Category: Archive

Posted on

IDear Workforce-I How Do I Increase Morale

Q


Dear Workforce:


How does an HR department implement/change the climate of a low morale business?


–Looking for a lift


 


A Dear Looking:


The good news? People can–and DO–have tremendous impact on the experiences, expectations, and ultimate “morale” of other people.


The bad news? This impact simply cannot be driven by organizational structures or functional responsibilities. It has to be the product of real people making real choices with a sense of leadership, purpose, and commitment.


Since the HR department is often charged with being the “human conscience” of many business organizations, it may be assumed that HR should handle issues of morale. The truth is, morale is a reflection of shared culture, and culture is more directly impacted by executive leadership than any other single functional area.


Leaders’ decisions (whether conscious or otherwise) on how to think, speak, and behave are amplified over time and distance–continuously shaping, modeling, and conditioning the responses and choices of people throughout the organization.


HR’s legitimate role, in this case, is to frame the morale issue in terms that create a compelling business case for executives to stop, notice, and really pay attention to the true costs and missed opportunities of having an operational culture that leaves people feeling dispirited, disenfranchised and de-motivated. The costs go well beyond those associated with training and turnover, and have strategic implications involving the enterprise’s ability to satisfy customers, innovate products and solutions, and sustain a competitive level of responsiveness in a world of challenge and opportunity.


There is a new generation of assessment instruments emerging that can help you to frame your case in very clear and pragmatic terms, providing both a baseline for evaluating your business’ current state, and a way to gauge progress and impact over time. In addition to looking into such options, you should also be very conscious of the leadership role YOU can play in modeling the kinds of behaviors that inspire in others (including YOUR leaders!) a more responsible and productive relationship with possibility.


The difference you make will not depend on your organizational position or authority, but on your authenticity, conviction, and perseverance. Good luck!


 


SOURCE: Randall Alford, vice president of Product & Service Integrity for ARC Worldwide, a leadership development and consulting firm that operates throughout the United States and Asia.


E-mail your Dear Workforce questions to Online Editor Todd Raphael at raphaelt@workforceonline.com, along with your name, title, organization and location. Unless you state otherwise, your identifying info may be used on Workforce.com and in Workforce magazine. We can’t guarantee we’ll be able to answer every question.

Posted on

Is it Time for a New Look at Job Descriptions

The ancient artifacts we call job descriptions haven’t changed much over the last half century. But the world of work has.


Rather than having a single job, most of us perform a variety of roles and activities. What we do changes frequently, and typically bears little resemblance to formal job descriptions.


Isn’t it time for a new approach to defining work? One that’s more in tune with the times and focused on effectiveness rather than efficiency? One that actually provides real guidance and enables “right person right job.” Isn’t it time we put job descriptions to work?


We should start this process by revisiting what we want job descriptions to do. For example, job descriptions should:


  • Provide guidance to people as to what to do and how to do it.

  • Provide information that could be used in staffing the job — not only technical skill requirements, but also information about the “nature” of the person best suited for the work.

  • Provide a basis for “Who’s Who” and Expertise directories that enable people in the organization to know who does what and who knows what.

What do we need to change in order to accomplish these objectives?


I suggest three things:


1. Expand job descriptions


First, expand job descriptions to include multiple roles and areas of expertise.


Traditional job descriptions no longer work because they’re based on the concept of a single job. But few of us have “a” job or static area of responsibility. We’re involved in different projects and work with different teams. What we do and how we do it changes monthly, weekly, sometimes even daily.


Multiple roles and responsibilities are now the norm rather than the exception.


Several years ago, my job title at Mobil was Global HR Process Consultant (which always made for interesting conversation at cocktail parties). During the course of one year, I developed global data standards, negotiated outsourcing contracts, developed web sites, and managed the training function. How would you like to write that job description?


Multiple roles and responsibilities are now the norm rather than the exception. Our job description “language” should accommodate this diversity. In the Mobil example, we might note the types of work processes, such as Strategic Planning, Developing Standards, and Negotiating Contracts and then the contexts within which those activities were performed.


Context elements might be things like the function: HR or IT, Global versus US, the timing, and the depth and breadth of involvement. My job or work profile would include not only those processes and contexts from that one year, but from other years and jobs as well.


2. It’s about work and people


Second: “nature of work” characteristics should be added to job descriptions. These are additional attributes of the work that can be used to better match people to activities.


For example, is most of the work hands-on, “in the trenches” or is it more conceptual, planning, and analyzing? Does the work deal mostly with people, data, or things? What’s the level of responsibility, in other words, what are the repercussions of mistake making?


Of all the ways better job descriptions can benefit an organization, perhaps the most important one is their ability to enable right person right job or job fit. Given current turnover rates and the escalating war for talent, we absolutely must do a better job at matching people to work. Job fit is now job one!


