for SaaS in the HR arena. Companies with tight budgets for information technology projects are willing to let HR proceed with the relatively small investments needed for software delivered over the Web, he says.


Workforce Management, June 2010, p. 29-34 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on May 17, 2010August 9, 2018

United Technologies Moves to Cover Adult Children

United Technologies Corp. says it will extend health care coverage to all adult children up to age 26 of its employees on July 1, six months before the new health care reform law requires it.


The high-tech product and service provider to the aerospace and building industries says the extension includes adult children up to age 26 not currently enrolled in its plans. They will be added with no change in the premium that employees pay for dependent coverage, said a spokesman for the Hartford, Connecticut-based company.


United Technologies, with about 72,500 U.S. employees and $52.9 billion in worldwide revenue in 2009, is the first major self-funded employer to announce accelerated adoption of the young-adult mandate.


“We think this is the right thing to do for our employees and is consistent with our practices of providing our employees with very competitive benefits,” J. Thomas Bowler Jr., United Technologies senior vice president-human resources and organization, said in a statement.


The extension will occur in two steps. Effective immediately, United Technologies will continue coverage of employees’ adult children already enrolled in its plans who would have lost coverage for reasons that include graduation from school.


Then on July 1, coverage will be offered to employees’ adult children up to age 26 regardless of whether they are currently covered, unless they are eligible to enroll in another employer’s health care plan.


Previously, United Technologies stopped coverage of employees’ children at age 19, or 23 if the child was a full-time college student.

Under the health care reform law, the extension is required on the first day of the plan year that begins after September 23. For employers like United Technologies with calendar-year plans, the requirement must be met by January 1, 2011.  


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 April 8, 2010June 29, 2023

Companies Making Friends With Social Media

Social networks ranging from employee-only applications such as Deloitte’s D Street to public sites including LinkedIn continue to gain ac- ceptance as the business benefits become clearer.


Three recent surveys suggest how social networks contribute to the bottom line, but the studies also probe why some organizations struggle to tap their potential.


By 2014, social networking will replace e-mail as the primary form of communication for 20 percent of business users, according to Gartner Inc., a research and advisory firm.


Already, McKinsey & Co. has found that 69 percent of executives report that their companies have gained measurable business benefits, including better access to knowledge and higher revenue.


“Quite frankly, the companies that seem to have achieved the most are the ones that have been experimenting most deeply and for the longest amount of time,” says Michael Chui, a senior fellow of the McKinsey Global Institute.


A separate poll by the Human Capital Institute’s human resources membership found that, when counting both public sites such as LinkedIn and in-house applications, 49 percent of organizations use social networks somewhat. But getting employees to incorporate these sites into their routines remains a chief barrier to reaping the networks’ full potential.


“You have to ensure that people understand this is the place to go get answers,” says David Eisert, associate director of emerging technologies at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business. “When you’ve got people in the network engaged, sharing information and openly communicating, that’s where the meat of knowledge transfer comes from.”


Companies that have invested in internal social networks have taken a variety of approaches to entice employees to create profiles and participate.


Deloitte pre-populated every profile in its D Street network with basic information drawn from its HR system.


“When we launched, we turned on profiles for all 46,000 employees,” says Patricia Romeo, D Street leader. D Street has been integrated into Deloitte’s internal portal, introducing mini-profiles of five colleagues each time an employee logs on. “It’s very much a Facebook-like experience,” Romeo says, “but all from the safety and security of behind the firewall.”


Sabre Holdings Corp., whose technology underpins travel reservations worldwide, created SabreTown, a social network accessed at least once a month by about 70 percent of its workforce. The company, based in Southlake, Texas, has 9,000 employees in 59 countries.


To encourage use, a team sat out in front of cafeterias and visited desks, taking and uploading profile pictures, says Erik Johnson, general manager of Sabre Holdings’ Cubeless, the software behind SabreTown. “It sounds like a silly little thing,” Johnson says. “But once that picture was attached to a profile, it’s amazing how much more likely users were to engage in the system and take ownership of that profile.”


Another challenge: demonstrating return on investment. In fact, not all of the early experiments with social networks have survived the recession. Dow Chemical Co. closed its My Dow Network, launched in 2007 to connect with retirees and former employees, because of “the global economic crisis,” spokesman David Winder says.


Allan Schweyer, principal at the Center for Human Capital Innovation and former executive director of the Human Capital Institute, says a vibrant social network could help with retention. But he concedes, “I don’t think there is going to be any great ROI measurement for corporate social networks anytime soon.”


Workforce Management, April 2010, p. 4 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on March 30, 2010June 29, 2023

What Drives Engagement in the Digital Age?

