Category: Technology

Posted on

Should Your Company Use E-Verify

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano recently introduced a new campaign called “I E-Verify” to recognize the approximately 170,000 businesses nationwide currently using the federal E-Verify program. The campaign is designed to highlight employers’ commitment to maintaining a legal workforce and reducing the use of fraudulent work documents.


While the “I E-Verify” campaign certainly marks the growing use of E-Verify by private employers, a large percentage of those companies are using it because they are required to—either because they operate as employers in a jurisdiction where it is legally required or because they are federal contractors or subcontractors. Until very recently, the vast majority of employers in the U.S., for whom E-Verify is optional, had shown little interest in signing up for the program.


After all, for many employers E-Verify has the potential to increase business costs as well as legal liability. However, with more than 1,200 employers per week registering for the new program and approximately 83 percent of them saying they are basically satisfied with its performance, E-Verify is quickly becoming a routine part of the hiring process for many companies.


Ever since Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the federal government has sought to curb illegal immigration by penalizing employers for employing aliens whom they know to be unauthorized to work in the United States. To comply with the law, U.S. employers must verify the employment eligibility and identity of all newly hired employees by completing a Form I-9. Employers that hire or continue to employ individuals knowing that they are ineligible to work in the U.S. may face civil or criminal penalties. Like it or not, since 1986 employers have been de facto federal deputies in the frontline battle against illegal immigration. Accompanying this obligation is a corresponding duty to verify employees’ documents in a manner that is nondiscriminatory.


With millions of people entering the U.S. to work without authorization just in the past decade or so, the effectiveness of the employer-mandated I-9 process is not immediately obvious. Many observers have noticed a dramatic increase in the use of fraudulent work documents since 1986 and no discernible decrease in the number of unauthorized aliens since that time. On the other hand, the Department of Homeland Security rightfully points out that unauthorized employment is a form of unfair competition that must be addressed. Whatever the public policy implications, the main problem with the I-9 program is that employers often lack the expertise to detect fraudulent work documents. Moreover, because of the nondiscrimination provisions in Immigration Reform and Control Act they are understandably deterred from being overly demanding during the I-9 process. In response to this problem, the government created the E-Verify program to operate alongside the I-9 procedure and make the verification process more effective.


For most employers in the U.S., the program remains strictly voluntary. In order to participate, an employer must enroll online and have its human resources staff complete an online tutorial. Voluntary registrants must begin using it for all new hires immediately. However, federal contractors have 30 days from the date of their contracts to enroll in the program and an additional 90-180 days to begin using it. E-Verify supplements the I-9 process; it does not replace it. In fact, an employer is not even permitted to initiate an E-Verify query for a new hire until AFTER the I-9 process is complete—at which time and before the end of the third day of employment, the employer must enter the I-9 data into E-Verify system to confirm the person’s identity and work authorization.


The data entered into E-Verify is checked against databases maintained by DHS and the Social Security Administration. In most cases, work authorization is confirmed in a matter of seconds. However, in about 3 percent of cases, a tentative non-confirmation occurs and the employer is legally obligated to provide certain notices to the employee and to continue the employment until a final determination is made by E-Verify.


The purpose of this article is to discuss which companies are required to use E-Verify and which are not. For those that are not legally required to use it, the article further discusses the potential advantages and disadvantages of voluntary enrollment. Employers generally fall into one of five categories with respect to E-Verify.


Based on your company’s particular circumstances, you can simply skip ahead to the section that best describes your situation. Also, you can consult the quick-reference chart that accompanies this article:


1. Mandatory E-Verify user because of jurisdiction


2. Federal contractor/subcontractor with the E-Verify clause


3. Federal contractor/subcontractor without the E-Verify clause


4. No current federal contracts/subcontracts, but company is competing for them


5. No federal contracts now or in the foreseeable future


1. Mandatory E-Verify user because of jurisdiction


The default position at the federal level is that an employer is generally not required to use E-Verify unless it has a qualifying federal contract or subcontract that contains the E-Verify clause. However, some states have gone beyond the federal government in making E-Verify mandatory within their jurisdictions. At present the most dramatic examples are Arizona, Mississippi and South Carolina. Since 2008, Arizona has had a general E-Verify requirement in effect for all employers, public and private. Noncompliance can lead to the loss of an Arizona business license. In Mississippi, a state law requires E-Verify for all employers, but implementation of the law has been phased in slowly, with large Mississippi employers enrolling in 2008 while smaller companies have until 2011 to sign up. South Carolina has a similar law mandating E-Verify for all large companies starting in July 2009 while smaller companies have until July 2010.


If you are operating as an employer in one of these three states, you must use E-Verify in accordance with state requirements. If your company operates in many locations it might make sense to use E-Verify only in the jurisdictions where it is required. On the other hand, for consistency some employers are deciding to register the entire company.


While these are currently the only three jurisdictions with a general E-Verify requirement for all employers, a handful of other states have E-Verify requirements that are limited to state contractors and public employers. These include Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Utah. The specific requirements vary by state. Employers in these jurisdictions are strongly encouraged to consult with their immigration or employment counsel to make sure they are in compliance. The stakes for noncompliance can be surprisingly high, including in some cases the loss of your state contracts. The field is rapidly evolving and employers are advised to watch for continuing changes at the state level. One particularly good source for specific state requirements is the National Conference of State Legislatures Web site.


No discussion of E-Verify at the state level would be complete without mentioning Illinois, the only state that has tried to restrict private employers from using the federal program. A new Illinois law places significant state requirements on employers that use E-Verify. To ensure compliance, the law gives aggrieved employees a private right of action in state court with the possibility of sizable civil damages.


Back to list


2. Federal contractor/subcontractor with the E-Verify clause


The remaining categories are for the broad majority of employers who are not under a state obligation to use E-Verify. For most employers, deciding whether to enroll will depend largely on whether you have or soon will have a federal contract or subcontract that contains the E-Verify clause, since this is the only national basis on which E-Verify is compulsory for private employers.


A federal acquisition rule requires federal contractors to agree to use E-Verify through language inserted into the contracts. This is known as the “E-Verify clause.” The rule applies only to contracts awarded after September 8, 2009. The E-Verify clause will come from the contracting agency, not the Department of Homeland Security. Contracts that were awarded prior to September 8, 2009, will not contain the E-Verify clause and therefore will not trigger the E-Verify requirement.


There is an exception for existing indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts. Because of the potentially unending nature of these contracts, federal contracting officers have been authorized to negotiate the insertion of the E-Verify clause on a bilateral basis for future orders if the remaining period of performance extends to at least March 18, 2010, and the amount of work or number of orders expected under the remaining performance period is substantial.


The rule also “flows down” to federal subcontractors if the prime contract includes the E Verify clause and the subcontract is for services or construction in excess of $3,000 for work performed in the United States. Prime contractors must provide notice of the E-Verify requirement to their subcontractors as well as provide general oversight to make sure they meet the E Verify requirement. Subcontractors will not receive notice of the E-Verify clause from the government. Contracting with or continuing to work with a subcontractor whom a prime contractor knows to be out of compliance with the E-Verify requirement can result in fines and penalties to the prime contractor. Prime contractors are not required to verify the work eligibility of their subcontractors’ employees, but they are required to make certain that the E-Verify clause is inserted into every tier of their subcontracts and that all of their subcontractors are using the E-Verify system.


Federal contractors whose contracts contain the E-Verify clause are required to use E-Verify on new hires and on all employees assigned to work directly on the contract. Alternatively, they may elect to verify their entire workforce. As a practical matter, most companies choose to verify their entire workforce rather than spend resources tracking which employees are assigned to work directly on qualifying federal contract projects at any given time. This is particularly true for large companies with multiple contracts and relatively fluid workforces.


A company that chooses to use E-Verify for its whole workforce will first need to make sure that every employee’s Form I-9 is in order. That’s because the data from the I-9 is used during the E Verify process. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement provides two options for carrying out the I-9 re-verification process. One option is to complete a new I-9 for every employee as if he or she were a new hire. The second option, which is even more labor-intensive, involves sifting through every I 9 for your current workforce and re-verifying only those employees whose forms would no longer be in compliance if they were completed today. Whichever option is selected, after the employer has completed the I-9 portion for every employee, it must then run that data through the E-Verify system.


The decision to “cleanse” your entire workforce should not be taken lightly, as it will take considerable time and resources and could lead to the realization that despite your company’s best efforts, some members of your workforce are unauthorized to work. Even if just 1 to 2 percent of your workforce turns out to be unauthorized, that could represent a formidable challenge to your business operations: Their employment would have to be terminated immediately. Also, in certain industries the percentage of unauthorized workers could be significantly higher. One option to mitigate the impact on your business might be to use a controlled rollout of the E-Verify program.


It is crucial to develop a strategy before you register for E-Verify. Employers are strongly encouraged to consult with their immigration and employment counsel before taking any action with respect to enrolling in E-Verify. After they have enrolled in the program, some employers outsource their E-Verify function to third-party vendors, known as designated agents. For many, this is a cost-effective alternative to maintaining a trained HR staff steeped in E-Verify. It might also reduce the risk of privacy and discrimination claims by employees. However, third-party vendors have a strong financial interest in persuading companies to enroll in the E-Verify program. Thus, when deciding whether to enroll, it is better to consult with an independent professional who can help you objectively weigh the costs and benefits.


Back to list


3. Federal contractor/subcontractor without the E-Verify clause


It is important to understand that not all federal contractors and subcontractors will have the E-Verify clause in their contracts, and therefore will not be federally required to use E-Verify. There are two ways this could happen (not counting a simple error or oversight by the contracting agency). First, as discussed above, federal contracts awarded before September 8, 2009, do not trigger the E-Verify clause. Thus, if you have an older federal contract, it is grandfathered in without the E-Verify requirement. The E-Verify clause will not be inserted until the next time the contract comes up for renewal. The only exception, again, is with indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts, and even those must be renegotiated bilaterally before the new E-Verify clause can be inserted for future orders. Second, a federal contract awarded after September 8, 2009, could qualify for an exemption from the E-Verify requirement. In that case, the clause would not be inserted and the employer would not be required to enroll.


There are four exemptions under the E-Verify Rule for federal contractors:


• Contract is for fewer than 120 days.


• Contract is valued at less than $100,000 under the simplified acquisition threshold.


• All work is performed outside the United States.


• Contract is for commercially available off-the-shelf items and related services.


The fourth exemption is the most significant one for most federal contractors. A commercially available off-the-shelf item is one that is sold in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace and is offered to the government in the same form that it is available in the commercial marketplace, or with only minor modifications. For example, a contract to supply NASA with 10,000 “AAA” household batteries per month would qualify for what is called a COTS exemption since household batteries are sold in substantial quantities in the marketplace and the supplier isn’t doing anything to make the make the batteries unique. But a second contract with NASA to design and develop a new battery for use in the next lunar rover would not qualify for the COTS exemption because it isn’t sold in substantial quantities and because it was designed specifically for NASA.


Back to list


4. No current qualifying federal contracts/subcontracts, but company is competing for them


What should you do when E-Verify is optional for your company today but will become mandatory in the near future because you are on the verge of getting a qualifying federal contract or subcontract? The basic federal contractor rule is simple enough: Get the contract first. If it contains the federal acquisition rule E-Verify clause, you must sign up within 30 days. If it isn’t in the contract, then signing up is optional.


But many companies are asking what should be done now to prepare for federal contractor status in the future. Let’s say you are currently competing for federal contracts but you don’t have any that qualify for the E-Verify requirement at the moment, perhaps because your current contracts were grandfathered in before September 8, 2009, or because they qualified for one of the exemptions. In that case, the analysis shifts away from the legal requirements and toward a more traditional business analysis. Specifically, you must decide whether and to what extent you will expend resources preparing your company for E-Verify compliance when it is not yet legally required.


There are basically three options available to a company in this scenario:


• Sign up now: The upside is that you will only be required to use it for new hires, since non-federal contractors are not permitted to use it for existing employees. Later, if you get a federal contract with the E-Verify clause, you can simply change the designation in your company profile and then decide whether to verify all your existing employees or just the ones working on the federal contract. Meanwhile, you can market your company to government agencies, prime contractors and customers as being compliant with E-Verify. And if you don’t get the federal contract you’re competing for, you can always withdraw from the E-Verify program with 30 days’ notice. On the other hand, as discussed below, the downside to registering for E-Verify voluntarily is that it adds significant new burdens to your company in terms of time, training and legal liability.


• Prepare now, sign up later: The second option is to fully prepare your company for E Verify but stop short of actually registering for it. Implementing E-Verify in a strategic way that maximizes your specific circumstances while minimizing your obligations and legal risks takes some effort. You will need to decide which hiring sites will participate and how to roll them out for E-Verify purposes. You will also need to develop and implement a written company policy. Finally, you must decide which members of your HR staff will be responsible for the E-Verify function and train them accordingly. If you operate as an employer in Illinois, you will need to take some additional steps. Depending on your company’s situation and the likelihood of future federal contracts, it might make sense to get things in order ahead of time.


• Do nothing and wait: The third option is to do nothing until you receive a decision on your bid for a federal contract/subcontract. If you win the bid, then you can focus on enrolling in E-Verify and getting your internal policies and procedures in place. If you don’t get the bid, you can carry on not using E-Verify for as long as it remains voluntary for non-contractors. The do nothing-and-wait-approach is an attractive option for companies that are not as likely to get a federal contract or for companies that conclude now is simply not a good time to introduce a complicated new hiring system like E-Verify.


Back to list


5. No federal contracts now or in the foreseeable future


Let’s assume that your company is not a federal contractor, doesn’t expect any federal contracts anytime soon and doesn’t operate as an employer in one of the mandatory jurisdictions discussed above. In that case, E-Verify is strictly optional. Determining on a voluntary basis whether E-Verify is right for your company will depend on a variety of factors. Here are the basic pros and cons of E-Verify:


E-Verify can help your company avoid the mistake of hiring and training someone only to find out later that he or she is not authorized to work. For this same reason, E-Verify also gives executives and HR managers a measure of confidence and peace of mind about the lawfulness of their workforce. It virtually eliminates Social Security mismatches (although an employer could use the Social Security Administration’s program, called the Social Security Number Verification Service, to check for Social Security mismatches at the time of hire without all the hassle and potential liability of E-Verify). E-Verify also helps to improve the accuracy of wage and tax reporting because it reduces identity mismatches. Furthermore, although using E-Verify does not provide a safe harbor from prosecution for knowing unauthorized employment, it does create a legal presumption in your favor if you end up in court. As a practical matter, this would likely receive a substantial amount of weight in the event of an audit or investigation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It could mean the difference between getting a warning versus a fine, or, for more serious cases, a civil fine versus a criminal charge.


Finally, if your company hires many foreign nationals fresh out of college or graduate school, signing up for E-Verify can make the foreign national eligible for an additional 17 months of immigration status if his or her degree is in a field relating to science, technology, engineering or mathematics. As this is a significant new immigration benefit, many of the best foreign national students with highly sought-after advanced degrees are targeting E-Verify-compliant companies as potential employers.


However, E-Verify is not for everyone. There are serious reasons why some employers may decide to wait as long as possible before getting involved with it. The biggest downside of E-Verify is that it increases a company’s legal liability. Because your hiring data is stored electronically in a government database, it makes it much easier for the government to sort through the data for simple hiring errors that previously would have gone undetected. For example, if an HR manager forgets to complete the I-9 process and initiate the E-Verify query until the fourth day of employment—a likely scenario—that would constitute a technical/paperwork violation with the possibility of a civil fine. The odds of detection for such a low-level, innocent mistake under the traditional I-9 process are relatively low compared with the odds of detection under E-Verify. In theory, an accumulation of such small, innocent errors could be sufficient to trigger an audit or investigation.


The second major problem with E-Verify is that it does not replace the I-9 procedure. It merely adds an additional and significant burden to the process. The Department of Homeland Security promotes the E-Verify system as being free of charge, meaning only that the government does not charge for the right to use its databases. But viewed from a wider perspective, E Verify is anything but cost-free for a company. It actually requires significant investments in implementation, training and vigilant internal oversight.


A third problem with E-Verify is its potential for creating unintended privacy and discrimination violations. Employers that use E-Verify are under various federal and state obligations to safeguard the data contained on the Form I-9 and in the E-Verify databases. Once an employer enrolls in E-Verify, it must make certain that employees with access to the company’s E-Verify account are properly trained and supervised so as not to use it at the wrong time, for the wrong purpose or on the wrong person.


A poorly trained or poorly supervised HR worker can create significant liability for a company through misuse of the E-Verify system. Employers are also obligated by anti-discrimination laws to treat all similarly situated employees alike and not to ask employees for more documentation than is legally required. The use of E-Verify may create certain situations that are likely to lead well-meaning employers into trouble because of the problem of false negatives. Namely, employers that are otherwise scrupulous in carrying out their E-Verify obligations may falter when the system returns a false negative for someone they know or strongly believe to be work-authorized. This problem is most likely to occur when the person operating E-Verify knows the employee personally. Ignoring what is called a “final nonconfirmation” can seem like a reasonable thing to do when someone is certain that the system has made a mistake. But if a company overlooks it for one employee and not for others, it may have inadvertently created the basis for a discrimination claim.


Back to list


 Final thoughts
E-Verify is a relatively new system that aims to address the needs of hundreds of thousands of employers and millions of employees. It is inevitable that such a large-scale system will encounter many problems along the way. The good news is that the federal government appears to be dedicated to properly funding E-Verify and addressing the most pressing questions. The bad news is that there are still many unanswered questions. Today it is largely optional for most employers, but if present state and federal trends continue it seems likely that E-Verify will become mandatory for all employers in the United States.


Workforce Management Online, March 2010 — Register Now!


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

Posted on

Special Report on Background CheckingBurden of Proof

EmploymentGroup’s December job postings included a “trial hire” for a small assembly job, paying $9 per hour, the equivalent of $17,550 a year. The Michigan staffing firm listed requirements for the position: a high school education or general equivalency diploma, small assembly experience and “no convictions.”


Virtually all of EmploymentGroup’s client companies have a blanket “no felons” policy.


“It’s about keeping the workplace safe, and about those lawsuits we all read about,” CEO Mark Lancaster says. In Michigan, a state that spends more on corrections than on higher education, smoking pot in a park or bouncing a $500 check can produce a felony conviction.


Like most employers, EmploymentGroup doesn’t have any empirical evidence that the “no convictions” policy helps keep the workplace safe. And screening vendors, who routinely claim that criminal checks reduce workplace violence, theft and fraud, don’t have any meaningful empirical evidence either. In addition, the actual probability of a negligent-hiring lawsuit—a perceived risk that often drives criminal screening practices—remains undocumented.


Employers spend billions on criminal checks and often base hiring decisions on the results without evidence of the return on the investment or the efficacy of the decisions. The absence of empirical evidence will soon become more than a question of effective screening and hiring practices.


Within the next 12 to 18 months, employers can expect to see the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issue new guidelines that require empirical evidence for the “business necessity” defense in racial discrimination cases that arise from screening and hiring practices, according to Rod Fliegel, a partner at Littler Mendelson in San Francisco. The new guidelines are likely to upend hiring policies based on untested assumptions about criminality and workplace behaviors.


Employers stand to benefit from the new guidelines, which may bring greater clarity to what is now a legal quagmire. In addition to the new guidelines, in September 2009 the EEOC filed the first lawsuit in what experts believe will be a new series of court actions on screening and hiring practices that may help define the empirical evidence federal courts will require.


Perhaps more important, the legal scuffle over empirical evidence will continue to kick up questions about the role of criminal screening in hiring and the extent to which employers find false comfort in a relatively cheap and easy—but unproven—risk management tool while neglecting more effective measures to reduce workplace violence, theft, fraud and employment-related lawsuits. While the screening industry continues to play to employer concerns about criminality and promote criminal checks as an effective countermeasure, broader forces are challenging those assumptions.


Evidence lacking
Sensationalized headlines about workplace homicides and inflated vendor claims paint a dramatic picture of workforce criminality and criminal screening as an effective risk-reduction practice. But when the EEOC demands that employers produce empirical evidence to support hiring practices based on these claims, the screening industry will not be in a position to assist.


“Background screening can create a safer workplace,” says Theresa Preg, director of marketing development for LexisNexis Screening Solutions, also known as ChoicePoint, which runs 12 million employment-related screens a year. But the company has no empirical evidence to back up the statement.


Vendors frequently cite statistics on workplace violence but fail to note that the vast majority of incidents are not perpetrated by employees but by criminals unconnected to the workplace, clients or customers, or outsiders who have a personal relationship with an employee. They also don’t say that there is no research indicating that employees with criminal records are more likely to commit acts of workplace violence. Another common vendor claim is that employee theft causes 30 percent of all business failures. Although the number has been reiterated in marketing materials for two decades, there’s no substantiation for it.


     “I don’t know of any actual studies or evidence of a decrease in fraud or theft tied to criminal checks,” says Jason Morris, president and COO of EmployeeScreenIQ, which runs more than half a million employment screens each year. “There are no hard reports or case studies, and the National Association of Professional Background Screeners hasn’t produced any.”


To construct new guidelines for screening and hiring, the EEOC will draw from testimony given in its November 2008 hearings and from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2007 decision in the case of El v. SEPTA, according to Fliegel, who represents employers and screening vendors. “The EEOC will look to the hearings and El, which talked about an empirical basis for comparing an applicant with a record with an applicant without a record,” he says. “Some scholarship is now focusing on this.”


Fliegel cites the work of Shawn Bushway, a criminologist at the University at Albany, who testified at the EEOC hearings that employers have elevated criminal-history records as the “trump card” in hiring decisions, instead of using more responsible statistical risk assessments. Increasingly, employers focus less on direct job-related employment and reference checks and skills evaluations and more on criminal records and credit checks.


Bushway’s research and other significant studies also indicate that criminal checks produce numerous false positives and false negatives, which is another issue of concern for the EEOC. In addition, new studies on recidivism challenge blanket policies that impose untested time frames, such as screening records for the previous seven years or barring employment for any conviction within the past five or 10 years.


In HireRight’s 2009 survey of screening practices, employers most frequently cited workplace safety as their motivation for screening. Almost half say they screen to reduce theft and fraud. But no research suggests that criminal checks can predict an employee’s propensity for workplace violence, and there is no evidence that criminal screening reduces theft or fraud.


Most fraud perpetrators, for example, do not have a record because they are first offenders, according to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. In addition, U.S. retailers commonly respond to incidents of employee theft by simply firing the employee, so no criminal record is generated.


To avoid hiring unprosecuted thieves, many retailers now pay to access private member-only databases, but these databases do not represent criminal adjudications and dwell in a gray area of the law.


“This is a cutting-edge issue,” says Scott Paler, a labor and employment attorney at Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago. “These databases are a collection of individual opinions about incidents. Legal issues about using these databases in hiring decisions hinge on individual state laws.”


Proxy for discriminatiion
While pressure is mounting at the federal level, the recession has forced state governments to take a closer look at the role employers play in the revolving door of recidivism that keeps prisons full and places already stretched state budgets in even greater peril. A number of states, including New York, Massachusetts and California, are tightening restrictions on screening practices and hiring bars.


At the EEOC hearings, experts reported that recidivism drops to extremely low levels for people who have stable employment during their first year out of prison. Employers that construct hiring barriers for millions of marginal nonviolent ex-offenders will find it increasingly difficult to remain compliant with federal and state regulations.


At both the federal and the state level, the issue centers on criminal checks and hiring bars as a proxy for employment discrimination against black men. Major studies have found that employers treat white job candidates with convictions differently from blacks with convictions. Morris is not surprised. “I’m sure it’s happening,” he says. “We always tell employers to make sure that they do the same screen with the same treatment for every candidate, but it’s happening out there.”


The 10 largest screening companies alone screen more than 40 million job candidates each year. Many invite employers to use grids or preset hiring criteria for processing criminal record results. “There are companies using a criminal check to screen all candidates and eliminate all those with a record,” Morris says.


At Administaff Inc., director of recruiting Mary Massad takes a far more measured approach. Administaff, based in Houston, is a heavyweight in the professional-employer-organization industry, with 110,000 work-site employees at 5,900 client companies. Screening candidates for client companies varies by industry and position, but Administaff counsels clients carefully about the process for making adverse hiring decisions. “We will not support a program that does not consider convictions on a case-by-case basis,” Massad says. “We do a lot of consulting with clients.”


The growing trend at the state level is to require screening and hiring bars for specific jobs, including many caregiver positions, and restrict screening and hiring bars in all others. Greater clarity in state legislation is likely to reduce the small but highly publicized number of negligent-hiring lawsuits that are filed each year, and minimize the even smaller number that center on criminal records.


New EEOC regulations demanding an evidence-based approach to screening may help hone more effective hiring practices and provide a safe harbor from negligent-hiring lawsuits. The criminal screening process now in place at many companies may be an expedient method for culling candidates, but employers with hiring bars may soon have to rely more on proven methods for mitigating risk: job-specific hiring policies, proper supervision and effective performance management.


Workforce Management, February 2010, p. 27-33 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on

TOOL Free E-book on Continuing Education in the Health Professions

The book, available free as a PDF, is published by the National Academies Press, which distributes reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, all operating under a charter granted by the U.S. Congress.


Here’s the summary for Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions:


“Today in the United States, the professional health workforce is not consistently prepared to provide high quality health care and assure patient safety, even as the nation spends more per capita on health care than any other country. The absence of a comprehensive and well-integrated system of continuing education (CE) in the health professions is an important contributing factor to knowledge and performance deficiencies at the individual and system levels.


“To be most effective, health professionals at every stage of their careers must continue learning about advances in research and treatment in their fields (and related fields) in order to obtain and maintain up-to-date knowledge and skills in caring for their patients. Many health professionals regularly undertake a variety of efforts to stay up to date, but on a larger scale, the nation’s approach to CE for health professionals fails to support the professions in their efforts to achieve and maintain proficiency.


“Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions illustrates a vision for a better system through a comprehensive approach of continuing professional development, and posits a framework upon which to develop a new, more effective system. The book also offers principles to guide the creation of a national continuing education institute.”


Workforce Management Online, February 2010 — Register Now!

Posted on

Annual Filing Shows Google Recruiters Took a Hit

Google Inc. may be the epitome of a recession-proof company, having earned sizable profits throughout the recession. But its workforce has not been so immune.


The Mountain View, California-based technology juggernaut reduced the size of its workforce—focusing in part on its recruiters—last year for the first time in its gilded corporate history, according to public filings and statements in 2009 by Google executives. Google also announced on its blog in early 2009 that it cut jobs in sales and marketing.


The company had 19,835 full-time employees at the end of 2009, compared with 20,222 a year earlier, it said in its annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12.


Google dipped to as few as 19,665 employees at the end of the third quarter.


A leaner Google said it improved the “discipline” of its hiring—a reference to layoffs within the company’s recruiting organization announced early last year.


Google was able to increase its net income compared with the same period to $1.97 billion in the fourth quarter of 2009, compared with $382 million at the end of 2008.


The company said in its annual report that “we expect to continue to invest in our business, including significantly increasing our hiring rate, and this may cause our operating margins to decrease.”


The company did not say whether it laid off employees or that the drop in headcount was the result of attrition. Google announced several small rounds of layoffs beginning at the end of 2008 and again in the spring of 2009, but in each instance the company added that it was going to continue to hire, only at a slower rate.


Among the first let go were contractors providing recruitment services, said Laszlo Bock, the company’s vice president for people operations, in a memo in January 2009.


Executives at Google had expressed concern about a brain drain as other technology firms poached its most talented employees.


According to published reports, Justice Department officials are investigating whether an informal agreement reportedly made among Google, Apple and others in the high-tech industry to not poach one another’s employees violates antitrust laws.


The Wall Street Journal reported last year that the company is developing an algorithm to determine which employees are most likely to quit.


Google made its initial public offering in the summer of 2004 with a workforce that totaled about 2,300 full-time employees. Google beefed up its recruiting efforts and went on a hiring spree over the next four years.


At the end of 2006, the company had 10,674 employees. The company’s headcount peaked at 20,222 full-time employees at the end of 2008.


—Jeremy Smerd


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

Manhattan Hotel Unveils High-Tech Videoconferencing Facility Designed to Help Reduce Travel and Training Costs

As business travel continues its long slump, Marriott International is ramping up a new high-tech videoconferencing service for sidelined road warriors.


The New York Marriott East Side is one of three Marriott properties to initially offer the service called Go There Virtual Meetings. The underlying technology is provided by AT&T and Cisco TelePresence.


A presentation of the service Wednesday, January 27, at the Lexington Avenue property connected hotel executives in Manhattan with colleagues at the Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and the Grosvenor House, a JW Marriott property in London. Those three properties are the first of 25 Marriott hotels to offer Go There Virtual Meetings. The demonstration also included Cisco executives in Santa Clara, California.


“It is a new revenue stream for us,” said David Marriott, COO of the hotel company’s Eastern region. “Many of our corporate clients have this technology at their headquarters.”


Marriott said he is not worried about cannibalizing his hotel room business because executives who participate in videoconferences or webinars were not coming to the hotel in the first place—not to mention that the fee for the service could exceed the cost of a room in some markets.


It costs $500 per hour to book a Marriott conference room equipped with the technology. And Marriott is sharing the expense of setting up the program with AT&T and Cisco. David Marriott said it is a $75,000 investment to build out a Go There Virtual room in a hotel.


In each of the rooms there are six chairs arranged around a curved conference table facing several large flat-screen panels. The executives who appear on the panels are sitting at an identical table, so that it looks as if they are seated at a large round table. The cameras are voice activated and follow whoever is speaking, allowing people to make eye contact.


Marriott said he expects people who book these rooms to spend money at the hotel on food and beverages.


“We see this as another reason to get people into our hotels, and once they are here, they’ll spend money at the property,” he said.


Cisco TelePresence and AT&T developed their product about three years ago and offer it around the world in about 700 locations at mostly large-company headquarters.


But Marriott International is the first hotel company to make such a significant investment in rolling out the service internationally, said Bill Archer, AT&T executive vice president of global strategy and transformation.


Workforce Management Online, February 2010 — Register Now!

Posted on

10 Social Media Commandments for Employers

With apologies to Shakespeare, who was quite the networker himself in Elizabethan times, to network or not to network is not the question. Social media is a fact of life for millions of people, so the real question is not whether we connect, but where and in what ways we should connect to benefit from online networking’s pluses and avoid its minuses. Because many, if not most, networkers are employees, the question is also how far employers can and should go to guide employees’ social networking activities to prevent or reduce employment-related problems.


Here are 10 social networking commandments for employers. If followed, they will enable employees to enjoy social media without employer static and interference:


1. Influence appropriate work-connected behavior and use by employees with a social media or networking policy. Privacy rights are gaining ground each day, particularly in employee-friendly states such as California and New Jersey. But rest easier, because employers have rights too. These include an employer’s ability to create and enforce reasonable policies to protect its employees, its property and its reputation from false or reckless actions by its employees. Reasonable and responsible employee use of social media starts with clear, work-connected policies, including a social media/networking policy, to frame acceptable and unacceptable e-behavior.


2. Use your social media policy to set employee boundaries. Every employer needs a simply worded social media policy to provide employees with practical guidelines to help prevent unthinking, harmful employee actions. Having no such policy is like having no curfew for teenagers. Few things are worse for employers or parents than hearing “You never told me that!” Tell your employees, nicely but firmly, what you expect from them.


3. Echo important employment considerations in your social media policy. Minimize accusations of being Big Brother. Assure employees that social networking can be wonderfully fulfilling. Like household appliances and tools that can cause death or serious harm, however, thoughtlessly using the Internet for social networking can cause serious harm to the company and our jobs. While socially networking, we must avoid:


• Illegal activity.

• Disclosing trade secrets or other confidential or sensitive information.

• “Watering down” patented or copyright-protected information.

• Harassing or otherwise being mean-spirited by spreading gossip—or even the truth—about others.

• Wasting our work time or that of others.


4. Consent for monitoring is crucial, but “sell” it to employees. Whether employers need to monitor should be a non-issue. “Playing ostrich” by failing to monitor invites a host of legal and public relations issues, because ignorance is not bliss and it’s certainly no legal defense. The only actual question is how an employer can monitor with the least legal exposure. The answer is obtaining employee consent to monitoring.


Obtaining signed or implied employee consent regarding the workplace use of social media is crucial to an employer’s ability to monitor employee use of social media and take action for unacceptable employee behavior. Monitoring employee use of social media without clear consent is like walking into a New York City bar with an unregistered handgun in the waistband of your sweatpants with the safety off. Things can happen, but nothing good.


Employees have options, as do employers. Among their options is to work for you or leave. They also have privacy rights that courts continue to recognize, refine and sometimes create. At work and beyond the workplace, however, employees can agree to and accept as reasonable the privacy standards that employers offer at the time of hire, or as a requirement for continued employment. Those most likely to agree to such standards—because they want employment—are job applicants. But when jobs are scarce, as they are now, existing employees can be equally “accepting.”


It’s not necessary for employees to consent in writing to privacy expectations. But written consent is easier to prove in case of a dispute or lawsuit. It’s also difficult, if not impossible, to deny. Obtaining written consent is easier from each applicant than all employees at one time.


Because obtaining signatures from a group is hard, implied consent for existing employees is the norm. It typically starts with an electronically and physically posted message to employees, announcing a change on a specific date for all employees. Employees who continue working after the effective date of the change have implied their consent. This form of consent works fine in most cases, unless, for instance, the change is forbidden in the work state. One example, from another employment-law arena, is a noncompete pledge that states such as California generally abhor.


Imagine the relative ease in defending your viewing of an employee’s Facebook page if you have this consent in hand:

If hired, I will comply with all Employer X policies, including, for example only, its non-disparagement policy and its social media policy. I encourage Employer X to monitor my compliance as it sees fit. I understand that monitoring can extend beyond Employer X-provided equipment and my at-work time to off-site social electronic sites such as MySpace, and to any Twitter or other social media account I maintain or visit. I agree, in advance, to provide Employer X with any needed password or other access to conduct employment-related monitoring.

To keep good and motivated employees, avoid force-feeding policies and coercing consent. That would only persuade more employable workers to defect to less draconian competitors. Note that even with consent, overbroad or intrusive monitoring will still spell trouble. To sell employees on a social media policy and obtain their consent:


• Provide examples of valuable, acceptable use of social media to encourage that kind of behavior.

• Alert employees to stories of how new Internet “friends” are not always who they say they are.

• Specify, with concrete examples, acceptable and unacceptable social networking.

• Minimize negative reactions by asking employees to reverse roles: “Imagine if an employee said this about you.”

• Specify easy-to-understand guidelines and require employees to meet them. Only then should you seek consent.


5. Always use the least intrusive search available. Once you have consent and before monitoring, decide how to monitor in the least intrusive way to seek needed information. In cases involving privacy issues, expect courts and juries to be offended and then punish employers that choose and use a more intrusive method over a less intrusive alternative.


6. Seek only necessary work-related information. An employer’s right to monitor and search extends only to information needed to protect its business and its people. Never seek other information.


7. Be yourself. Never pretend to be someone or something else to access and get information from a site. Violate this commandment, and you can brace for a lawsuit, and prepared to be called a predator—invoking the vision of a sexual predator to a jury—that is acting in violation of site-entry rules and federal and state electronic communication and other laws.


In 2009, for example, a federal court in New Jersey found that an employer, Hillstone Restaurant Group, had violated federal and New Jersey laws by accessing an invitation-only site by pretending to be an employee and using the password of an employee who had permission to be there. Read that decision here.


8. Know and obey applicable law. “Ignorantia juris non excusat” is Latin for, roughly, “Ignorance of the law does not excuse its violation.” It was smart advice in ancient Rome and it still applies. Laws that specifically or arguably apply to social media searches and monitoring include:


• The Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

• The National Labor Relations Act.

• State statutes that outlaw adverse employment action for engaging in off-work activities that are not unlawful.

• Constitutional and court-created privacy and similar personal rights.


Keep abreast of the reach and depth of all possible laws that apply to monitoring and avoid inviting a lawsuit by stretching the envelope.


9. Act to protect. Discovery of dangerous or damaging information on a site demands immediate and effective action tailored to the particular facts. That typically means requesting that the site remove the offensive information. This is often done simply by learning and using the particular site’s terms-of-use policy to your advantage. This can result in not only persuading the site to remove the posting but also to block future messages from the poster. Disclosing confidential information, “trashing” your products or services and significant accusations of wrongful behavior by other employees are examples of circumstances that often trigger removal.


If that effort fails, however, depending upon your policy and employee consent, approach the offending employee, if that person can be identified, and persuade him or her to remove the posting by offering lesser discipline for cooperation.


It may become necessary, however, to seek court relief. One example is when the sender is anonymous and the site manager or Internet service provider is unwilling to divulge the poster’s identity. Another situation that might require court action is when the site refuses to remove the posting.


It is also important, but less time-sensitive, to investigate who is at fault and, if it was an employee, what employment action is appropriate.


10. Be a bit paranoid. There is a fine line between being sensitive and just a little paranoid. You should cross it often to remain diligent, aware and—it is hoped—safe and secure in protecting your business, your fine reputation, your employees and their morale.


Maintaining and enforcing an effective social media policy, monitoring sites that your employees frequent and enforcing your policy when necessary are musts for survival in an electronic arena where a thoughtless, reckless or vicious electronic rumor can doom a business.


Workforce Management Online, February 2010 — Register Now!

Posted on

Workers’ E-Privacy at Issue

A Supreme Court case involving a police officer’s text messages may provide guidance on the limits corporate HR departments can impose on electronic communication. When employees walk into an office, factory or other business operation, one part of the U.S. Constitution generally does not apply to them—protection from unreasonable search and seizure.


 


The Fourth Amendment prohibits government intrusion. An employer, however, can review the contents of a purse or a desk. This spring, a Supreme Court ruling may help set a standard for how much electronic privacy workers can expect. The case that the court will review involves Jeff Quon, a police sergeant in Ontario, California. In 2002, Quon exceeded the 25,000-character limit for text messaging on a two-way pager issued by the department, which had a policy allowing supervisors to monitor e-mail messages and Internet usage. It was silent on texting.


When the chief of police investigated Quon’s text overage, he obtained transcripts of Quon’s messages from the city’s wireless provider and found that many of Quon’s communications were sexual in nature.


In a suit against the city, Quon and three colleagues argued that an informal policy allowed them to use their pagers for personal matters as long as they paid the overage fees.


A district court ruled that Quon could not expect to maintain the privacy of the messages on his department pager. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision, holding that the department’s review of the message content was “unreasonable in scope.”


For the first time in more than two decades, the Supreme Court will rule on a significant workplace privacy issue, says Kent Richland, a partner at Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland in Los Angeles.


“It may be the first time the Supreme Court makes the law crystal clear in this area,” says Richland, who will represent the Ontario Police Department before the high court.


The circumstances of the case may limit its application to the private sector. Fourth Amendment rights are more relevant when the employer is the government. The Supreme Court would have to issue a broad decision for it to directly affect corporate practices.


Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts “has made it quite clear that the court is going to adhere to the tradition of ruling on the narrowest grounds possible,” says Zan Blue, a partner at Constangy, Brooks & Smith in Nashville, Tennessee. “If they do that, they’re not going to touch on the issues affecting the private sector.”


For instance, a legal question more relevant to companies involves the extent to which employees have a right to privacy when accessing personal e-mail accounts from a work computer, Blue says.


“There are traces left on the hard drive,” Blue says.


Nonetheless, the case may still provide guidance to corporate HR departments on the limits they can impose on e-mail, texting and Internet use, according to Michael McAuliffe Miller, a partner at Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.


“You’re getting to the point where you have to review your technology policy as often as you change your phone provider,” Miller says.


Workforce Management, January 2010, p. 3 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on

The Trouble With Online References

Imagine that one of your managers receives a note via LinkedIn one day from a former colleague. The manager knows that Joe White has left your organization, but isn’t quite clear on the details, since the company’s announcement merely noted his departure without explaining it. The manager knows that Joe had once been quite a company asset, and he writes a dozen glowing lines about Joe’s contributions. He sends it back to Joe, feeling he has done a good deed.


It sounds innocent, and it could be. But it could also fuel a wrongful termination lawsuit. And it’s a good example of the collision that’s taking place in organizations every day. Social networking on sites like LinkedIn or Facebook isn’t going away. Employee lawsuits aren’t going away either. HR plays an important role in balancing these colliding forces and educating their managers in when a recommendation is safe—and when it’s not.


Whenever I speak on this subject, people sometimes tell me that lawyers have overblown the recommendation issue and that managers should be allowed to use common sense. I wholeheartedly agree: Lawyers usually overblow simple issues, and common sense should dictate managers’ behavior.


But also consider this: When people sue my clients’ companies, alleging sexual harassment, I search MySpace for the each of their names, and about half of the time I find these folks, posing provocatively and using sexually suggestive language, which in many cases undercuts the allegations made in their suits or impacts their credibility. Workers’ compensation claims investigators also check MySpace and accessible Facebook pages to see if supposedly injured employees are actually recuperating, or are out cavorting. Now imagine: Do you think your ex-employee’s lawyer isn’t trolling LinkedIn to see what your managers have to say about their client, and how their assessments square with your reasons for an employee’s termination?


According to a survey released in May 2009 by the Society for Human Resource Management, nearly 20 percent of employees use online professional networking sites such as LinkedIn and Plaxo, while 16 percent use online social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace and Friendster. LinkedIn, in particular, functions as both a job-search site and a networking site where laid-off workers can reconnect with—and get leads from—former colleagues and business contacts, including through a Recommendations function. In other words, your employees are quite possibly being bombarded with requests to recommend former co-workers. And it takes just a few keystrokes.


An employee’s reference on a social networking site could prove to be problematic in a number of ways. Here’s some background on the overall problem with giving references.


The original worrisome legal claim in the reference arena was defamation, also called libel or slander. This claim arises where a former employee alleges that a manager made an untrue negative comment in a reference check and it harmed him, usually in that he was rejected for a subsequent job. While these claims are often unsuccessful because of the need to prove that the comment was untrue and harmful, employees still bring plenty of defamation claims against former employers. Indeed, employees sometimes argue defamation against an employer that did not even give a bad reference, but merely refused to give a good reference. This is why you see many company policies that permit only neutral references.


Building upon a 2006 Supreme Court case that expanded the scope of retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, several courts have held that an employer’s negative reference could be the basis for a retaliation lawsuit. This line of cases worries employment lawyers, and HR departments, because it indicates that the risk of a retaliation lawsuit does not die once the employee walks out the door.


Any HR professional unfortunate enough to have lived through a discrimination lawsuit knows that the crux of a discrimination claim focuses on whether the employee can prove that the company’s reason for termination was a pretext, which, put bluntly, means that every discrimination plaintiff seeks to prove his employer is lying about the reason for the firing. As a result, savvy attorneys will search the Internet for any comment that is inconsistent with the company’s official message about the reason for the termination. For example: A plaintiff’s attorney representing Joe White, who was terminated for poor performance, will consider it pay dirt if she finds a LinkedIn recommendation by his manager stating that Joe White was the best employee he ever had.


An additional risk arises if the employee using a social networking site reveals specific confidential information that the company would not want in the marketplace or to be accessible by competitors. For example: An employer in the confidential development stages of a new product may have significant concerns if Jan Jones’ Facebook status read, “Finally finished the marketing proposal for our new sugar substitute. Now I can go to sleep!” While this fact pattern may come up less frequently, the consequences could be immediate and irreversible for the company.


There is no one right answer here. A company that has weathered one too many legal disputes may take the most cautious route, prohibiting managers from using a social networking tool to speak about work—at all, period. For some employers, especially those with high turnover and legions of former employees with axes to grind, this may be a perfectly reasonable business judgment.


But some companies wish to find a social networking and reference policy that allows managers to help their former employees without putting the company at undue risk of a legal claim. That may be a reasonable judgment too. If your company struggles with this balance, consider these points:


Ensure solid policies in the first place. Several clients have asked me for a “social networking policy,” but I usually feel that anything we draft on this topic will be out of date in six months. Instead, I ask them to review their existing policies on confidential information, references and Internet usage to ensure that they cover evolving technology. As you look at your practices, ask yourself: Have you made it clear that employees should not be speaking about company strategy or detailing their work projects without your approval? Do managers understand whether they are allowed to provide a reference for a former employee and, if not, what do they do if asked? The same policies will apply to social networking situations.
Protect proprietary information at all costs. Start with a policy on confidential information. Describe the types of information you expect employees to keep confidential and stress that this policy applies to their use of the company’s technology. When you find employees Twittering about internal company strife, badmouthing the company’s business choices on a blog, or recommending as brilliant the underperforming CFO you just fired, they may have violated your policy, even if the behavior did not rise to the level of violating the trade-secret law. They can, and often should, be terminated for this behavior.
Control the message. A common reference policy dictates that all reference requests should be directed to HR, and HR will provide only dates of employment, position title and salary. This is certainly the least legally risky policy, and one I endorse unless a company fully understands and is willing to absorb a bit of legal risk in the name of helping former employees. If, however, you would like to allow managers more leniency to provide references, education is key. They need to understand that those references could possibly show up again in a lawsuit and they would need to be prepared to defend their words as accurate and consistent with the company’s position.
Distinguish between company references and personal ones. For the most part, a company should not have the time or interest in policing its employees’ off-duty conduct, and some state laws even make this illegal. For this reason, many companies will clarify that managers may give a purely personal reference if they choose, but they should not speak as a company representative in order to avoid inconsistent messages and potential defamation claims. This solution may strike the best balance between a company’s legal risk and a manager’s desire to “just be human.” HR can provide helpful examples to assist managers in understanding this distinction.
For example, this reference may be problematic if inconsistent with other company documentation: “Joe has worked for me for 10 years. Most recently, we worked on the strategic pricing project and Joe came up with the BuyLo initiative that increased revenue by 10 percent. Joe was a favorite with internal clients.”
This reference, however, is probably beyond the purview of the company’s HR and legal departments and would not be a problem: “I have known Joe for 10 years. I have observed that he is energetic, enthusiastic and innovative.”
The social networking recommendation issue, like most others confronting HR professionals, is all about balancing risk. Many HR departments legitimately decide that allowing managers to provide any reference is not worth the exposure. Others are willing to absorb a bit of risk. Ensure that your leaders are well educated on how their words matter to make this common-sense decision.

Posted on

Dear Workforce How Should We Craft a Blog Policy for Employees?

Dear Not Big on Blogs:

When considering a blog policy, your company should focus on two key questions. First, is the intent of the policy to prevent employee action or to encourage communication? Second, do you have existing policies that are applicable to curb the negative behavior of employees?

Could the offending behavior be prevented through your corporate-conduct policies (often outlined in an official employee handbook)? Most conduct policies are clear about which behaviors are and are not acceptable. As such, these policies should be your first line of defense when reprimanding employees.

However, there is a positive purpose to creating a blog policy that lays the groundwork and defines parameters for employees. Outlining the dos and don’ts enables you to foster positive communication, idea sharing and collaboration through blogs, thus benefiting from your employees’ rich knowledge base.

Helping employees understand these guidelines encourages more effective blogging while spreading best practices throughout your organization.

Some issues to think about when developing a blog policy:

• Which type of communication is the company trying to encourage (or discourage) by using blogs? Or are you trying to reinforce collaboration and knowledge management?

• At what level are you seeking to encourage employee blogging?

• Are organizational best practices easily disseminated using an intranet or blog?

• Should blogs be used to help in recruiting?

A blog policy helps employees understand the importance of internal communication and provides a vital outlet for communicating messages outside the organization.

SOURCE: Michael Rudnick, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Stamford, Connecticut, November 16, 2006

LEARN MORE: Please read “Bloggers Find the Ax Is Mightier Than the Pen” for more coverage of this emerging topic.

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.

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

Tips and Best Practices Using Social Media to Support Change

Employers ignore social media at their own peril, especially during times of change. Social media comes with risks but also with great reward. Here are six best practices for using social media in change management.




Tips and Best Practices: Using Social Media to Support Change


1. Accept that social media happens—whether you like it or not. Get ahead of the wave and plan for it.Companies with highly effective communication programs are far more likely to have a documented social media policy and build executive and legal support in advance of change.
2. Have a clear purpose for your social media tools—use the right media in the right situation. Are you looking for feedback and ideas, and hoping to build collaboration around a change?

Without clear scope or intent, the audience can commandeer media for different purposes. Test or do a pilot of social media methods on small groups first to shape a successful program.
3. Segment your audiences. But don’t make the mistake of thinking social media is “just for kids.”
 		In the U.S., the average worker age is 41, and almost one-third of “Facebookers” are 35 to 49; almost a quarter are over 50. Statistics are similar worldwide.

While younger generations have high expectations for work technology, many veteran employees are surprisingly open to new approaches.

Be aware of pockets of employees who could use a little extra coaching to be as comfortable as possible with social media.
4. Assess audience impact to focus your resources on the stakeholders you need to actively support change.
 		In any change, there are critical stakeholder groups in the organization that can be your change leaders. Determine whether building a “social” community within those groups would help them embrace change and lead the way.
 
5. Plan, prioritize, pilot. Then monitor and facilitate. As with any effective change program, you need to have a strategy before you launch. Using social media will give you more immediate feedback, so plan to be flexible. Monitor the conversation and be part of it where appropriate.
 
6. Measure.

 		Not everyone will “talk,” but many will participate, even if they are just observers. Be sure to measure your efforts to capture both active and passive social media voices.

Organizations with highly effective communication programs use measurement to assess not only activity but also awareness, understanding and ultimately behavior change.

Sources: Watson Wyatt 2009/2010 Communication ROI Study Report; 2009 Forrester Research Study


Workforce Management Online, January 2010 — Register Now!