In order to accomplish this, we must stop looking at jobs and people as two separate entities and focus instead on the relationship between the two.


We also need to develop a common language for describing work and people, a language that goes beyond technical skills, degrees, and years of experience, and begins to get to the heart of what work is really all about — the behaviors, cognitive skills used and the social context in which it operates.


3. Employee can help


Finally, job descriptions should be written by or with the person in the job.


I mean, if you look at the benefits of good job descriptions, a common theme emerges. Who is in the best position to supply job information? Who knows better what the job is actually all about and what kinds of skills and competencies are most important? The incumbent!


I’m an advocate for enabling employees to complete their own work profiles and job descriptions. Some people may need help articulating details about their job, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be the primary supplier of information. Consider using an interview process for gathering key information.


I’m also in favor of “self-assigned” job titles. Encourage employees to choose their own job title, one that actually means something to them, one that motivates them and makes them feel good about what they do. Chief Visionary. Client Caregiver, Director of Talent.


Job descriptions and job titles provide identity and purpose. Perhaps by redefining work, we can help make employees feel better about who they are and what they do.

Posted on

SPECTRUM

Since its founding over 16 years ago, SPECTRUM Human Resource Systems Corporation has established itself as a best-of-breed developer, marketer, and full services and support provider in the human resource (HR) systems and workforce management industry.


SPECTRUM s affordable software solutions, iVantageā„¢ and HRVantageĀ®, cover all areas of HR management and benefits administration, and also interface with a variety of payroll processing systems and payroll services. In addition, SPECTRUM offers a full range of support services.



Back to SHRM Feature for more special offers.

Posted on

JobOptions.com

At SHRM 2000 in Las Vegas, JobOptions.com will be presenting the reasons why we re the fastest growing network of career sites on the ā€˜Net. Our best-of-class functionality, with Resume Alert, Employer Database, Job Posting, Job Archiving and Private Label are all designed with your recruiting needs in mind.


Stop by Booth #1319 for a demonstration of our site, and to enter to win an HP Jornada handheld PC or $400 cash. Or, fill out the entry form below.


We ll see you in Las Vegas!



Back to SHRM Feature for more special offers.

Posted on

The Supervisor’s Key Role in the EAP Process

Even more than employees, supervisors are far more likely to consult with and refer to an onsite EAP.


Supervisors come to trust an EAP counselor when they know that this individual has spent enough time at their particular worksite to be familiar with company policies, procedures and corporate culture.


A critical part of the process in supervisory referral is the consultation that takes place between the supervisor and the EAP counselor before the employee is given the recommendation to “Call the EAP.”


In the pre-referral conversation, the supervisor communicates the nature of the job performance problem and describes what it’s like to deal with the particular employee. The EAP counselor advises the supervisor on how to approach the employee, based on the particular circumstances, so that the referral can be effective.


The supervisor and EAP counselor establish an understanding about future communication regarding whether the employee follows through on the referral or chooses to drop out of the program at a future date.


The EAP counselor informs the supervisor about the boundaries of confidentiality, governing information that the EAP can disclose with or without employee consent and what the supervisor may discuss on a “need to know” basis, without creating liability issues for the company.


Link to more EAP articles or EAP vendors.


Posted on

IDear Workforce -IHow Can I Make My Health Plan Equitable for Both Singles and Families-

Q


Dear Workforce:


My company is attempting to set up a fair and equitable way of sharing health insurance costs with employees.


The initial plan was to require a 25% employee contribution, regardless of the level of coverage, e.g., single or family. In discussing the plan with the CEO, he felt the plan is unfair to employees with single coverage because their benefit is far less than that of employees with family coverage.


Do you have any ideas for making this an equitable plan? We cannot afford to require employees with family coverage to pay for 100% of their dependent coverage. We would lose employees. In the past, we have paid all employee coverage (for both single and family coverage employees) and 56% of all dependent coverage.


–Karen


A Dear Karen:


One solution would be to allocate a fixed dollar amount to each employee for health insurance.


If the cost of coverage for a particular employee and his or her dependents — if any — was below the dollar amount allocated for the employee, the employee would not incur any cost. If the cost of coverage for the employee exceeded the dollar amount allocated, the employee would be responsible for the excess.


You may also want to consider offering several different health insurance products to the employees, so that their health insurance decision is not limited to simply choosing between individual and family coverage, but also includes what type of insurance coverage they want. It could be that the cost difference between a plan for a single employee with a certain PPO that — for example — included extensive orthodontia coverage would be comparable to the cost of an HMO with limited dental, even with a dependent.


 


SOURCE: Mark J. Browne, a professor at the University of Wisconsin, in the Risk Management and Insurance department.