Daniel Pink’s newest book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, disputes the long-held corporate notion that handing out rewards on the job—money, for example—is the best way to manage employees. This carrot-and-stick approach, he says, is not only outdated, but is counterproductive and crippling to company morale. What we really need, according to Pink, is an upgrade in management technique, one in which people are free to explore what really motivates them: the desire to learn, create and improve their surroundings.

Pink talked with Matt Kinsey, a writer for Workforce Management sister publication Advertising Age, about what defines this new sense of drive. It’s what he calls Motivation 3.0: a combination of autonomy, mastery and purpose.

Advertising Age: We last spoke in 2006, following the release of A Whole New Mind. That book made the case for the right-brainers of the world—the creative, empathetic and design-oriented—as the key players of future business. Fast-forward to today: We’ve got an economy recovering from the worst recession in decades, entrepreneurial spirit is high and small-business owners are charged with generating new markets. Do right-brainers still have the edge?

Daniel Pink: I think so. The argument in that book is that left-brain capabilities are necessary but not sufficient. That’s equally if not more true today, for a couple of reasons. One of the things that was tilting the scales was companies trying to save money through automation and outsourcing. That’s intensifying now, as companies are so strapped they’re looking to reduce costs on routine and rhythmic work. That’s making the non-routine and non-algorithmic more valuable.

There’s also this sense that a hardcore carrot-and-stick left-brain approach was one of the factors that drove the economy into a ditch. It wasn’t graphic designers who cratered the economy.

AA: Enter your research findings for Drive. For those who haven’t read the book, explain why our definition of motivation is so different in the 21st century.

Pink: There are 40 years of research that shows these carrot-and-stick motivators—particularly motivators of the “do this, get-that” ilk—work extremely well, but in a surprisingly narrow bank of circumstances. They’re good for relatively simple, straightforward algorithmic tasks. They’re good for getting short-term results. But the science is pretty clear that for more creative and conceptual work, for things that people kind of like doing and for long-term results, those kinds of motivators just don’t work. And they often do harm. There’s essentially a new technology for motivation that the science yields that isn’t built on carrots and sticks, but on autonomy, mastery and purpose.

AA: You embrace several radical management techniques in the book, including Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson’s Results-Only Work Environment, which stipulates employees can work from wherever they want, whenever they want. And many big companies have adopted ROWE, including Best Buy and Gap. Five years from now, can we expect businesses to be run as entirely different beasts?

Pink: It’s not a mainstream movement yet, but those companies employing radical forms of autonomy are harbingers of how we’re going to do things in the future, how companies will be run if you want them to be effective. Of course, these kinds of changes don’t happen with a snap of the fingers. You have some organizations doing things in a different way, and when they start performing well, other folks look to them and say, “What are they doing that I’m not?”

One thing you do see, which is a ticking time bomb in many ways, are these numbers on job satisfaction. If you look at the latest Conference Board numbers, they show morbid levels of job satisfaction. It’s a double whammy: People report being insecure—they’re very worried about losing their jobs—but they’re also bored. So there’s this level of disengagement in the workplace which is actually quite staggering, and what’s interesting about that is you see levels of people seeking engagement elsewhere. Levels of volunteerism and open-source participation are going up. People are seeking engagement who have not been getting it at work. And when the economy picks up a little bit, I think you’re going to have a lot of disgruntled employees who leave to do something else.

AA: Why have corporations been slow to adopt this notion of an autonomous workforce?

Pink: It’s a mix of things. We have this premise in a lot of business that is utterly unexamined, which is that the best way to motivate people is to offer them a contingent reward or threaten them with a contingent punishment. That premise is inaccurate! So in many ways we’re starting with the wrong premise. That’s a big part of it.

Another reason is, this is how we’ve always done things, and you can’t discount the importance of inertia. It’s easy to say, “OK, I’ll give you $1,000 if you come up with a good idea.” It’s harder to ask, “What can I do to create a workplace that’s more autonomous, that allows people to progress and get better at stuff that is infused with a sense of purpose?” That’s hard.

We fake ourselves out a little bit because those conditional incentives work in the short term, they really do. If you say to somebody, “I’ll give you a $1,000 bonus for coming up with a great idea,” they’re going to work very hard to come up with a great idea. But they’re going to be focused pretty much on getting that reward. Chances are, they’re not going to come up with a great idea. As a manager you’re going to think, “Wow, I’ve really motivated them; look how hard they’re working.” So we get faked out by the fact that these kinds of carrots and sticks are actually motivating in the short term. They do get people to work harder, but they don’t always get people to work better or more creatively.

AA: You have a name for those with a natural desire to learn and pursue goals: Type I’s, vs. Type X’s, who sit back and wait for instruction. Are these Type I’s better positioned to weather the post-recession workplace?

