Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on October 30, 2006July 10, 2018

Ex-CEO of Monster Resigns From Board

Online jobs site operator Monster Worldwide Inc. said Monday, October 30, that chairman emeritus Andrew McKelvey has resigned after refusing to be interviewed by board members investigating the company’s past stock options practices.


The company said McKelvey’s lawyer told the special committee of the board reviewing stock option grants that he had declined to be interviewed on the last scheduled date and would not assure the committee that he would submit to an interview on another date.


Attorneys for McKelvey said he “misunderstood” questions asked by Monster’s independent counsel in July related to the options probe.


“During the time period relevant to your questions, he did not understand that it was improper for the exercise price of stock options to be different than the price on the grant dates,” wrote Manatt Phelps & Phillips attorney Steven Reich in a letter accompanying a Securities and Exchange Commission regulatory filing by Monster.


McKelvey, who founded the company in 1967, resigned as Monster’s chairman and CEO earlier this month, citing the “demands of time” needed to deal with the options probe.


The company is among some 120 companies ensnared in a widening stock option backdating scandal, which has shaken up more than a dozen companies in the New York area. Just last week, Comverse Technology Inc.’s former CFO, David Kreinberg, became the first executive to plead guilty to his role in backdating stock options at the Manhattan software services firm.


Meanwhile, Monster has been scrambling to maintain its No. 1 overall market share in the multibillion-dollar business of job listings by expanding in local markets. The company has been battling against entrenched rivals like Chicago-based CareerBuilder, as well as newer players like Craigslist.


–Catherine Tymkiw


This story originally appeared in Crain’s New York Business, a sister publication of Workforce Management, where Tymkiw is a reporter.

Posted on October 30, 2006July 10, 2018

The State of HR Technology Bumps in the Road to Going Global

To Freddye Silverman, going global with HR tech systems amounts to a major journey. Silverman is part of a team installing Oracle human resources software at Travelport, a new travel services company that will operate in at least 25 countries. The goal is to have a single source of trusted HR data worldwide for Travelport, which was part of the Cendant conglomerate and includes the Orbitz travel services Web site. Silverman hopes the system will save on costs and allow executives to analyze information quickly to make key business decisions. But the team has a ways to go, with hurdles including lengthy upgrades.


    Fixing bugs and making other improvements to the HR information system will require time-consuming patches for each language, such that the entire process can last a day or more. Having to pause operations for that long about once a month is far from ideal in Silverman’s view. “We’re counting on Oracle to make this more streamlined going forward,” says Silverman, who was vice president of human resources technology solutions at Cendant and now is working on Travelport’s HR technology initiatives.


    Travelport isn’t the only company wanting more from its HR technology when it comes to global plans. Many big multinationals want to establish consistent workforce management methods around the globe—to the extent possible given local laws and customs. Vendors of HR software systems promise to help them with worldwide rollouts, but the products available often leave much to be desired, with such issues as cumbersome navigation for users. What’s more, many applications lack features required to meet country-specific requirements, both legal and cultural.


    Recruiting software products known as applicant tracking systems aren’t always capable of accommodating the various ways job candidates apply for positions and the ways organizations outside the U.S. consider applicants, says recruiting consultant Gerry Cris­pin. The software may not be able to handle names when the format isn’t the typical Western approach of first name followed by last name, he says.


    “Applicant tracking systems cannot be configured to meet the broad range of recruiting practices that currently exist in our own country, let alone the vast cultural differences that exist between countries,” he says.


    Companies have had global operations for decades, but in the past several years many firms have increased their activities outside North America, and there’s been a bigger push to operate with uniform methods throughout the world. Consistency has taken on greater urgency for a number of reasons, including the ability to save money by cutting down on redundant back-office operations and multiple license fees for software applications installed on a single-country or regional basis.


    Organizations also find themselves eager to enforce standard worldwide practices to increase overall effectiveness, demonstrate good corporate citizenship or comply with regulations. The ability to data-mine is another benefit. A universal HR information system can allow a firm to get a tighter grip on real-time operations, see weaknesses such as gaps in needed talent and deploy workers more effectively.


    Computer giant IBM, for example, has created an application dubbed Professional Marketplace that tracks the skills, availability and billing rate of Big Blue tech professionals throughout the world. The system captures data for more than 90,000 IBM employees.


    At first blush, it might seem the software would be a tool to accelerate the shift of technology work to lower-wage nations such as India, where IBM employs thousands of computer professionals. But George Lockmer, project manager for the application, says Professional Marketplace instead cuts down on the time it takes for managers to assemble teams and prove to potential clients that IBM has the resources for projects needing people in multiple countries. That’s “the real opportunity,” he says.


    IBM hasn’t always seen such global capabilities in the commercial HR applications it has considered or used. In choosing a new learning management system recently, for example, it chose a product from Saba in part because the application stood out for its ability to track the training of employees worldwide. IBM recently decided to scrap a set of commercial applicant tracking systems it was using, largely because the applications were too slow to process the massive number of applications IBM receives around the world.


    IBM is putting in place a new applicant tracking system in the Asia-Pacific region and may use the same vendor for other regions as well, says Barbara Brickmeier, IBM vice president of HR on Demand—the company’s catchphrase for creating a quickly deployed and adaptive workforce. As it sought to replace sluggish software, Big Blue found that not all applicant tracking systems can work in all countries, Brickmeier says. On the other hand, she sympathizes with companies aiming to sell her their products, given that IBM does business in 140 nations and employs people in 70.


    “Serving IBM’s global needs is a challenge for many vendors,” she says.


Worldwide boom
    Human capital management applications are one of the fastest-growing areas of business software, and North America is the biggest market for the products. The region accounted for 59 percent of the $5.5 billion spent worldwide last year on human capital management applications and related services and hardware, according to research firm AMR Research. But other parts of the world are enjoying faster growth. Spending on HR technology in North America climbed 7 percent last year, compared with a 20 percent rise in Europe and a 22 percent gain in the Asia-Pacific region.


    From 2005 to 2010, revenue from HR technology in North America will increase 7 percent per year on average, AMR predicts. That compares with 11 percent in Europe, 18 percent in the Asia-Pacific market and 21 percent in Latin America.


    Many HR software vendors tout systems that can span the globe. SuccessFactors says its software is available in 15 languages and has users in 134 countries. Last year the firm, which sells a range of products including performance, compensation and succession management, updated its software to take into account data privacy laws in Europe. Its European customers needed an option to limit the ability of managers to view the personnel data of lower-level employees.



“Applicant tracking systems cannot
be configured to meet the broad range of recruiting practices that currently exist in our own country, let alone the vast cultural differences that exist between countries.”
–Gerry Crispin, recruiting consultant

    SAP, one of the industry’s biggest players, boasts that it has versions of HR applications tailored for 46 different countries. The latest is Colombia, added in February, says David Ludlow, SAP vice president of product management for human capital management applications. Among SAP’s capabilities is flexibility for how different regions and nations structure employee compensation, Ludlow says. Many South African operations want to include a car allowance, he said, while European divisions may offer employee loans as part of an overall package.


    SAP also has teams of people monitoring legal developments around the world, including federal rules and legislation at the state level. “We deliver legal changes every three weeks,” Ludlow says.