E-mail your Dear Workforce questions to Online Editor Todd Raphael at raphaelt@workforceonline.com, along with your name, title, organization and location. Unless you state otherwise, your identifying info may be used on Workforce.com and in Workforce magazine. We can’t guarantee we’ll be able to answer every question.

Posted on

Use an EAP to Reach the Lowest Performers

The real opportunities to save money with an EAP are strongly associated with reaching the 15% of the employee population who are the lowest performers.


Some, but obviously not all, of these employees have substance abuse problems, persistent interpersonal conflicts and emotional disorders.


According to the U.S. Surgeon General 20% of the adult population experiences a diagnosable psychiatric problem over the course of a year, but only 5% receives professional help. Government research also finds that 15% of employed adults currently abuse drugs or alcohol, but a miniscule .3% receives treatment.


The problem is that mental illness, alcoholism and drug addiction remain highly stigmatized in American society, so merely providing the treatment benefits in no way ensures utilization.


Meanwhile, depression costs American businesses about $44 billion per year in lost productivity and substance abuse around $100 billion. An employee with an active substance abuse problem is not only performing poorly on the job, but is also using medical services at twice the rate of the average employee.


An employee who is both stressed and depressed uses medical support at two and one half times the average rate. The simplistic solution to employees with substance abuse problems is to fire them, assuming that you can find them.


But simplistic solutions can be very expensive, considering the legal exposure connected with violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws. It is far less expensive to provide treatment and conscientious follow-up through the EAP, given the fact that replacing skilled workers can cost up to twice the dollar value of annual salary and benefits with today’s record low levels of unemployment.


Link to more EAP articles or EAP vendors.


 



Posted on

EAPs What they Promise and What they Deliver

Most likely, your EAP is not the delivering the value you were seeking when you purchased the program. EAP vendors typically promise the following benefits:


  • Improved job performance
  • Lower healthcare expenditures
  • Reduced absenteeism
  • Increased employee retention
  • Assistance for employees with alcohol and drug problems

EAPs are capable of achieving all of the above objectives.


In fact, research demonstrates that EAPs can deliver a substantial return on investment, based on accomplishing these particular goals. The problem is that the research pertains to a different model EAP than the one you are probably paying for.


The type of EAP originally associated with a robust cost benefit was based in a large corporation, employed onsite EAP counselors, utilized a full-time EAP manager and generated up to half of the employee cases through supervisory referrals precipitated by declining job performance.


While the traditional EAP model still exists in an ever decreasing number of Fortune 500 companies, the predominant model for EAPs today is an offsite program where employees and supervisors call an 800 number and employees are seen by a community-based EAP affiliate. The question of whether the EAPs is integrated with the workplace makes all the difference in the world as to what the EAP can accomplish.


Benchmarking results


A 1999 survey of 54 Fortune 500 EAPs revealed that onsite EAPs had one third higher overall utilization, received five times the number of supervisory referrals and identified three times the number of employees with substance abuse problems as offsite programs.


A recent comparison of fourteen EAPs in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry also determined that onsite programs had higher utilization, identified more employee substance abuse cases and attracted more supervisory referrals. This study also found that higher utilization was far more significant in determining per case costs than vendor fees.


Company Employee or Vendor?


Employee utilization is not determined by whether the onsite EAP counselor is a company employee or works for a vendor. The issue is trust.


Employees are more likely to use an EAP if they can identify the program with an individual counselor(s) they have seen in the workplace doing EAP orientation sessions, brownbag programs on communication, stress management or coping with change seminars.


Before picking up the phone to make an appointment, the employee must decide, “Can I trust this individual to understand my problem and provide conscientious, confidential assistance?” With the offsite model EAP, an Account Executive typically provides the employee orientation sessions and brownbag programs.


The employee is still faced with the prospect of calling a 1-800 number and speaking to an anonymous counselor. Employees also find it more convenient to see an onsite EAP housed in the company medical clinic or similarly discrete location. Ironically, a standard selling point made for offsite programs is that “Employees are more likely to use offsite programs because they are perceived to be more confidential,” but the data points in the opposite direction.


Link to more EAP articles or EAP vendors.


Posted on

IDear Workforce-I Why Recruit From Other Cultures

Q


Dear Workforce:


Why do corporations seek candidates from other cultures?.
—Sammo, Australia.


 


A Dear Sammo:


Here are a few reasons why corporations seek employees from other cultures:


1) Generally speaking, people from one culture tend to be more similar to other people from that culture than to people from a different culture. Whew, a mouthful. Anyhow, the if you have only people from one culture in your corporation, the result is you could have a lot of people who think alike.


2) When you have a multi-lingual staff, it can be easier to communicate with customers and vendors of various cultures and languages. Cultural knowledge can also help when doing business globally.