Pink: I think they’re better positioned to weather any workplace. There’s a kind of paradox afoot that says one of the best ways to get extrinsic rewards is to not go after them—basically, to do something you love to do and do it well. As hackneyed as that sounds, there’s actually a fair amount of science behind it.

I read a couple of studies of artists attending the School of the Art Institute of Chicago in the 1960s, where one group of artists was very intrinsically motivated and the other was very extrinsically motivated. One said, “I paint because I paint; that’s what I am,” and the other said, “I’m really good at painting and I can make a living off of this and I can get my work in galleries and become really well-known.” Twenty-five years later, about half of these students are pretty successful artists, and almost all of them are the ones who were intrinsically motivated. The ones who weren’t pursuing those external rewards ended up getting them as a consequence of doing something really well. So I just think people with that orientation are gonna do better, period.

AA: Can anyone be motivated?

Pink: Sure. I think human beings want to direct their own lives and don’t want to be controlled. I’m convinced people by nature want to be active and engaged. For a lot of people, something happens to flip the switch the other way, but it’s very possible to switch it back.

AA: How can we better motivate ourselves at work?

Pink: There are small things people can do. It’s not as if they’re going to turn their lives around by saying three magic words or some kind of incantation. It’s more about taking very small steps to sculpt their jobs so they become a little more autonomous. A good starting point might be getting a more flexible work schedule, or taking on assignments outside of your everyday job that you find a little more interesting. Or maybe it’s joining a team or committee you’re not otherwise required to join.

That said, I do think there are many cases where people look deep down and realize they’re unsatisfied at work. It could be something about the nature of that organization that is in some ways irreparable. For some people, it means actually having to leave. But the first step is to try to do something small at your job. Set personal performance reviews for yourself. Take back the performance review from the bosses and work your way toward mastery. There’s all kind of small things people can do to awaken that. It’s difficult if the organization is completely counter to those sorts of ideas.

AA: What sort of advice do you offer executives seeking to motivate their staffs?

Pink: You have to start small. Let’s take the companies that are doing 20 percent time, like Google, where employees can spend one day a week working on a project they’re passionate about. I don’t think companies unfamiliar with 20 percent time should jump headlong into it right now, especially in a recession. Try something modest, something I call “20 percent time with training wheels.” So, 10 percent time. That’s one afternoon a week. And who among us hasn’t squandered one afternoon a week? You don’t do it permanently, you try it for three months or six months. You can completely slash operating costs right there, and you get a modest little experiment in autonomy.

Another way managers can motivate employees is by asking about their autonomy. Ask them, how much control do you have over your time? Over your task, your technique and your team? This is a big motivator, especially for building mastery. People like making progress. So one of the things it’s important for you to do is recognize progress and celebrate progress.

But again, change isn’t going to happen overnight. Everybody wants to say, “Just follow these three steps …” and that’s a false promise. It’s about making slow, steady changes and having that momentum accumulate. This idea you can announce some kind of new policy and everything’s going to be all right with the world is a false promise, and everybody knows that. I mean, everybody who’s not a boss knows that.

Workforce Management Online, March 2010 — Register Now!

Posted on March 24, 2010August 10, 2018

E-Verify at a Glance

 

Federal contractor with the federal acquisition rule (FAR) E-Verify clause in contract

Federal contractor without the FAR E-Verify clause

No federal contracts currently, but competing for one or more

No federal contracts now and none expected anytime soon

Located

in a jurisdiction where

E-Verify is required

Must I enroll in and use E‑Verify?

Yes. Within 30 days, company must register or change its designation to FAR contractor if already registered.

No

No

No

Yes

May I enroll in and use E‑Verify?

 —

Yes, but for new hires only.

Yes, but for new hires only.

Yes, but for new hires only.

 —

Should I check new hires if I’m enrolled in E-Verify?

Yes. Must begin using for all new hires within 90 days of enrollment.

Yes. Must begin using for all new hires immediately upon enrollment.

Yes. Must begin using for all new hires immediately upon enrollment.

Yes. Must begin using for all new hires immediately upon enrollment.

Yes. Must begin using for all new hires immediately upon enrollment.

Should I use E‑Verify for existing employees working on federal contract?

Must E-Verify all employees working directly on the federal contract, but not employees who work indirectly on contract (e.g., admin staff). 

No

 —

 —

 —

Should I use E‑Verify for existing employees?

Employer must choose whether to E-Verify all existing employees or only the ones working directly on federal contract;180 days to comply.

Must not

Must not

Must not

Must not

Workforce Management Online, March 2010 — Register Now!

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 … Page 27 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