    Even the way SAP’s software looks has shifted to take into account global realities. Now that many large organizations are establishing HR service centers in lower-wage nations such as India and the Philippines, the people using SAP’s software may be new to the field. Also, turnover rates may be high, Ludlow says. So SAP created a simpler user interface for much of the software.


    “You can’t go through three-month training cycles,” he says. “It has to be easy to use.”


    SAP rival Oracle also says its HR applications are ready for global clients. Like SAP, it keeps tabs on legal changes around the world and updates its software to make sure clients are in compliance. The company also says that global installations of its Oracle E-Business Suite Human Resources Man­agement System require less patching than those of some competitors, where patches are necessary both for different languages and for country-specific versions, or “localizations.” Oracle’s product is designed so that separate localization patches aren’t needed.


    Silverman gives Oracle’s E-Business HR software high marks for blending a common underlying application with localizations that work for different countries. But she still worries about too much downtime in the system because of upgrades. Patches, she says, are typically distributed monthly. Also, “when you have to patch, you have to patch in every single language.” Those separate fixes can take three to five hours for each language, she says, and Travelport may eventually have 10 languages installed.


    Then there’s the matter of manager headaches when using the software. Silverman says Travelport is a heavily “matrixed” organization, meaning managers may have some responsibility for employees who don’t report to them directly—sometimes in other geographic regions. The structure of Oracle’s software simultaneously makes the helpful localizations possible but can frustrate managers with indirect reports, Silverman says. The application is set up around “business groups,” which may require managers to have multiple security profiles if they want to see data about indirect reports, she says.


    “The average user cannot navigate around the system easily,” she says.


    In a statement, Oracle responded that Travelport’s organizational structure is atypical, and that “the Oracle HRMS product is not the only product available today that has issues supporting this unique type of organizational structure.”


    Oracle also indicated Silverman and her crew have reason to believe their downtime will decrease. “[O]ur Oracle Support group has worked with other customer organizations to come up with workarounds that help solve and streamline these language patching issues,” the company said in a statement. “A few customers who have similar models to Travelport have experienced significant reductions in the amount of time it takes for language patches.”


Different applications, different challenges
    Some types of HR applications may be easier to install and use globally than others are. Learning management systems don’t have as many country-specific laws to worry about as do recruiting applications, says Abhas Kumar, senior vice president of strategy and integration for learning technology firm NIIT USA. Learning management applications, which typically track the training and certifications of employees, primarily need to display and accept multiple languages for global organizations, Kumar says. For languages such as Arabic and Chinese, he says, that requires what’s known as “double-byte” capability, a software feature that allows for characters more complex than those in the Roman alphabet used in English.


    “It’s not a trivial issue, but it’s been done” for NIIT products, he says.


    Recruiting technology systems, mean­while, often get dinged by observers for their global shortcomings. Shally Steckerl, who heads up research for the staffing department at software giant Microsoft, says recruiting applications can stumble on issues such as the legality of asking candidates certain questions about their background, translating salary information into the local currency and handling different address conventions in their data input fields.


    “The application should be able to flex” with differences around the globe, he says. “Some applications can’t flex.”


    To be fair, makers of HR technology systems face tough challenges. The field of human resources still lacks universal definitions for some basic metrics, including headcount and turnover. Compounding that problem is great variance around in the world in laws affecting employee management. Then there are different cultural beliefs that can run deep.


    Consultant Crispin says some parts of the world have fixed attitudes about which jobs are appropriate for a certain gender, race, ethnicity or age. Recruiters with such attitudes, he says, aren’t likely to take advantage of a cutting-edge recruiting application that slices and dices applicants’ experience, skills and attitudes. Instead, he says, they’ll use the tool only to fill out the application after they make the hire. “The ATS application then becomes an expensive Excel spreadsheet,” he says.


    The solution, in Crispin’s eyes, is not to customize the application to help search for candidate data not relevant to performance, but for the multinational companies to resolve the cultural gap between local approaches and international standards.


    As with physical journeys around the world, a little luck may be required when rolling out HR systems globally. Silverman, at least, is hoping for some good fortune as she and her colleagues try to smooth out the worldwide wrinkles at Travelport. “We’re crossing our fingers,” she says.


Workforce Management, October 9, 2006, pp. 29-32 — Subscribe Now!


Posted on October 30, 2006July 10, 2018

Talent Management Software Is Bundling Up

Bulk buying is in these days when it comes to talent management software. Just ask Christopher Faust, executive vice president of global strategy at HR application vendor Softscape.

    In 2003, about 50 percent of Soft­scape’s customers bought a single talent management product, such as a performance management or recruiting application. This year, Faust says, it’s a different picture: Roughly 90 percent of Softscape’s sales involve multiple products, which are typically linked. Wayland, Massachusetts-based Soft­scape expects to record sales of more than $40 million this year. “Instead of just buying performance management, they might also include some component of learning management or even succession planning,” Faust says.


    He isn’t alone in seeing talent management applications snapped up in pairs or more. It’s a broader industry trend, says Jason Corsello, analyst at market research firm Yankee Group. The main factor behind the buying shift, he says, is that organizations recognize they can make better use of their workforce data when they integrate applications such as performance and compensation management. “The suite approach is finally starting to take off,” Corsello says. “The true value is starting to resonate.”


    Troy Kanter, president of the human capital management division at HR software and services firm Kenexa, offers a case in point. By connecting applications, organizations can assemble profiles of successful workers from performance management software and then use those profiles in a recruiting application to guide their hiring, he says. Kenexa, which sells products ranging from pre-hire testing and applicant tracking software to performance management, succession planning and HR analytic tools, also is seeing most customers buy more than one application at a time. “Four years ago it was the exception,” Kanter says. “Now it’s the rule.”


    Talent management software refers to applications for tasks such as recruiting, performance management, learning management, compensation management and succession planning. These areas are considered strategic as firms recognize the value of employee contributions and try to make the most of their human capital.


    Just how vital talent management is to organizations was revealed in a joint study earlier this year by consulting firm Knowledge Infusion and the International Association for Human Resource Information Management, a professional society. In the survey, which polled members of the association, nearly 78 percent of respondents said they see talent management increasing in importance during the next three years.


    On the other hand, the study indicated companies have a ways to go in knitting together their HR software. More than 40 percent of organizations have little or no integration from either a process or technology standpoint, the survey found.


    The suite approach to buying might seem to favor the biggest players in the field—SAP and Oracle. These titans have long pitched a comprehensive and connected set of HR applications, including talent management products, as the best way to go.


    Even so, Oracle and SAP tend to be a step or two behind the smaller vendors that focus on a few talent management products, says Jason Averbook, chief executive of Knowledge Infusion. That’s because the giants have hundreds of products, including non-HR software products, to work on, he says. And customers in many cases want more functionality than Oracle and SAP can deliver, Averbook says. The big vendors “always catch up, but they’re never going to be bleeding edge,” he says.


    SAP and Oracle, for their part, argue that stitching together applications from multiple vendors is expensive. “While niche players may offer different features and functionality, none can provide the true business benefit realized from an integrated architecture,” Oracle said in a statement.


Workforce Management, October 9, 2006, p. 35 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on October 30, 2006July 10, 2018

Quirky Co-Workers Outstanding or Just Odd

You can choose your friends, but you can’t necessarily choose your colleagues.


    That leaves those who consider themselves normal sometimes having to witness unusual behavior that ranges from odd-but-benign to outright gross.


    There’s the mildly disturbing: an architect and boss whose desk is arrayed with souvenirs from his international travels, including a coiled, seemingly ready-to-strike snake (deceased) displayed in a foot-high glass jar. And then there’s the downright damaging: the senior-level executive who hung a bullwhip on a conference room wall and kept suggestive props on the conference table.


    “That was actually an indicator of what his behavior was like in the office,” says Julaine Flick, an executive coach who worked with the bullwhip-displaying executive.


    The props, an oversize screw and nut, were especially jolting: “That was not a very safe, welcoming environment for women to go in and do meetings,” says Flick, now principal at PowerStone Communications, a Chicago-based executive coaching firm. The executive was eventually fired.


    Quirky behavior can work well in the office and even buoy a career, given the right company and the right circumstances.


    “Rugged individualism can go pretty far in the workplace,” Flick says. “There really is a way where you can, whether it’s through dress or expressing yourself, be true to yourself so it works for you and the environment where you work.”


    She once worked at an advertising agency where the creative director would routinely hop on a conference room table and “almost yell” at clients. However, “he was in a creative environment and he was tremendously talented,” Flick says.


    Quirks backfire, though, when they overshadow professional accomplishments. Extremely odd behavior “can be so disruptive to the environment … somebody teased, people sending nasty e-mails—that’s a very unhealthy environment,” says Judith Glaser, the New York-based author of The DNA of Leadership. “It’s an abuse of the time at work. It’s really distracting.”


    Possible motivations for quirky behavior: Either rebellion against a cookie-cutter environment or a calculated “look at me” ploy. Unusual behavior “can bring management’s attention to you,” Glaser says. Plus, “too much sameness bothers some people. An iconoclast says, ‘Accept me for who I am.’ “


    Some companies try to discourage gossip-producing behavior by dictating what employees can display in their workspaces; usually, the choice is limited to corporate-approved art. Restrictions on the display of personal items have risen with the popularity of open office design, says Jennifer Berman, managing director for training and human resource practices in the Chicago office of Cbiz Inc., a Cleveland-based consulting firm.


    “They don’t want the clutter and they don’t want to have to police it,” Berman says of personal effects such as family photos. Yet such restrictions don’t go over well with employees. “Most companies that go that far are often very structured and rigid in other ways.”


Offbeat boss
    Of course, if the top executive is an eccentric, all bets are off. “Sometimes, the iconoclast is the person in charge,” Berman says.


    That’s the case with Scott Sarver, principal at DeStefano & Partners Ltd., a Chicago-based architecture firm, who has the coiled snake on display.


    “I have many strange things on my desk,” Sarver says. “It’s an interesting topic when people come into my office.”


    The snake was a gift from a client in Hanoi, Vietnam. Along with other souvenirs from business trips to Asia, it’s on the desk “to remind me that things are different everywhere,” says Sarver, 45. “Working internationally … inspires me to think differently about projects.”


    Sarver notices when first-time visitors to his office spot the snake.


    “I’m talking to someone for the first time … their eyes wander, and they stop talking.”


    How does the snake come off from the other side of the desk? “Scott can be an intimidating guy at times,” says Matt Snoap, a junior architect at DeStefano & Partners. “The [snake] is in an intimidating position in the bottle. It doesn’t ease your tensions.”


    Dealing with a quirky boss is one thing; handling quirky colleagues is another. The most popular tactic: ignoring odd behavior unless it goes too far.


    Michelle Quinn and her colleagues at a Chicago-area newspaper did their best to ignore a co-worker whose foibles included leaving a mound of used dental floss on his desk.


    “We laughed about him,” says Quinn, who is no longer with the paper.


    It helped that he did his job well. But after one outburst, “he got a talking-to, and they told him to get rid of the dental floss.”


    Sally Hodge, owner of Hodge Communications, a Chicago-based marketing firm, fired an employee after an array of behaviors proved irritating.


    “He sat at his desk and chewed with his mouth open,” Hodge says. “I just couldn’t stand him.”


    Other quirks included telephoning or e-mailing Hodge rather than walking the five feet to her office and, more seriously, his open disdain of the company.


    “He didn’t play well with others,” Hodge says. During a review, she told him she expected his behavior to improve by August. “He said, ‘Well, I guess I’ll be gone at the end of August.’ “


    Hodge adds that during interviews for the job, the employee did and said nothing to reveal his strange side: “He was charming.”


Successfully strange
    Great talent or a lofty title can excuse an array of odd behaviors. When she was working at a Chicago law office, Jennifer Sara Levin and her colleagues ignored a partner who, every Friday afternoon, stood in a hallway and sang loudly.


    “Whatever song came to his head–‘Happy Birthday.’ And his children were young, so the alphabet song and nursery rhyme songs,” says Levin, now owner of Chicago-based Nate & Dot Image Consulting.


    No one ever said anything, however, because the man was a partner and a “major generator” of business. Those two factors also excused another partner, who dressed as though he hadn’t bought anything new in “20 or 30 years,” she says. A favorite outfit for client meetings was a lumberjack shirt, sports coat with worn elbows and shoulders and faded navy Dockers.


    “He was a rainmaker, too,” Levin says. “In my experience, you can be however you want if you generate business. If not, you’d better follow protocol.”


Lisa Bertagnoli is a reporter for Crain’s Chicago Business, where this story originally appeared.
 

Posted on October 29, 2006July 10, 2018

Firms Tapping HR Experts for Pay Committees

Determining the pay of top executives has become a high-profile, high-stress job for compensation committees at many public companies. First there was the outrage over CEO perks. Then came the stock-option backdating scandal, which last week claimed UnitedHealth Group CEO William McGuire.


Now companies are wrestling with new Securities and Exchange Commission rules requiring them to more fully disclose how they pay executives and show how their compensation is tied to performance.


As a result, boards of directors are finding it harder to fill positions on their compensation committees, consultants say.


“People are calling them the new audit committee,” says David Swinford, a managing director at Pearl Meyer & Partners, a New York-based compensation consultancy. Audit committees are responsible for making sure all of the company’s financial reports and SEC filings are correct—a particularly onerous task in the wake of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


“Just like with the audit committees, today if a compensation committee makes a mistake, there are tremendous repercussions,” Swinford says.


Given the heightened sensitivity about compensation, more boards of directors want at least one individual with an HR background on the compensation committee, says Russell Miller, practice leader at Executive Compensation Advisors, a New York-based subsidiary of Korn/Ferry International.


Based on the most recent proxy reports, Heidrick & Struggles, a Chicago-based executive search firm, estimates that 80 board seats among Fortune 500 companies are held by individuals with significant HR experience. That’s up from 62 in 2003.


The pool of candidates for compensation committees has shrunk because of the time it takes to do the job, coupled with heightened scrutiny of their work, says Clint Allen, chairman and CEO of A.C. Allen & Co., an investment banking consulting firm and a member of compensation committees at five companies.


“Five years ago, we used to meet in person or over the phone about four times a year,” he says. “Today, eight to 12 times a year is pretty standard.”


Traditionally, compensation committees hoped to find current CEOs to fill spots, but that’s becoming impossible, given the time requirements and sensitive nature of the discussions, experts say.


“Today, current CEOs won’t sit on more than one board, if any,” Allen says.


With the increased sensitivity regarding objectivity among compensation committees, some companies are steering away from bringing on active CEOs because they may be perceived as having a vested interest in keeping executive compensation levels high, says Charles Peck, a consultant at the Conference Board.


And directors can no longer turn to friends or former colleagues, Swinford says. “Anything that could be perceived as cronyism falls under harsh scrutiny,” he says.


Just tapping former CFOs or accounting partners with the financial and accounting background isn’t enough in today’s environment, Miller says. “Boards want members with specific functional expertise due to the heightened scrutiny,” he says.


Miller says he has seen many more HR executives serve on compensation committees during the past few years. “But it’s not limited to HR professionals,” he says. “Compensation committees want anyone with hands-on HR experience, so that could include line managers who have been involved in the process.”


—Jessica Marquez

Posted on October 26, 2006July 10, 2018

Is Travel Time Compensable

Aztec Well Servicing Co. employees were encouraged to ride together to their eight-hour shifts because specific kinds of vehicles were required to access the work sites. Because of safety procedures and limited parking, it was easier for an entire crew to access work sites together.

The employees argued that they were entitled to overtime for their commuting time because they met at a company-designated location, brought safety equipment and paperwork with them, purchased food and beverages for their shift at the convenience store where they met, and often talked about work-related matters during their commuting time in the car.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver held that the Portal-to-Portal Act, which is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act, did not require that these employees be paid for the time they spent commuting because they were permitted to eat, sleep, listen to the radio or choose not to participate in the car pool. According to the court, commuting is only covered by the federal overtime law if the travel is an integral and indispensable part of the employee’s principal activities. Smith v. Aztec Well Servicing Co., 10th Cir., No.04-2153 (9/12/06).

Impact: Employees who are required to carry their safety equipment during their commuting to and from work, obtain food and drinks for their shifts, and discuss their jobs during their commuting are not necessarily performing integral and indispensable “principal activities” warranting overtime pay.

Posted on October 26, 2006July 10, 2018

Face of the Future The Aging Workforce

Nadine West is a living, breathing rebuttal to predictions of a massive U.S. labor shortage in the near future.


    West is 73, sells homeowner and automobile insurance for a unit of financial services company First Horizon National Corp., and has no plans to retire anytime soon. What keeps West on the job is the sense of community she finds in her Memphis, Tennessee, office, as well as the satisfaction of making a difference.


    Most people know very little about insurance, says West, who has spent four decades in the industry. “I enjoy helping and leading them.”


    There are other people like West in her company, her industry and in the U.S. economy. They are part of the reason why the alleged lack of talent looming from the aging of America is more a bogeyman than a legitimate worry for many companies.


    Peter Cappelli, management professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, likens alarms about a talent famine to breathless warnings from information technology professionals that computer systems could fail catastrophically when clocks rolled over to January 1, 2000.


    In retrospect, of course, the Y2K hype was overblown. With that example in mind, the current sky-is-falling labor predictions could easily be called Gray2K.


    It is true that in 2014, some 78 million baby boomers will fall between the ages of 50 and 68. But partly because many of them will work beyond the age of 55, the U.S. labor force will continue to grow during the next eight years, according to government projections. Other factors helping to soften the blow of baby boomer retirements include immigration and the prospect that U.S. companies will send more work offshore.


    The real question surrounding the U.S. labor force in the next five to 10 years is where tightness in specific talent markets might emerge. Already some industries, occupations and geographies are showing signs of a squeeze.


    Companies should pay close attention to the talent trends affecting their firms or industries, Cappelli says. On the other hand, he says firms would be wise to tune out the doomsayers.


    “The claim that there’s something about the demographics of the United States that will cause a labor shortage is wrong,” he says.


    The claim may be wrong, but Gray2K is everywhere. Consultants and vendors of HR technology frequently forecast a desperate battle over employees as they pitch their products or services.


    “Everyone is preparing for the impending war for talent as our population ages and people begin leaving the job market,” reads a recent promotional piece from recruiting software firm iCIMS.


Crisis mode
    Among the loudest voices sounding a Gray2K labor shortage alarm is consultant and author Roger Herman, who preached the importance of keeping good employees during the economic downturn in 1990. In 2003, he co-authored a book titled Impending Crisis: Too Many Jobs, Too Few People.


    The book’s cover jacket displays a chart purporting to show a shortage of 10 million workers by 2010. That figure comes from the difference between what the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projected as the civilian labor force in 2010 and the number of jobs it estimated for that year.


    The BLS’ most recent projections show a smaller difference of 2.4 million between the two figures for 2014. In any event, the bureau explicitly warns that these figures are not strictly comparable. Norm Saunders, coordinator for research projects in the BLS’ projections program, says one problem in mixing the two data sets is that people can hold more than one job. But he’s not surprised the figures have been misrepresented.


    “If it’s a good sound bite, some people will run with it,” he says.


    Saunders says shortages in the U.S. labor market tend to be short-term and isolated, thanks to the laws of supply and demand: Wages rise in the area lacking enough workers, drawing new people into the field. He also says the overall labor force can increase beyond the BLS’ projections. A jump in wages could reverse a decline in the share of men in the workforce as well as accelerate the rate at which women are joining. Saunders also says immigration, which is assumed in U.S. Census Bureau population projections to be 900,000 documented immigrants arriving in the states each year, could be higher.


    A larger percentage of older people have been working than in the past, with the trend likely to continue. Plus, Saunders adds, work at U.S. organizations in many cases can be sent to other countries. That’s been happening in growing numbers of service fields, including banking, software and travel services.


    As a result, Saunders has a dim view of any looming wide-scale lack of talent.


    “My sense is, it doesn’t exist,” he says. “There are lots of different ways for the supply to grow to meet the demand.”


    Herman concedes that the bureau’s projections for the labor force and jobs are “apples and oranges.” Yet, he says, the numbers nonetheless point to trouble ahead in hiring.


    “We don’t know if the shortage is 10 million or 14 million or 8 million,” Herman says. “The key is, we’re going to have a multi­million-person shortage of skilled workers.”


Science, health care worries
    Many in corporate America share the labor shortage concern. Semiconductor giant Intel believes a U.S. labor shortage is coming, especially in the sciences. It’s particularly true for people with master’s degrees and doctorates in fields such as physics, chemistry and engineering, says Robin Renowden, who heads Intel’s global college recruiting activities.


    Attitude is part of the problem, he says. Americans of college age aren’t willing to stick it out to get advanced degrees in the sciences even if good jobs await them a decade later, Renowden says. “Nobody’s got that long-term focus anymore,” he says.


    Worldwide, the 100,000-employee company in recent years has been hiring 2,500 to 3,000 people a year directly out of colleges and universities. About 60 percent of those hires have earned advanced degrees, and roughly 50 percent of the hires are in the United States. Despite a move to cut 1,000 management positions, Intel expects to continue hiring newly minted doctorates and master’s and bachelor’s degree holders in the years ahead. With the advanced-degree holders in particular, Intel wants experts to do such things as improve manufacturing methods and create advanced computer chip designs.


    But Renowden says the company worries about both a lack of highly trained American scientists and fierce competition for a limited number of H-1B guest worker visas, which can be used to import technical talent for up to six years. The annual cap on H-1B visas is 65,000, down from a high of 195,000 earlier this decade. The H-1B program makes an exception each year for up to 20,000 foreigners with advanced degrees from U.S. universities.


    About a third of those receiving doctorates in science and engineering from U.S. universities are foreigners. But stricter immigration rules instituted after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, combined with greater opportunities elsewhere, may be making the U.S. less attractive to top students around the globe. A report this year from the National Science Foundation said that while the United States remains the predominant destination for foreign students, the U.S. share of foreign students has declined in recent years.


    Some labor advocates argue for limited use of foreign scientists in the U.S. workforce. According to this view, U.S. students would have a greater interest in physics and computer science doctorates if fewer foreign scientists were admitted to the country and wages rose in the field.


    Not everyone agrees there’s a scarcity of scientists and engineers in America, or that one threatens. Donna Fossum, senior policy analyst at the Rand Corp. think tank, co-wrote a 2004 report finding no evidence of shortages of scientific, technical, engineering and mathematics personnel in the U.S. workforce since 1990. And future shortages appear unlikely as well, according to the report.


    Fossum still does not see signs that a shortage of technical talent is looming. Assessing the nation’s supply of science and technical workers is complicated, she says. New trends suddenly emerge, such as the growing importance of encryption and other security systems.


    “We’ve got a quickly moving target,” Fossum says.


    Health care, by contrast, seems certain to be hit by labor pains. By 2020, 44 states and the District of Columbia are expected to have shortages of registered nurses, according to a 2002 report by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration. For many health care organizations, the crunch has already arrived. An April report from the American Hospital Association trade group found that 118,000 registered nurses were needed to fill vacancies at U.S. hospitals.


    Physical therapists, occupational therapists and pharmacists also are in short supply, says Kevin Scanlan, chief executive of the Metropolitan Chicago Healthcare Council, a group that represents about 140 hospitals and health care organizations in the Chicago area. The aging of America amounts to a “double whammy” on the health care workforce, Scanlan says. That workforce is growing older and retiring just as the demand for hospital, clinic and home care services is taking off thanks to baby boomers’ increasing health needs.


    There are some 4,000 registered nurses graduating annually in Illinois, a number that must climb to 6,000 by 2010, Scanlan says. Chicago-area health care leaders are working to increase the capacity of nursing schools and drum up interest among K-12 students. But Scanlan is far from certain that a labor crisis will be averted.


    “I see our needs as potentially the greatest in any workforce segment that I’m aware of,” he says.


Skilled manufacturing
    Advanced manufacturing is another field facing a talent squeeze. A 2005 survey of 400 U.S. tool-and-die and machining companies found that skilled job openings equaled 4.7 percent of total skilled shop employment. The National Tooling and Machining Association trade group and machine tool maker Charmilles Technologies, a unit of Switzerland-based AgieCharmilles, published the report.


    Harry Moser, president of AgieCharmilles’ U.S. operations, says the key battle for U.S. manufacturers is to convince young people that they can earn as much, if not more, as a machinist or mechanic as they can as an office worker armed with a liberal arts bachelor’s degree. The best preparation for skilled manufacturing work, he says, is an associate’s degree with an apprenticeship or other technical training.


    “It’s a question of perception,” he says. “A technical A.S. (associate’s degree in science) and apprenticeship may not give you the prestige of a four-year degree, but will probably give you a better outcome.”


    Jay Doherty, a consultant with Mercer Human Resource Consulting, says a variety of industries that rely on experienced or credentialed professionals could be facing shortages during the next decade. It takes years, he says, for workers to get prepared and proficient in fields such as heavy manufacturing, mining, and oil and gas. “For those industries, it is a real concern,” he says. “You can’t just turn the hiring spigot on and off.”


    Mercer research has found that 20 percent to 25 percent of a key workforce in the oil and gas industry—the roughly 2 million people worldwide holding jobs in refining, exploration and production—are or very soon will be eligible for retirement.


    But those graying geologists and petroleum engineers aren’t necessarily going to quit suddenly and head for the golf course. At Baker Hughes, which sells drill bits, valves and other products and services to oil and gas firms, a substantial portion of the company’s 15,000 U.S. employees are of the baby boom generation, says Jim Wilhite, director of global human resources.


    “I just don’t see a lot of people retiring,” he says.


    Wilhite notices a similar trend in the broader oil and gas field. It has to do with accelerating exploration and extraction efforts, driven partly by China’s growing thirst for oil.


    “There’s a lot of excitement in the industry right now,” he says.


    With a current headcount of about 32,500 people worldwide, Baker Hughes has ambitious hiring plans. The Houston-based company aims to add 4,000 to 5,000 employees annually during the next several years. About 35 percent of the new hires will occur in the United States.


    It’s challenging to find enough U.S. workers with expertise in fields such as mechanical, petroleum and chemical engineering, Wilhite says. Still, the company has been hitting its U.S. hiring targets thanks to partnerships with schools such as the Colorado School of Mines and Texas A&M.


    A big question mark for the oil and gas industry is whether productivity gains in the field will continue at their historical level of 3 percent to 4 percent annually, Mercer’s Doherty says. “That probably is the key for some of these companies in terms of whether they’ll face a severe labor shortage in the next five years,” he says.


    Whether companies will face labor shortages in coming years may turn on how well they cater to older workers. By 2014, more than 20 percent of workers will be 55 or older, according to the U.S. Labor Department. That compares with 16 percent in 2004. Some firms are already taking steps to appeal to the graying set. First Horizon, for example, offers various flexible work options, including the possibility of working 20 to 32 hours a week without losing full-time benefits.


    Employee West appreciated the company’s flexibility about a year and a half ago, when heart bypass surgery kept her away from work for three and a half months. When you’re older, West says, “you don’t know when your health will be a problem.” Twenty-one percent of First Horizon’s 12,491 employees are over 50, and the Memphis-based firm earned a spot on advocacy group AARP’s list of the top 10 employers for workers over 50 in 2005 and 2006.


    Those who warn of a coming talent war often call for steps that seem to be sound no matter what the state of the labor market: become an employer of choice; use technology for better recruiting, employee performance management and succession planning; increase training budgets.


    But in Cappelli’s view, company officials who sound the alarm about an epic, demographically driven labor shortage are likely to suffer in the long run, as will their pet initiatives.


    “I’m not sure the IT people, after Y2K, benefited a lot from their arguing that ‘Oh my gosh, the sky is falling!’ ” Cappelli says. “They lost a fair amount of credibility on Y2K.”


Workforce Management, October 9, 2006, p. 1, 22-26 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on October 26, 2006July 10, 2018

A Few Practical Tips on Responding to a Discrimination Charge

As an attorney who has spent a large part of his career preparing responses to discrimination charges, I have come to the conclusion that with some legal guidance or oversight, a non-attorney in most cases can prepare an effective response. Indeed there are some large companies that leave this work to their human resources departments, with only some oversight guidance as requested from the legal department or outside counsel.


    This article will discuss some practical tips that can generally be applied by an attorney or a non-attorney in handling responses to discrimination charges. As I would advise against using any legalese in responding to a charge, this article will avoid those references as well.


The charge
   Don’t panic when you receive a discrimination charge. Most people practicing in this area, including the investigators, would agree that the large majority of the charges filed will be found to be “without reasonable cause”, meaning that the investigating agency will determine there are insufficient facts to support the allegations.


    Unfortunately, that will not make your job any easier. You will still need to conduct a thorough investigation and prepare a credible response. If the charge does have merit, as discussed below, there are various options to consider. Occasionally a charge will not include enough facts to enable you to determine the basis for the allegations, in which case you should send a letter to the investigator asking for additional information.


    There is a “Notice of Charge of Discrimination” that accompanies the charge and commonly includes a very short response deadline. You should feel free to promptly request an extension of time for your response when you receive the charge; a 30-day extension is commonly granted.


Timely filing
   Although in recent years the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency responsible for investigating charges, has improved its pre-screening processes, occasionally a charge will be processed for investigation even though it was not filed on time. This can be determined by reviewing the Notice of Charge of Discrimination. On the federal level and in most states, the charge must be filed within 300 days of the alleged incident, and a box in the notice will include the date the incident occurred.


    If you determine that the filing date is more than 300 days from the date of the incident, the charge should be time barred and you should send a letter to the investigator explaining those circumstances. If the agency insists that you are mistaken, you should insist that they explain their position in writing and should include in your response an explanation that the charge is time barred.


Your investigation
   Ideally, an investigation should have been conducted at the time the employee complained about being discriminated against by following the employer’s complaint procedure. If that did not happen, upon receipt of the charge it will be necessary that you and your team conduct a prompt, thorough and objective investigation to determine what happened. Doing it right is very important to effectively respond to the charge or to determine whether a settlement should be explored.


    Ideally, the person conducting the investigation should not be an attorney. Many courts have ruled that the attorney-client privilege is lost when the attorney puts on the investigator’s hat. Rather, to maintain the privilege, the person making the investigation should report everything to the attorney by correspondence that clearly indicates the information is confidential and attorney-client privileged.


    Witnesses should be asked to prepare a statement in their own words and sign and date it. This will preserve their testimony and can be used to support the response. The agency will sooner or later request information on whether other employees have been affected by the same or similar actions of the employer, including their EEO status (race, religion, sex, age etc.).


    You should obtain and carefully consider how that information will be interpreted by the agency. In a termination case, you will need to determine whether other employees who engaged in similar conduct were also terminated. If the information is in your favor, or at least neutral, you can submit it as part of your response. If the information could be interpreted as evidence of discrimination, you might want to consider the settlement approach.


    Please keep in mind that an intent to discriminate need not be found, and it is only necessary for the agency to determine that it appears more reasonable than not that the information on its face demonstrates that discrimination occurred. Take special note that it is a criminal offense to intentionally or recklessly destroy relevant evidence after a charge has been received.


Window of opportunity (“Ya gotta know when to fold ’em.”)
   After you have conducted your investigation and before you have submitted your response, there is an opportunity to determine whether to proceed with the investigation or whether to explore the possibility of settlement. Some companies attempt to settle every charge regardless of merit, which can create a reputation for being a pushover and motivate additional charges. Other companies play it tough and in most cases will go through the investigation and if necessary litigate every case, which can be a very expensive and time-consuming burden from both a legal and an administrative standpoint.


    A middle ground, which I prefer, is to choose your own battles based on the merits of the case. If there is something to worry about, and most likely this would be the appearance of discrimination based on the circumstances, it may be very worthwhile to consider negotiating a settlement.


    At this point you may have the advantage of the government investigator not knowing what you know, and given their large caseload, most investigators will welcome and encourage any effort toward settlement. If you decide to proceed with the investigation, you should be very comfortable with the facts and confident there are no smoking guns. Another option to consider would be participation in the EEOC’s mediation program.


    Both you and the complainant must agree to enter into mediation. One real danger is the possibility of inadvertently disclosing information to the complainant. Otherwise, information disclosed to the mediator is confidential and will not be shared with the EEOC.


    Another drawback is the fact that usually the complainant is convinced that he or she is entitled to a large monetary sum that is unrealistic, and the session may prove to be a waste of time. If the complainant is represented by counsel, you should also be.


Your response to the charge
   Your response is commonly referred to as a “position statement”. You will be required to respond to the charge and also to an attachment that is referred to as the “Request for Information.” The Request for Information is a list of information/documentation that the investigator considers relevant to the charge.


    It is not uncommon for the investigator to follow a form that is utilized for certain types of charges without any reference to the actual charge itself and which includes a request for everything but the kitchen sink. The information you provide at this point is up to you, and you can choose information or add information that is considered to be evidence in your favor, even though it has not been requested.


    Likewise, it is not necessary that you provide all the information or documentation requested, which is usually unduly burdensome, but rather only the information or documentation that you consider in good faith to be relevant to the charge. Although the EEOC and most state agencies have subpoena power and can obtain a subpoena by going back to their office, they will rarely do that if they recognize you are making a good-faith effort to respond to the charge and the Request for Information.


    Although there are different approaches to preparing a response and some attorneys, in my opinion, overdo it by drafting what is essentially a legal brief, my preference is to prepare a narrative response that is as simple as possible. Overly lengthy responses or responses that cite cases are very rarely seriously reviewed by the investigator.


    A brief, concise response, on the other hand, will be more favorably received by investigator, will probably be considered more credible and will put you off on the right step. You should keep in mind that unless you can produce credible, persuasive evidence such as witness statements and the comparative information discussed above, the investigating agency will usually believe the complainant’s version of what happened.


The agency’s investigation
   The investigator should be treated with courtesy and the respect due an officer of our government. I have been continually impressed with the quality of their work, which is usually done under very difficult conditions, such as a very large caseload.


    Although sometimes it may not seem that they are being objective, in most cases they make a good-faith effort to be unbiased. More important, a good relationship with the investigator, which should be mutually cooperative, can only help your chances of obtaining a favorable outcome.


    After the investigator has reviewed your response, it is very often necessary for the investigator to request additional information. You should respond to that request in good faith, but keep in mind that you still have the right to question the relevance or the scope of the information requested.


    It is also possible that the investigator will want to speak to the witnesses. At this point many companies will rely on an attorney to step in. When these so-called “fact-finding conferences” are scheduled, it usually means that things are getting serious. You or the attorney must participate in the conference whenever it is to provide support for your witnesses and to offer any clarification or additional information that may be necessary.


    You might find that these conferences soon turn into a strong-arm effort by the investigator to obtain a settlement. Depending on the circumstances and how strong your case might be, this approach can act in your favor by resulting in a low-dollar settlement. Before attending a conference, you should determine from your employer whether a settlement will be seriously considered–and if so, a dollar range.


    Most important, never fabricate or even shade the truth. If you are caught doing that, regardless of the merit of your case, the investigation will become very aggressive and an adverse determination will be more likely.


    That does not mean however that you are required to disclose every fact at your disposal. By law, however, you must honestly respond to inquiries that are made by the agency as long as the investigation proceeds and there is no effort to settle.


The agency’s determination
   After its investigation is complete, the agency will issue a determination that is usually in the form of either “insufficient evidence to conclude that discrimination took place” or that there is “reasonable cause to believe that discrimination took place.”


    If a reasonable-cause determination is issued, the EEOC and most state agencies will take the position that they will file a lawsuit against the respondent unless the case is settled. This development is, of course, a substantial advantage to the complainant because the respondent must then seriously consider whether to litigate the case at a substantial expense or attempt to settle the case prior to litigation.


    The approach that is then chosen by the respondent will vary depending on the client’s litigation philosophy and will probably also be based on a review of the case by an attorney to determine the likely outcome if the case is litigated. If an insufficient-evidence determination is issued, on the federal level and in most states the complainant gets “another kick at the can” and is still able to file a lawsuit in court within 90 days after the determination is issued.


    However, it is very rare for a lawsuit to be filed after an insufficient-evidence determination because many attorneys do not wish to waste their time on pursuing cases that may lack merit. Also, many complainants do not wish to expend any personal funds to pursue their case. That is the reason it is so very important to prevail or settle on the agency level.


    Even after a reasonable-cause determination is issued, you should feel free to discuss the findings with the investigator and to possibly point out evidence that may have been overlooked. You can also follow with another statement that argues that the determination is faulty in some way. It is very important that you include as much favorable information as possible at the agency level. At some point an agency attorney may be reviewing the file to determine whether the case is “litigation worthy” and the attorney may disagree with the investigator’s findings.


Summary
   This procedure seems like a lot of time-consuming work to be spent on each individual charge, and I believe that all involved, excepting possibly the complainant, would agree. Unfortunately, this is still the only game in town–except for those few cases that are singled out by the EEOC for mediation, which will usually require that the employer be legally represented and add to the expenses.


    Many employers with large numbers of employees are burdened with these cases, the agencies are underfunded and find it difficult to handle their increasing caseloads, and the courts are swamped with discrimination-related lawsuits. It is very likely that at some point in the near future the system will need to be substantially revamped.


    Until that day comes, however, this system should be accepted for what it is: a necessary and well-intentioned but clumsy and time-consuming effort to enforce the anti-discrimination laws of our country. Hopefully this article will be useful as a short primer and enable more of this work to be more readily handled across a broader spectrum of employer representatives.

Posted on October 26, 2006July 10, 2018

HR.com Employers of Excellence 2006 Conference

Event: HR.com Employers of Excellence 2006 Conference
Date: October 24-27, 2006, Red Rock Casino Resort, Las Vegas


What: Canada-based HR.com says that “the conference inspires, educates and motivates through a unique blend of world-class keynote speakers, educational workshops, peer-to-peer networking, procurement services solutions and engaging debate and discussion on today’s hottest HR challenges and trends.”


Conference info: For more information about the HR.com Employers of Excellence conference, go to www.hr.com.



Conference Notes, Day 4–Friday October 27, 2006


Too much conference, too far from the glitz? After four days in Vegas without losing my shirt, here are some thoughts and observations on HR.com’s Employers of Excellence conference:


Four days is a lot of conference. SHRM’s national conference is also four days long, but it draws 15,000 to 16,000 attendees. HR.com claimed 400 attendees, but my best guess is that they probably had no more than 350 or so. Why does the number of days matter? Well, with everyone so busy, a tightly packed, fast-paced conference can give participants a lot more bang for their buck, keep energy levels high and make for more better keynotes and breakout sessions with a larger numbers of highly engaged participants. The Conference Board, which puts on the best events in a day-and-a-half format, has it down pat. One day less would have made this a much more energetic conference.



How do I get to the Strip? The Red Rock Casino Resort is beautiful, but it is way out in Summerlin, a good 20-minute drive from the Las Vegas Strip. That kept people away from temptation and focused them on the conference, but I heard lots of comments from attendees who wished they had easier access to some of the more famous Vegas hotels and casinos.



News at HR.com about HR.com: CEO Debbie McGrath used the Las Vegas conference to announce that HR.com would be launching a new HR job board in the first week of November. She also said that HR.com would be launching HR Marketplace, an eBay-style system where people could bid on HR products and services. McGrath didn’t give a timetable for this except to say that it would be launched “soon.” And there’s a beta version up now. Finally, she talked about an increased focus on community within the HR.com Web site, with more contributed content and the ability for users to build personal “My Space”-like pages. McGrath gave few details on how this might work or when it would be launched, but she touted it as a major shift in the company’s business model. Stay tuned.





Morning keynote, Day 4: Steven Levitt, co-author of Freakonomics, spoke on “Redefining How We View the Modern World.” Levitt, an economist and University of Chicago professor, gave an old-school presentation: no slides, no PowerPoint; just him telling interesting, funny stories to illustrate his points. It’s difficult to convey his details and color, but the basic theme was this: Simple arguments are the most convincing, yet in business, people rely on complicated models and spreadsheets that frequently miss the point and don’t make the case as effectively.



Power problems: The afternoon keynote was actually a panel, “Changing Leadership Behavior,” with executive coach Marshall Goldsmith and three executives he has worked with: George Borst, CEO of Toyota Financial Services; author and consultant Frances Hesselbein, former CEO of the Girl Scouts of America; and Rudolf Messinger, chief of the United Nations Children’s Fund. It could have been a good session, but halfway through it, the speakers and audience had to move to another room because a worker outside the hotel hit a power cable with a backhoe, knocking out power to the casino and limiting electricity in the hotel and conference center. Without a sound system, it made for a disjointed presentation that was hard to hear.



Final keynote, Day 4: In attendance for Dave Ulrich’s talk, “The HR Value Proposition and the Journey Ahead,” was an audience that had dwindled to no more than 75. It was Friday on Day 4 of the conference, after all. Ulrich, who is about as close as HR gets to having its own strategy rock star, had an earlier breakout Q&A session that was more personal and let him have a lot more interaction with the audience. Still, it begs the question: How did a great draw like Ulrich get stuck with the last spot on the last day of the program when most of the attendees had already gone home? I’ve found that Ulrich always has great things to say. He deserved a more prominent spot in the program. As he himself said, tongue firmly in cheek, “I LOVE being the last speaker at the conference.”
–JH





Conference notes: Day 3—Thursday, October 26, 2006

Morning keynote, Day 3: Former New York Times reporter Tony Schwartz kicked off the third day of the conference with a very interesting presentation on “Energizing Your Workforce (The Way We’re Working Isn’t Working—The Science of Sustainable High Performance).” Schwartz, who is currently president and CEO of the Energy Project, made the case that to sustain your performance, you must balance energy expenditure with intermittent energy renewal.

Schwartz focused on the personal things managers can do to increase their energy and performance, so this was more of an individually oriented presentation than most of the other keynotes and breakout sessions at this conference. But he also offered up this sobering stat that ripples through the entire workforce: Last year, workers gave back $17 billion to employers in unused vacation time. And, “employers lost out in the bargain,” he said.

His solution: We all need systemic training to renew our energy. He’s written a book about this with Jim Loehr (The Power of Full Engagement: Managing Time Not Energy) that explains all the ways you can do this, but his bottom line is that everyone needs to find systems to renew their energy. When you do, “you get done more done in less time with a higher level of energy and a better quality of time.”

Kiss your performance reviews goodbye: Here’s a session that grabbed a lot of people: “We Abolished Performance Appraisals—Now What Do We Do?” Ken Barry, former senior vice president for human resources at Move.com, gave this provocative presentation to a packed room of people who seemed sick of their current performance review process. Barry’s answer? Managers need to ditch the regular performance reviews and instead build a “conversational organization.” This is not something that tech companies selling performance management systems will be happy to hear, but Barry’s take is that no one on either side of the process is happy with the way it currently works.

Having an ongoing dialogue instead of a formalized review process, he said, helps both managers and workers to be more productive and effective, and get specific, timely feedback. One note for those tech companies with their performance management systems: My quick survey didn’t find a single HR person at this session who was currently using an automated performance appraisal system. Maybe that’s another answer to Barry’s provocative question.

Afternoon keynote, Day 3: Attendees got a break today—only one afternoon keynote speaker. It will be a short-lived break, but author and consultant Ram Charan was the beneficiary of the single-speaker format. This meant he got a full 90 minutes to make his pitch, and Charan, who is a staple of the business speaker circuit, used it wisely to really engage the audience. His keynote on “The CEO’s Perspective” focused on what CEOs are looking for from their HR leaders. His answer:

  • That they think of themselves as a leader, no matter what their function or background.
  • That they learn the business and talk in business terms, not HR jargon.
  • That they link the needs of the business with the HR function.
  • That they have a solid succession plan for the board of directors.
  • That they put systems into place that clearly link compensation to performance.
  • That they make sure they have the right people in the right job throughout the organization.
  • That they fix the HR organization and build it for the 21st century.
  • That they clearly add strategic value to the organization.
—John Hollon

Conference notes: Day 2—Wednesday, October 25, 2006


Team work: Patrick Lencioni, founder and president of the Table Group and author of management books such as The Five Dysfunctions of a Team and Death by Meeting, kicked off Day 2 with a near two-hour keynote. If you know anything about Lencioni, this is not a bad thing. I’ve heard him before at the World Business Forum and he is both smart and entertaining. That’s a tough combination to beat and definitely someone to start a conference day.


Like most management speakers, Lencioni imparts wisdom in lists, including the five dysfunctions of a team:


Absence of trust: The fear of being vulnerable with team members prevents the building of trust within the team.


Fear of conflict: The desire to preserve artificial harmony stifles the occurrence of productive, ideological conflict.


Lack of commitment: The lack of clarity and/or the fear of being wrong prevents team members from making decisions in a timely and definitive way.


Avoidance of accountability: The need to avoid interpersonal discomfort prevents team members from holding one another accountable for their behaviors.


Inattention to results: The desire for individual credit erodes the focus on collective success.


As engaging as Lencioni is, if you have heard him once, you probably would be better off getting some of his books than sitting through another one of his presentations.


Math lessons: Jeff Higgins, vice president for compensation and benefits at the Irvine Co. in California, led a breakout session on using human capital analytics to make decisions and better manage the workforce.


His point was that HR people need to embrace numbers and analytics and use turnover, recruiting and cost figures over multiple years to better make their case to C-suite executives. He offered these statistics to make his case:


  • Turnover in all industries has increased steadily at about half a percent per year since 1990, to a mean of more than 21 percent in 2004.
  • The typical U.S. company spends nearly 50 times more to recruit a $100,000 professional than it will invest in annual training after that person comes on board.
  • Employee costs are a typical company’s single largest expense, yet most companies don’t even know how many employees they have.

The trouble with late-afternoon keynotes: As was the case on the first day, the second day ended with two keynote speeches. They were tougher to get through after a full day of sessions and presentations. The first was given by Beverly Kaye, author of books including Love ‘Em or Lose ‘Em: Getting Good People to Stay. Kaye, founder and CEO of Career Systems International, had led an earlier roundtable session, and frankly, she had more time at the breakout to really make her case for why companies need to work harder to retain and develop talent. Her keynote, at 40 minutes, was just too short to do justice to her topic.


As tough as it was for Kaye, it was even tougher for the second afternoon keynote speaker, Libby Sartain, chief people officer at Yahoo.


Sartain was in the unenviable position of being the only thing between the attendees and getting to dinner and the casino. Her topic, “Eight Essentials to Emotionally Connect Your Employees to Your Business,” is a good one, and she made a good case for linking people to their company’s brand. Unfortunately, a lot of attendees bailed out and missed what she had to say. There’s a lesson here for conference attendees and sponsors alike: Too many speakers, especially late in the day, may be too much of a good thing.

—John Hollon



Conference Notes, Day 1—Tuesday, October 24, 2006


First day, first thoughts: This is a long conference spread across four days with 12 keynote speakers, 50 breakout workshops, 51 sponsors and, by the sponsor’s estimate, more than 400 attendees. That’s a lot to digest, even without the siren song of Vegas in your ears.


Fortunately, the Employers of Excellence conference is being held at the new Red Rock Casino Resort Spa on the east side of the city, well away from the Strip. It’s a beautiful venue, and although it does have the obligatory casino, its somewhat remote location limits the ability of conference-goers to run for the neon of the Strip when they burn out on speakers. Still, it remains to be seen how disciplined the attendees will be.


Twin keynotes: Despite the late-afternoon start, there were two keynote speakers.


First up was Lance Secretan, a management consultant and author of 13 books including Inspire: What Great Leaders Do.


Secretan’s talked about his CASTLE principles, a mnemonic device for courage, authenticity, service, truthfulness, love and effectiveness. Secretan’s “recipe for leadership” includes a lot of focus on “oneness” and the happiness that comes when people (employees) feel part of the whole. It was an interesting presentation, if for no other reason than it was so different from the typical management consultant-speak you get at events like this.


Then came Margaret Wheatly, president of the Berkana Institute and author of Finding Our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Time, among other titles. Wheatly focused on leadership in today’s tough and turbulent global environment.


She lists her four principles of leadership (which she says leaders need to tattoo on their arms):


  • People only support what they help create.
  • People only act responsibly when they care.
  • Everyone is an expert about their own context.
  • To create health, you need to create more connections.

She adds that people contribute their best when:


  • They care about the work.
  • They are free to make decisions in the moment.
  • They have good relationships.
  • They are trusted, and trusting.

–John Hollon


Posted on October 25, 2006July 10, 2018

Option Scandal Costs Firms $10 billion; Monster Restates Earnings

The stock option backdating scandal has cost the more than 150 companies involved so far more than $10 billion in lost market value and additional compensation costs, according to a recent report.


Glass Lewis & Co., a research firm that advises institutional investors how to vote on proxy matters, said in a report released Monday, October 23, that 152 companies have so far disclosed internal or government investigations into backdating, Including of Monster Worldwide.


On Wednesday, October 25, Monster–which owns the leading job board Web site–said it would restate nine years of financial results to correct stock option expenses. Monster’s stock price reached nearly $60 in early May, but the shares now fetch less than $40.


The overall options scandal has caused companies to shed $5.1 billion of market value and forced them to recognize an extra $5.2 billion of pretax compensation expenses.


At least 44 executives and directors have been fired or resigned, the report said.


Those who have left include Andrew McKelvey, founder and former CEO of Monster Worldwide Inc. McKelvey stepped aside this month to devote his attention to investigations by the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission into his company’s option-granting practices.


—Aaron Elstein


Aaron Elstein is a senior reporter covering Wall Street for Crain’s New York Business, a sister publication of Workforce Management.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 208 Page 209 Page 210 … Page 591 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