3) It can be good media relations. For example, say a corporation talks about diversity, but everyone on the top management is white. The media (perhaps rightfully so) might look at that corporation with a skeptical eye.


4) It can be good customer relations — customers sometimes prefer interacting with a multicultural staff. Example: A Muslim customer calls a food company to inquire about what a product is made from. Sometimes it helps to be able to speak to someone at that food company familiar in that culture.


5) It deepens the pool of potential hires.


6) It can make the workplace more interesting.


 


SOURCE: Todd Raphael, Online Editor for Workforce, April 28, 2000.


E-mail your Dear Workforce questions to Online Editor Todd Raphael at raphaelt@workforceonline.com, along with your name, title, organization and location. Unless you state otherwise, your identifying info may be used on Workforce.com and in Workforce magazine. We can’t guarantee we’ll be able to answer every question.

Posted on

The Really Big Question

Everyone is asking, how can we attract and retain people in a period when unemployment is less than 2% in many states? Yes, it’s a big problem. But that’s a tactical question when the problem is strategic.


When there is a shortage of talent it does little good to spend one’s energy on recruitment and retention tactics. The really big question is, “How do we create an organization that naturally attracts and holds people.”


In short, how do we become an employer of choice? That is the more important strategic issue. When we solve that, short-term tactics become obvious.


The most common answer to becoming an employer of choice is to load up on new benefits. Companies now offer everything from valet dry cleaning and laundry services to bring-your-pet-to-work. Does this work?


Somewhat, but only until your competitor offers the same. It is akin to airlines offering frequent flyer miles. After the first one did it, everyone followed suit and now no one can afford to drop it, although there is no competitive advantage in it and all it did was raise operating costs.


What attracts people to a new church? Is it cushions on the benches? Is it freshly painted walls? Is it ample parking?


Being an employer of choice is not driven on innovative benefit programs. They don’t generate a sustainable competitive advantage. And don’t ever try to take away a benefit. Once a benefit, always a benefit. The professional literature is filled with horror stories of companies that tried to reduce or change a benefit.


The Boeing case is one of the best examples. Recently, when management decided to change the way it funded a benefit plan you would have thought that they were asking for the surrender of the employee’s first born child.


In reality, the proposed change would have hardly any noticeable effect on employees pocket books. Yet, this move spawned a unionization campaign which eventually cost the company a 40-day strike and $40 million more than the cost of the benefit.


Being an employer of choice is a cultural issue. It’s similar to starting a religious movement. What attracts people to a new church? Is it cushions on the benches? Is it freshly painted walls? Is it ample parking? None of those things hurt, but they do not elevate this church above all others. Cushions deteriorate. Walls need repainting and parking lots develop pot-holes.


People choose a new church because of the message that is coming from the pulpit. They like what the pastor stands for and the gospel that is preached. What does your pastor (CEO) stand for and what gospel (vision) is being preached and lived?


I submit that there are a few essentials that create an employer of choice. They are:


1. Fair treatment. Everyone preaches it. Some deliver it.


2. Interesting, challenging work. Thirty years ago Fred Herzberg said, ‘If you can’t enrich a job get rid of it (outsource it).’


3. An exciting, fun place to come to everyday. Look at the faces. Are your people excited and positive?


4. Opportunity for growth. Everyone promises it. Few invest in systems and tools for helping people achieve it.


5. MOST IMPORTANT AND AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT: (Cue the bugles).


Honestly believe and act as though people are not hard-to-manage expense items, but rather are value-adding assets.


Nearly, but not quite, everyone now acknowledges that people are the primary lever in the service oriented, knowledge driven economy. Yet the management methods employed have changed little since the 1960s when the human relations movement said, “Give people a sense of involvement.”


The evidence is that


  • Few companies truly differentiate between better than average and less than average performers when salary increases are doled out.
  • Training is often denied people by supervisors who won’t let them take a few hours off the job to learn
  • Top management accepts hearty bonuses and stock options while holding annual salary budget increases to less than 5%.
  • Staff and line personnel are treated differently because staff personnel are labeled expense centers; the most ludicrous of all concepts. Who would create a function that does not add value?
  • When times get tough, what do we do with our “most valuable assets”; we dump them on the unemployment lines.

There is little logic and less common sense behind the way most top management treat their valuable human assets. They continually try to buy them off with expensive toys and then pout when the people leave for another place with better toys. If one wants to create a place that naturally draws and retains top talent, a long-term outlook and investment needs to be made in people.


The payoff is reduced turnover disruption, lower operating cost and higher productivity.


Let me put it in the simplest terms I can think of. If you want someone to love you, do you give them toys? Or do you give them respect and support and listen to them when they talk to you? That s what an employer of choice does. This is the really big answer to the really big question.


 


Other columns by Jac Fitz-enz: