Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on August 1, 1996July 10, 2018

When Flex Vacations Workand Don’t

When employers should consider,


A vacation buying option:


  • Your company needs to offer more time off (because of downsizing), but can’t increase costs.
  • You want another option for employees’ flex dollars.
  • You have a weak vacation program, especially for newer employees.
  • Electing more time off doesn’t disrupt staffing needs.
  • Replacing absent employees isn’t necessary or the costs are low.
  • Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code (use-it-or-lose-it rule) won’t create a problem with employees, administration or state law.

A vacation selling option:


  • It can help employees draw down (or prevent further deposits into) a large accrued vacation bank.
  • Higher paid, longer service employees with better vacation benefits won’t get a big windfall from selling vacation time at their higher rates of pay.
  • The current vacation schedule is generous or most employees have relatively long service and could use the option to sell time.
  • Replacing absent employees costs too much, and the company would save by reducing absences.
  • Employees have other benefit option uses for the dollars they receive from selling vacations, such as flexible spending accounts, substantial health plan contributions or long-term care insurance.
  • Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code won’t create a problem with employees who could sell vacation days but don’t, and therefore risk forfeiting any unused time they could’ve sold.

SOURCE: George R. Faulkner Jr., managing consultant at A. Foster Higgins & Co. Inc. in Philadelphia.


Personnel Journal, August 1996, Vol. 75, No. 8, p. 76.


Posted on August 1, 1996July 10, 2018

Employee Commitment Which Contract Do You Prefer

We Americans are particularly good at viewing the past through rose-colored glasses that obscure the less-pretty details and romanticize the rest. The Revolutionary War, which was actually a tax rebellion by petulant upstarts, is now seen as a noble experiment to create a finer political order. The Civil War, in reality a brutal and costly fight over states’ rights, has been recast as the last gasp of chivalry (see “Gone with the Wind”) and the dawn of racial equality. Even the Great Depression, a period of economic despair and blight, is often seen as an opportunity for us to discover the nobler side of ourselves (see “The Grapes of Wrath”).


This tendency isn’t all bad. Whatever their original impetus, the Revolutionary and Civil wars left legacies of good to the nation, and the Depression taught us new ways of working together to solve problems. But there are inherent dangers, too, in gazing too long at the rose-colored view. One risk is that the present looks less and less appealing in comparison to the ever-more-perfect past. It’s one reason that we—the wealthiest, safest, healthiest, best educated society in history—now face the great malaise that has infected us.


I raise the issue because our penchant to romanticize the past now threatens our ability to see earlier business practices clearly. In particular, there’s been a wave of nostalgia for what’s being called the old employment contract, now characterized as an era of benevolence in which doing a good job was rewarded with lifetime employment. Yes, but ¼


Was the old employment contract really all that wonderful? No. Our wish to make it so is borne of our innate distrust of change and the need to cling to something familiar. In doing so, however, we lose sight of our own progress.


The progress is most apparent to me when I think about my grandfathers, both of whom were signatories of that so-called contract and both of whom suffered, to some degree, from its now-forgotten clauses.


My father’s father was a lifetime civil servant, locked into a hierarchy that re-warded length of service more than initiative. Without a promotion to the next level there was little or no hope for significant salary increases or other compensation. Yes, he enjoyed job security and a steady paycheck. But he was bored for at least the last 15 years of his working life, and may never really have reached his potential. I don’t think he would’ve found a contract that included lateral moves, skill-based pay and other current practices all bad.


My mother’s father had a less linear career, but spent most of his working life as a salesperson. At 65, he was forced to retire, despite the fact that he was then the company’s top salesperson and among the top nationwide in his industry. Yes, he enjoyed job security until that point, but what good is a contract that runs out before you or the company really want it to? I don’t think he would find a contract that allowed top performers to keep working all bad.


Yes, the economy has forced us to give up some appealing ideas, lifetime em-ployment among them. We have gained as much as we have lost, however, and we’d do better to remember that and to communicate it to employees. We can win back their commitment if we help them see beyond systems and protocol that stopped working and to recognize the benefits of the new system. For some ideas on how to do that, please see the cover story.


Personnel Journal, August 1996, Vol. 75, No. 8, p. 4.


Posted on August 1, 1996July 10, 2018

Avoid Issues of Co-employment

When temporary employees become more attached to their contracting companies than their agencies, you have a problem of misplaced loyalty. The temps look to their contracting companies to fulfill their needs, and are almost sure to be disappointed.


The issue of allegiance becomes more problematic if it leads to a co-employment situation. Co-employment occurs when a company’s relationship with the temporary employee takes on the characteristics typically associated with the traditional employee/employer relationship: salary and benefit review, counseling, discipline and termination. When co-employment exists, each company is liable for the employment decisions made by the other. If a contingent employee files a legal complaint and wins, both the agency and the client company could be responsible for any damages awarded.


The preceding explanation of the co-employment issue is included in New York City-based Olsten Corporation’s handbook for client companies. It also provides a list of do’s and don’ts your company should follow to avoid potential liability:


DO:

DON’T:

  • Train the new assignment employee to perform job tasks
  • Take immediate corrective action if an assignment employee is violating safety rules
  • Report any absences, tardiness or unacceptable behavior to the agency
  • Refer all questions relative to pay, benefits, duration of position or opportunity for employment to the agency
  • Inform the agency about any changes in an employee’s work schedule
  • Assist the agency in evaluating employees.
  • Inform an assignment employee that he or she is terminated or suspended
  • Discuss pay rates, increases, incentives or bonuses
  • Discuss opportunities for regular full-time employment
  • Extend an offer for employment
  • Request that an assignment employee complete timecards or forms with your company’s name on them
  • Counsel assignment employees concerning: tardiness, punctuality, attendance, dress code, child-or elder-care arrangements or other personal matters.

Because issues of co-employment are directly related to the client company’s own actions with regard to temporary employees, the above guidelines can provide companies with a solid foundation for dealing with temporary staffing issues.


SOURCE: Olsten Corporation


Personnel Journal, August 1996, Vol. 75, No. 8, p 46.


Posted on August 1, 1996July 10, 2018

Keeping Spirits Up When Times Are Down

The weary group of corporate vice presidents shuffled into the conference room for yet another emergency strategy session. The reason? Same as it was the last three times this happened: Competition is up, contracts are down and costs must be cut—now. But this time, the desperate CEO at the head of the table adds another request. “Can you please do something about the morale around here?” he pleads. “I know times are tough, but if we don’t find some way to perk up these people we’ll never turn this place around.”


How right he is. When employees share that indefinable sense of spirit, enthusiasm and pride called morale, they’re more than willing to help companies achieve their goals. Problem is, many organizations suffer from low morale because employees don’t have the vaguest idea what those goals are to begin with. If you’re searching for ways to elevate the spirit of your workers—and who isn’t?—give them something to believe in, provide hope for the future and lead them there.


Focus on growth.
Nothing saps esprit de corps quicker than an absence of positive objectives. “Most companies today are focused on restructuring, reorganizing and reengineering,” explains Robert Tomasko, management consultant with Arthur D. Little in Washington, D.C. Because these programs are designed to fix problems, the problems become the focus of the employees’ attention. They start worrying more about how the pie is going to be sliced rather than on how the business will grow. They become protective, fearful and eventually, demoralized. According to Tomasko, what more companies should be doing, and aren’t, is focusing on growth. “This gives employees a sense of purpose and a way to look beyond problems and toward new opportunities,” he says, “both of which help boost morale.”


Now some people will tell you high morale is the result of the way you treat people. But that’s not enough. Companies can’t just strive to make workers feel good without also communicating a sense of purpose. Without clear objectives, even well-cared-for employees will feel disappointed in their efforts. It’s the corporate equivalent of being all dressed up with no place to go.


Anaheim, California-based Odetics, a manufacturer of data management products, is a case in point. Recognized in the book, “The 100 Best Companies to Work for in America” by Robert Levering and Milton Moskowitz, Odetics scored high marks for being a fun employer—a characteristic that hints at sustained high morale. But CEO Joel Slutzky says, “We’ve earned a reputation as a fun company, but like any company, morale depends on what’s happening with the business at any given time. We’re not immune from highs and lows.”


Give them a flag to follow.
Odetics faced its first real morale challenge in early 1994 when one of its key customers bought a competitor. Overnight, the customer disappeared, taking 40% of one division’s sales and 10% of overall company sales with it. For the first time in Odetic’s history, layoffs were inevitable and its 600 employees were noticeably anxious. This was the first layoff. Would it be the last? “The way we were able to minimize employees’ fears was by developing a solid strategic plan based on growing the company,” Slutzky says. The plan was very specific, outlining the number of new customers Odetics was aiming for as well as setting a goal for revenue. The emphasis wasn’t on plugging leaks, but on building a stronger, better company.


The growth plan wasn’t developed in a vacuum. Employee meetings, hosted by Slutzky and the company’s HR managers, were held to discuss business challenges and gain employee input. Several suggestions were forthcoming, including one to cut the company’s training budget in order to save a few jobs. It wasn’t implemented, for good reason. At the time, Odetics had just begun implementing a companywide training program to give employees tools to help them with continuous quality improvement. “We told employees training was part of our strategic plan,” Slutzky says. “That we couldn’t grow the company without teaching employees about new technologies and without giving them new ways to improve our processes and cut time to market.” By tying all strategic decisions back to the growth plan, Odetics was able to keep employees focused on the future.


To reinforce this growth message, every time a contract is signed with a new customer, the good news is announced on the company’s public address system. Furthermore, earnings are charted in the company newspaper. “Success builds success,” Slutzky says.


“Programs designed to boost morale are great, but it’s the individual managers who keep the team strong.”


In 1995, Odetics had two outstanding quarters in a row and by December, a successful third quarter appeared likely. Slutzky is gearing up to congratulate employees for Odetics’ successful turn-around. His focus on growth hasn’t diminished, however. His current challenge to employees is something he calls the 10/100 plan. “My goal is to get the stock price back to $10, which dropped to $4 when we lost the key customer last year, and to get annual revenue to $100 million.”


By making the growth goal specific and simple, Slutzky has been able to focus employees on the future and help them celebrate measurable results—both of which help boost morale. “We didn’t need a survey to know people were distraught over last year’s layoff,” he says. “But today, you can feel the excitement as you walk in the door.


“Yes, we’re a fun company to work for,” he adds, “but we pay attention to business first. If we were all madcaps and merry clowns, this company wouldn’t last a day. High morale comes as a result of knowing what you’re in business to do.”


Conversely, Bruce Court, vice president of mergers and acquisitions for Development Dimensions International in Pittsburgh, says nothing negatively impacts morale (which he defines as the cheerfulness of an organization) like the fear of the unknown. “You see this very clearly after a merger,” he says. In almost all cases, four things are likely to happen: turnover increases while productivity, quality and morale decrease.


Court cites the case of a pharmaceutical company that owned two medical equipment manufacturers in the same state. The honchos at corporate headquarters thought it made sound economic sense to put the two companies together in a sort of “arranged marriage.” The result was disastrous. Morale at the newly joined company went down the tubes because employees, who understood the goals of their original companies, had no idea what the merger was designed to do. “There was no sense of purpose, direction or guidance,” Court says. And people left the new company in droves. Exit interviews revealed that departing employees shared the same lament. “They told us: ‘We need a flag to follow.'”


Cultivate good leaders.
So why is it so hard for companies to communicate goals to employees? Isn’t that a routine part of doing business? Maybe so, but Court believes too many managers still hold on to the notion that information is power. “Executives may have a clear sense of purpose but there’s a black hole in middle management where key messages get in but never get communicated to the next link in the chain.” Even if they want to communicate, he adds, a lot of managers don’t have the necessary skills to do so.


“Leaders are definitely the key to keeping employees focused,” agrees Mary Schoenborn, acting HR manager for Great Plains Software Inc., in Fargo, North Dakota. At her company, leaders are so focused on the goal that they’ve generated 13 years of consecutive growth in the highly competitive financial software industry. “Programs designed to boost morale are great, but it’s the individual managers who keep the team strong,” she says. “They’re the ones who can individualize goals for employees.” Her company believes so strongly in management as the key to high morale that all managers receive extensive training in communication skills, especially in how to listen to employees and put their suggestions into action.


Hal Rosenbluth, CEO of Rosenbluth International, a travel services company in Philadelphia, believes listening to employees is key. For example, he has gained quite a reputation in management circles for the ideas presented in his book, “The Customer Comes Second.” His premise is that by caring, valuing, empowering and motivating employees, morale stays high and customer satisfaction can’t help but follow.


Pam Schmidt agrees. When she took over as director of membership and customer services for the Alexandria, Virginia-based American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) in 1993, she was greeted with a group of 20 employees she describes as scared, cynical, beaten down and unwilling to experiment. Sick leave was up, motivation was down. “I spent three months just listening to employees [talk] about what they felt the problems were,” she says.


Listening to employees benefits customers.
In the process, she discovered that the department, which provides services such as fulfilling publication requests for ASTD members, hadn’t changed its processes in 50 years even though membership had grown exponentially. Furthermore, the computer and telephone technology used by employees wasn’t able to keep up with increasing call volume. Members who didn’t hang up out of sheer frustration were put on interminable hold. By the time employees picked up most calls, members were irate and employees took the brunt of it.


It was obvious to Schmidt that new technology and processes were needed to turn the department around. So after listening to employees, she set a goal to eliminate distractions and disruptions to the customer-service process. “I wrote the plan and I worked the plan,” Schmidt says. “As cynical as employees were, they wanted something to believe in.”


“In the end, when it comes to morale, there are only two ways to go: gimmicks or growth.”


With a concrete plan for process improvement in place, employees had something to work toward. They provided suggestions for technical improvements. They searched for more efficient ways to handle membership requests. And as each suggestion was implemented, they started to believe working conditions and customer satisfaction really could improve, which they did. In 1994, 16% of callers to ASTD’s customer-service center hung up in frustration. By August 1995, that number had been slashed to 5.6%. With each achievement, trust in the department increased and so did employee morale.


Can you quantify morale?
Today, there’s still some angst among ASTD employees because the change process isn’t over. But Schmidt says they’re much more willing to jump in and try to fix the problem. An even better indicator, she says, is that employees now laugh during weekly meetings. To what single thing does she attribute the turnaround? “We had a plan and the focus was external.”


Schmidt’s experience shows what a positive effect morale can have on customer satisfaction. But is there any way to quantify the overall bottom-line impact of high morale? Tomasko doesn’t think so. “It’s hard to make a strong case between employee morale and economic performance because some organizations have done great things without high morale,” he says. This may be true, but these companies probably didn’t do those great things for long.


Carol B. Rosebrough, general manager of Cox Communications Inc., a cable company with 13 franchises around Williamsport, Pennsylvania, believes high morale can be quantified, and she has done so. When Rosebrough assumed her current position in 1988, she inherited a workforce of 38 employees who’d spent years working in dismal working conditions with outdated tools and resources. Their lack of spirit had driven customer satisfaction to an all-time low. Over the years, by listening to employee complaints and gradually implementing their suggestions, Rosebrough has seen morale steadily improve. How does that translate to the bottom line? “Dollar for dollar, we increased cash flow by 55% between 1989 and 1994,” she says, “and revenue has jumped almost 42%.”


If your company is focused on growth and you listen to—and implement—employee ideas about how to achieve that growth, you can’t help but experience similar successes. In the end, when it comes to morale there are only two ways to go: gimmicks or growth. Gimmicks are those slap-happy motivational programs wherein a high-energy speaker comes in and whips employees into a frenzy of good feelings. Unfortunately, these programs are like aspirin: They only make the pain go away for a few hours. To make truly lasting changes in morale, you must find a way to release employees from the negativity that constricts them. And the best way to do that is by giving them that flag to follow.


Personnel Journal, August 1996, Vol. 75, No. 8, pp. 26-31.


Posted on August 1, 1996June 29, 2023

Positive Discipline — Sending the Right or Wrong Message

Tara Jenson, HR director at TEAM Technologies in Waterloo, Iowa, says:
In my experience as HR director for several companies, I’ve seen employee discipline take many forms. As professionals looked for a way to make employees more responsible for their own behavior and successes, traditional discipline began to give way to more innovative approaches.


Positive discipline, or discipline without punishment, has been around for a while. But companies have just recently started embracing it. Instead of warning employees about the consequences of their actions, we remind employees of the standards and ask for their agreement to solve the problem. This isn’t just a difference in semantics. It has to be a difference in attitude and behavior.


For example, “John” was a new machine operator in a factory in which I was the HR director. He overslept and frequently was late to work. He also would leave a couple of minutes early to take care of personal matters. After his first month, his tardiness became a pattern.


During the first and second steps of discipline, we gave him a verbal and a written reminder. These steps began to engage the employee in understanding why it’s important for workers to arrive on time and what happens when one fails to do so.


But the last and most powerful tool in the plan is known as Decision Day. When John failed to change his behavior, he was given a paid day off to reflect upon his employment and to decide if he was willing to solve the problem immediately and permanently, and return with a commitment to perform up to standard. We felt it was very important this step be a paid day off—to illustrate the company’s support. He was instructed to return the next day—either ready to change his behavior and stay with us or quit. John took his leave seriously and has since been promoted several times. Now, he’s a foreman.


At another company I worked for, we developed a positive process that included paid time off. However, we switched it to an unpaid day because of complaints from the general workforce. We called this step a Decisional Leave. Employees were asked to come back with their written plan for changing the behavior.


We asked the employees to focus on what the job meant to them and to their lives, what would happen if they didn’t have the job, and what they were personally willing to commit to doing in order to keep the job. The signed statement became a contract with the company. Invariably, the person either lived up to the agreement or quit.


We also adopted the same practice with my present employer. Again, we started out with a three-day paid leave. But once our team environment took over the counseling role, the teams insisted on the leave being unpaid. However, they kept the practice of the person writing out a commitment letter. Then the team would review the letter and decide whether or not to reinstate the employee. Because most problems still involve attendance, people seem to feel paying people to stay home isn’t acceptable.


Dave Green, personnel manager at Platte River Power Authority in Fort Collins, Colorado, says:
Several years ago, one of our managers attended a seminar and came back with the concept of positive discipline. The idea was to send a misbehaving employee home with pay to think about his or her transgressions, write an essay on how the problem would be corrected in the future, and then come back to work as a productive, enthusiastic, wonderful employee. We tried it a couple of times. Did we get productive, enthusiastic, wonderful employees? No. We got the same employees back whom we sent home. The only difference was that they were carrying poorly written, scribbled promises to behave in the future. It was reminiscent of the school teacher who made us write a hundred times on the blackboard, “I won’t chew gum in class.”


Feedback from other employees told us it was viewed as an extra day of paid vacation. So we’ve gone back to unpaid time off for discipline. It seems to get their attention, and that’s the whole point.


Joan Farrell, HR director, Label Sector at Lawson Mardon Packaging in Fayetteville, New York, says:
The message sent when inappropriate behavior first occurs sets the stage. In applying discipline, human resources must ask, “What is our intent?” If we want to fire the person, then punitive discipline is the quickest route. The message is, “You are wrong; you have failed; therefore, you must be punished.” If indifference to standards is the issue, this doesn’t remove the indifference. It also places the responsibility for correction on management, reinforcing a parent-child relationship: “I’m in charge, and I will punish you so you will learn.”


If we want to correct the behavior and make the person accountable, then positive discipline is the answer. It says, “You are accountable for your actions. We want you as an employee, but you haven’t lived up to our agreement, and we need to know what you will do to improve the situation.”


My first experience with positive discipline was with a company replacing a striking workforce during a period of low unemployment. The new employees were good workers, but they often had attendance problems. We quickly learned that if we used the three-strikes -and-you’re-out approach, we simply replaced one problem employee with another. So we developed a system incorporating a verbal discussion, a second documented discussion and a decisional leave.


The decisional leave is a timeout for the employee to reflect on specific questions: How important is the job to him or her? What would happen to him or her if the job was lost? What was he or she willing to do in order to keep the job? We asked the person to come back with a written response, including specific commitments (buying an alarm clock, developing alternate car-pool arrangements, switching shifts to accommodate childcare needs). At the end of the leave, the commitment letter was reviewed by the supervisor, the department manager and the HR manager before the employee’s reinstatement. The employee came back with the burden for change clearly on his or her own shoulders, and either lived up to the commitment or voluntarily resigned. Rarely would an employee who moved through this process be terminated for failure to honor the commitment.


Michael J. Jedel, a labor and employment arbitrator in Atlanta, Georgia, says:
Companies with unions need to consider labor officials’ reservations about positive discipline. Their opposition has been based on the concern that it doesn’t allow employees to know where they stand in the eyes of supervisors. Moreover, it fails to make clear what steps follow repeated infractions—particularly in the critical stage of the decision-making leave. The errant individual also may not understand that discharge can be the next step.


These problems can be real, but they can be addressed if supervisors have been trained properly in the mechanics of administering such a system, and if the notification to the employees (and to the union) is communicated effectively.


Another reason for potential union resistance is that positive discipline may be seen as limiting or eliminating the union representative’s role in negotiating a modification of the disciplinary action, as one might historically have done under a more conventional progressive discipline system.


However, because arbitrators have routinely recognized the right of employers to unilaterally adopt and implement positive systems as part of their customary management right, union opposition needn’t discourage the practice, but HR should take these concerns under consideration.


In terms of arbitrators, many are unfamiliar with positive discipline. But in my own informal surveys, I don’t think my colleagues would generally have conceptual problems in upholding such a system, as long as the basic requisites of just cause are satisfied. Those who’ve arbitrated such cases seem to have accepted and praised this positive approach.


Personnel Journal, August 1996, Vol. 75, No. 8, pp. 109-110.


Posted on July 1, 1996July 10, 2018

1996 Vision Optimas Award Profile Rhino Foods Inc.

You are a mad scientist, trying to create the perfect employee of the future. As lightning crackles outside, you labor furiously in your laboratory. There must be no mistakes — it’s a very delicate experiment. To start with, this perfect employee must be independent and empowered, be able to strike out on its own, not hover at the skirts of its employer. Then again, it must be involved and interested in the workplace, eager to interact with co-workers and make an impact on the business. Finally, your creation must be positive and proactive, the kind of employee who sees challenges rather than problems and who enjoys work.


You are a mad scientist, and you are frustrated. The experiment proves not just delicate but downright difficult. It may be impossible. As lightning again shocks the sky, you pour another cup of coffee and sulk.


Don’t wave the white flag quite yet. There’s a tiny company up in Burlington, Vermont, that just may have the workforce of the future. Its employees create solutions to problems on their own. They go after what they want. They offer up innovations without even being asked. They work in cohesive teams, competing (in a friendly way) for leadership. They actually have a fair amount of fun at work.


Besides being a rarity, why is this such a big deal? Because if the competitive advantage of tomorrow’s companies truly rests in their workforces, then the quicker- and smarter- and bolder-thinking a company’s workforce is, the more likely that company is to slam the competition.


So meet the competition — a firm with the foresight to build a futuristic workforce from the start while the rest of us were still puttering with the blueprint. Thanks to a menu of progressive HR programs, it boasts a dream team of employees who look impressively ready to tackle the 21st century — now. Welcome to Rhino Foods Inc.


Independent, empowered employees aren’t afraid of doing for themselves.
These days, employees can’t be spoon-fed, pampered and attended to like so many jittery kindergartners. They must be able to do for themselves, to act on their own. Over-attachment to one’s employer is deadly. Yet with the recurring downsizings of the past few years, it’s tempting for many employees to cling all the more tightly to their company, like castaways grasping their rafts in a stormy sea.


That’s what makes the way Rhino employees handled a potential layoff all the more impressive. In 1993, Rhino hit a slowdown period. For a firm of about 40 employees, this was potentially devastating — the company had a temporary overload of 10 production jobs, one-fourth of the workforce. But, in a refreshing turn of events, the higher-ups at the company didn’t whisper behind closed doors about who would stay and who would go. Instead, they called a company meeting and let the workers in on the problem. A group of 26 employees — more than half the workforce — took on the challenge: Find a way to keep a paycheck coming outside of Rhino job descriptions.


A lot of workforces would have been determined to keep a foot in the door of their company. Rhino’s employees decided on a better idea — they pushed away from their company. With the help of Marlene Dailey, director of HR, they hooked up with local businesses that needed extra hands for a time.


Ted Castle, president and owner, called a second meeting to ask for volunteers — pioneers — for the program. “He said that no one had tried this before and that we as a company would be sticking our neck out,” remembers quality assurance technician Stephen Mayo, a four-year employee. To offer a little security, Castle guaranteed the volunteers would have their jobs upon return as long as they fulfilled their duties at their “temporary employers.”


In the summer of 1993, six workers headed over to Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc., a major customer of Rhino (Rhino, a specialty-dessert manufacturer, makes the chocolate-chip cookie dough that goes in a Ben & Jerry’s ice cream). Another four volunteers went to jobs at Gardener’s Supply Company, a catalog firm of gardening products. Mayo was one of those employees. Why volunteer? “Basically it was to impress Rhino and make me more of an asset, make the company proud of me, show executives I’ll go the extra mile for the company,” he says.


For two months that summer, Mayo worked as a picker/packer, collecting the catalog items on a customer’s order and then shipping them off. He worked out in the sun, met a few new friends, even implemented a few changes around the warehouse to make gathering items easier. Even better, the whole time he was clocking in at Gardener’s, Mayo, just as all the other volunteers in the employee-exchange program, kept his seniority, his benefits and accrued vacation. The starting wage at Gardener’s was a little below his Rhino paycheck, so Gardener paid its share and Rhino made up the extra. “People ask me if I’d do it again,” says Mayo. “In a heartbeat. It’s like a vacation: You go somewhere a few months knowing you’ll be secure here. You know you’re eventually coming home. And it’s nice to get back home.”


Mayo isn’t the only one who would do it again. Dailey says the company enjoyed a much higher level of morale and trust from the exchange program than if they’d just gone through a round of layoffs. “If we got to an area where we’d have to downsize again, we’d absolutely consider that,” she says. “It was a really effective [initiative] during a potentially devastating time. It turned out to be scary and tense, but it really ended up cementing the team.”


Employees who challenge themselves personally see a difference professionally too.
Scary and tense situations are usually carefully avoided by employees, right? Obviously, not at Rhino. For the past few years, a special program has helped employees challenge themselves even more. They’re encouraged to set and achieve goals — no matter how intimidating they may be. It’s called the wants program, and it works like this: A group of eight employees — from all areas and levels in the company — are trained as wants coordinators and are available one-on-one to any Rhino worker. Employees, on company time, meet with their wants coordinator once every quarter for an hour to set goals and work on achieving those goals.


Wants don’t have to be work-related. Although some employees might choose to focus on winning a promotion, others might set their sights on dreams as diverse as reuniting with a family member, writing a book or learning to skydive. The point is to empower employees to set goals and make things happen — on their own. To that end, Dailey carefully trains her wants coordinators on coaching employees, not just giving them the answers. For instance, if an employee were working toward buying a house, a wants coordinator wouldn’t say, “Oh, I’ve bought three houses, here’s how you do it.” Instead, the person would ask about what steps the employee was taking, the challenges he or she faced and what the employee would do about it. “There’s a difference between a want and a fantasy,” explains Dailey. “A want is something you’re willing to take action on.”


Between the training for the coordinators (about 90 minutes every two weeks for three months) and the actual meeting time (one hour four times a year for any employee who wants it) the program doesn’t come cheap. But Rhino feels it has gained a lot in return. For one thing, the company acknowledges the strong synergy between work life and personal life. If an employee achieves goals on a personal level, he or she can focus that much more on work. In addition, empowered employees are simply better employees. “The more they understand that they create their own world, whether it’s here or at home, the more confidence they have in their abilities,” says Dailey. “They’re more likely to speak up and offer their ideas.”


Troy Tsounis, a shipping and receiving worker, agrees. He has been a wants coordinator since the program’s inception and says he’s seen his skills grow because of his role. “The communications skills it [teaches] are superb,” he says. “I know how to talk to people and how to listen. I use the skills at work and at home also.”


Because Rhino has nearly doubled its staff in the past 16 months — it currently has more than 80 employees — Dailey and the wants coordinators have put the program temporarily on hold. They want to see how it can evolve to better meet the needs of a growing workforce. One incarnation under consideration would be a life-skills program that would emphasize goal-setting and communication skills, just as the wants program.


The main difference of the considered program is that it would be less intensely one-on-one and more peer-oriented, with employees using each other as a support system. “We were finding that after a while people are able to do this on their own and the need for a wants coordinator goes away, ” says Dailey. “Some people like the discipline of seeing someone and having deadlines, but for others, it’s ‘Thanks, this has been great, but I can go off on my own now’ — which is what we’re looking for anyway.”


Just as Rhino attests, empowered employees are proven value-adders. A study conducted this year by Los Angeles-based University of Southern California’s Center for Business Effectiveness found that companies with “high use of power-sharing programs” had a 10.3% return on sales compared to 6.3% among low-use organizations. In addition, in a 1995 Personnel Journal reader survey, 81% said they thought an empowered workforce is “worth the time and energy it takes to create,” and 81% also said it will be an “integral part of workplaces in the future.”


Rhino keeps employees involved in their workplace.
Another integral part of the future workplace: teams, teams and more teams. This clarion call echoes throughout the country today; we’re on a never-ending search for that perfect mixture of people to make that perfect team. Just as a group of Rhino employees was involved in avoiding that 1993 layoff, so are teams involved in nearly every aspect of the company.


For many projects, teams are created by enlisting people from all different parts of the business through opportunity postings. Similar to job postings, opportunity postings alert employees to project openings throughout the company. The posting will describe the nature of the opportunity as well as the necessary level of commitment.


When Dailey wanted to form a hiring committee using production workers, she posted the opportunity and asked for one year’s commitment. A daunting proposition at some companies, but Dailey had no problem finding four interested employees. For training, these volunteers sat in on interviews conducted by the incumbents of the hiring team — two HR people (including Dailey) and two supervisors. Afterward, the incumbents would offer a self-critique of the interview — what went right and what could be improved. The production volunteers also underwent training on the legalities, technique and etiquette of interviewing.


The four employees are now qualified to assist in hiring all entry-level jobs. They have a checklist that flags questions that are important to ask all candidates. And guess what? Several of those questions revolve around… teamwork. “We’ll ask questions like, ‘Can you tell us in the past what was the most team-oriented job you had?’ Or ‘Tell us the three words your teammates would use to describe you as a member,'” says Dailey.


These questions are important for finding good team members — and leaders. In the past year, Rhino has tinkered a bit with its approach to identifying team leaders. Used to be that employees on a production team rotated so that everyone had a chance to be both a leader and a member. Now that the company has expanded, and switched to skill-based pay, team leaders have to really show they deserve their position. So employees work their way up the team ladder until they can become a leader assistant. Before anyone can apply for a team-leader position (there are only four among the 40 production bakers), they must have first demonstrated their skills as an assistant. The director of operations, a trainer, two production supervisors and Dailey decide which applicant is awarded the team-leader role.


But most want to be team leaders or, at the very least, involved in a team. Dailey says that’s a common thread whenever she talks to employees about their appreciation for Rhino — being part of a team that really impacts the company.


Perhaps that’s the reason Rhino employees stay so involved — because Rhino makes their involvement mean something. For instance, despite a grueling production schedule, the company shuts down nearly every other week for at least 30 minutes for companywide meetings. “It really makes a difference — in people getting to know each other, in people knowing what’s going on in the company and really feeling connected to it,” says Dailey. In these meetings, the company addresses issues that affect everyone and invites employees to comment or question. For instance, when Rhino decided to introduce a 401(k), the company didn’t just slap down a plan and explain how it worked. Instead, it let the workforce in early on the process. Because the 401(k) is self-directed, Rhino wanted employees to feel comfortable with their vendor. So the three 401(k) contenders came into a company meeting and each made presentations on their services. The employees then voted on the winner. Is the participation level in the 401(k) high? Of course.


As the company profits, so do employees.
Just as Rhino shares information with employees, it shares success. In fact, the company has not one, not two, but three profit-sharing programs. They’re designed to recognize the workforce as a whole for performance, the workforce as a whole by seniority, as well as employees for individual performance.


The first program, around for the past six years, is playfully called The Game. Every day Rhino posts key information that shows where the company stands financially — its “score” for the day. For instance, on Tuesday, the score may indicate that if operations continue smoothly, each employee will receive $26 at month’s end. On Wednesday, the score may be down to $10 or $1. But all the information is posted to inform employees what happened on Tuesday to cause the drop — maybe a lot of product had to be scrapped. The point is, employees always know where they stand and what they have to do to keep their bonuses, which are given once a month in equal amounts to all employees.


To also acknowledge employees’ contributions to the company over time, a six-month profit sharing is distributed to people based on seniority. “If we make money, the people here for one year would get a small amount,” says Dailey. “The people who participated in the growth of the company over a longer period of time would get a lot. It doesn’t matter if they’re making $8 an hour, they’ll get a heck of a lot more than I will [Dailey’s been at Rhino four years].”


Finally, a pool of extra profits can be distributed to individuals based on their performance. “These programs keep employees tuned into the bottom line,” says Dailey. Castle himself names the profit-sharing initiatives among Rhino’s proudest accomplishments.


Positive, proactive employees like coming to work.
At some organizations, you can always spy the employee who has goofed up. The poor, errant worker is generally huddled in a corner of the cubicle, waiting for the boom to drop. Rhino is not one of those organizations. It’s not a blame-based type of company. It’s a “let’s identify the problem and figure out the solution together” kind of company.


For instance, instead of higher-ups giving orders and doling out punishments if those orders aren’t met, the company uses terminology called “requests and promises.” Both the request and the promise must be clearly understood, ensuring neither side can blame the other for miscommunication. If, for example, a new employee is starting at Rhino, Dailey may contact a trainer and request the trainer conduct an orientation. The trainer then makes the promise of performing the orientation or explains why he or she can’t make that promise. “We have to be good at making clear requests and keeping promises,” says Dailey. “Here, we say business is a series of conversations. The conversations can’t fall apart on either end.”


And what if the trainer makes the promise and then forgets about it? “We’ll say that having a bad memory isn’t an excuse,” says Dailey. “They have to find the tools to help them have a better memory.” In the past, Dailey has kept a supply of date books around for just such occasions — she’ll have a talk about time management and then suggest penciling in commitments.


A blunder such as forgetting a promise might fall under the Rhino rubric, breakdowns to breakthroughs: “We look at problems as breakdowns,” says Castle. “They’re really not problems; they’re opportunities for breakthroughs. They’re challenges to make things better.” The point, however, isn’t just how well the problem is solved, but the fact that it’s considered an opportunity, not an evil.


This positive spin is never more evident than in Rhino’s fun committee, a small team whose mission is simple: Dream up fun things for employees to do. For instance, after one company meeting, the workforce embarked on an ice-cream sculpture competition. Teams were supplied with big blocks of ice cream and candy decorations like rainbow-colored gummy worms, sprinkles and chocolate drops. One team glopped together a sculpture of “Champ,” the mythical serpent creature that’s nearby Lake Champlain’s answer to the Loch Ness monster.


But the fun committee also will put together projects to diffuse tension in the workplace. One year, Rhino was having huge ups and downs in production for a particular specialty product. After a series of trials, the employees finally made their goal — nine truckloads of the goody. For their catharsis, the director of operations slipped into his hockey outfit — gloves, face guard and all — and headed outside. There, employees got to have a high noon showdown with him, wielding piles of leftover frosted cheesecake at the man. “We work pretty hard and have a lot of pressure to grow the company,” says Dailey. “Increasing sales and product requires a ton of teamwork. So the fun committee does little things that make a big difference.”


Keeping its special culture intact.
The fun committee and open communication in general are going to be important through the rest of 1996: The company is still having some growing pains. Rhino has worked long and hard to establish its special brand of culture, and Castle worries about it being diluted with so many new employees coming on board. “You hire 10 people and then 10 more, and pretty soon you have a critical mass of people who don’t know what you’re talking about,” he says. “The challenge for us is to be able to continue with the programs while our workforce is changing and growing.”


Castle believes the continual companywide meetings and his open-door policy will help Rhino fight the good fight. And it’s the openness of Rhino that many employees say they appreciate the most. Just ask Tsounis, the wants coordinator: “If you speak your mind proactively, people will definitely listen. It’s a very comfortable atmosphere.”


Mayo, the employee-exchange volunteer, echoes the appreciation. “I can be honest, I’m not wild about working.” he says. “But working at Rhino, I can get out of bed, and I don’t have the work knots. I look forward to being here the time I need to be here. It’s unlike any company I’ve ever worked for. And Ted [Castle] knows I’ll be here until I retire. As long as the company needs what I’m giving it and it’s giving me what I need, I’ll be here without a doubt.”


So, with Rhino employees boasting so many attributes, what does Dailey appreciate most? Her answer gives insight to the special interdependence between employer and employee that makes Rhino so unique. “The workers care about what happens here,” she says. “We feel it’s up to the company to make sure that they care. They’re a responsible, creative workforce. It’s definitely a shared success for this company.”


So, you’re a mad scientist, trying to create the perfect employee of the future. As the lightning crackles in the background, you’re poring over your notebooks and mixing together volatile potions. You’re slurping down more coffee and cursing under your breath. Save yourself the headache. You may just want to head for a visit to Rhino Foods and watch the experiment in action.


Workforce, July 1996, Vol. 75, No.7, pp. 36-43.

Posted on July 1, 1996July 10, 2018

You Demote Me and I’ll Sue You

You know how difficult it is any more to terminate an employee? It just got that hard to demote an employee. For years, courts have recognized “implied contracts” in wrongful termination charges. This meant even employers who used no employment contracts were subject to lawsuits if their policies or procedures somehow implied a contract for job security.


In November 1995, the California Supreme Court—for the first time in history—applied the same theory to demotions. Two Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) employees were discovered to have misrepresented their ownership of an outside consulting firm. The employees allegedly used their managerial positions in PG&E to recruit employees for work in their outside firm, rewarding them in return with pay increases. The two men also used PG&E property and equipment for operating their own enterprise, as well as committing other violations of PG&E policies.


After its investigation, PG&E demoted the men to nonmanagement positions, with a 25% cut in pay and benefits. The two men sued. In the ruling for Scott v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, the Court found that PG&E’s official and unofficial policies, practices and communications created an implied promise not to demote employees without good cause.


PG&E lost $1.325 million in damages to the two plaintiffs for lost wages and benefits, and emotional distress. Employers nationwide lost peace of mind. Although it’s the first ruling of its kind, California courts often lead the way nationally. If the ruling starts a trend, as expected, not only does it mean employees can now sue for wrongful demotion, it means they can use an implied contract claim to challenge any employment decision—wrongful discipline, change in benefits, failure to promote, the list goes on.


Michael Loeb, partner at the labor and employment practice group of Oakland, California-based law firm Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, offers advice on safeguarding against a wrongful demotion lawsuit.


Can you explain how this case germinated at PG&E?
The company, as is typical for large employers, had detailed personnel policies. The personnel policies spoke of progressive discipline, which means that in most cases the employer has committed itself to going through various procedures before taking serious discipline—for instance, oral warnings, then written warnings—before there would be a demotion or termination.


PG&E didn’t do this?
The company prepared a report outlining the employees’ [misdeeds]. Then a few days after it had given the report to the employees, the company demoted them. It took away their managerial responsibilities and reduced their rate of pay. The employees claimed it was a breach of their implied contractual rights.


Why “implied” contractual rights?
Because they didn’t have an express written employment agreement. Instead what constituted their employment contract were [less-specific] things, such as the company’s personnel policies and promises. The two plaintiffs claimed their implied contract consisted of the promise of progressive discipline, that they wouldn’t be demoted unless there had been warnings.


What’s the connection between wrongful demotion and wrongful discharge here?
This case concerned wrongful demotion and whether there could be an implied contractual right—not an express agreement, but implied promises that could protect employees from demotion without certain safeguards and procedural steps before the demotion. The court was saying basically the rules of contract that apply to termination also can apply to other employment practices.


Why are so many employers worried over this ruling?
The fear of employers is that if you permit this implied contract doctrine in situations other than termination, you’ll open up virtually all employment decisions to potential legal challenge. It’s one thing to challenge a termination. It’s another thing to challenge a demotion or suspension or warning or failure to promote. I, as a former employee, [could] claim there was an oral understanding between [myself and my employer], an implied contract, that the company would promote me if I performed satisfactorily and was a long-term employee. What you’re talking about is potential legal challenges to many, many different kinds of employment decisions.


So employers worry they now might be vulnerable to lawsuits over even basic employment decisions. How likely is that?
Nobody knows how far this is going to go. The court said that as a practical matter, employees aren’t going to be able to file breach of contract claims for suspensions or warnings because there’s no economic damage in it. I think one of the things the court was missing is that these claims often are going to be attached to an existing claim for wrongful termination. What we’re dealing with here in many cases is going to be additional claims that are part of an existing lawsuit.


What can companies do to protect themselves?
Basically the court suggested an employer can protect itself by maintaining its discretion to make discipline decisions in any order or without going through any previous sets. PG&E didn’t have such a statement. Typically if you have an at-will clause, you could expand it to [say] the employee has no right to progressive disciplines.


What’s the biggest problem for employers in dealing with this?
What’s troublesome for employers is they’re not dealing with express written contracts in which [employees] have a document that has been negotiated with their employer that says “employment contract.” These implied contracts are really the problem, because they’re just not clear. A [verbal] promise I make to you in the hallway or sitting in my office [may later be subject to] dispute. It’s much easier to create an implied contractual right. Now these outside the area of termination are actionable.


What should employers look for or be careful of?
One of the ironies of the last 15 years is many employers have tried to get as far as possible from having an express employment contract with their employees. What this court may be telling us is that if you want to avoid misunderstandings, then you should have something that’s expressed and in writing.


So maybe the best thing an employer should do with its employees, particularly new employees, is to bite the bullet and have express written agreements so there can be no question about what the rights and obligations are.


What kind of form should this be in?
It can be a two-page letter that sets forth the basic terms: what can lead to termination, basic job duties, an [item] retaining the employer’s right to terminate at will and to apply discipline in any order it deems appropriate. [It can state] that raises are based on performance only and aren’t guaranteed every year. That way you’re keeping your discretion. You can have an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) clause, arbitration or mediation clause. And you need what we call an integration clause, something that says, “This is our understanding and there are no promises on these subjects outside of this written agreement.”


What about employers who want to remain contract-free?
If you don’t want to have a contract, then you’re going to open yourself up to claims based on oral understandings or implied contractual rights.


One of the things that employers [who don’t want contracts] frequently do is [put policies in a handbook] and then say their handbook isn’t a contract. When you say that manual isn’t a contract, you’re creating the possibility of an implied contract being created.


Since managerial promises are often the basis for implied contracts, what education should managers receive?
Be careful managers don’t make promises that are inconsistent with company policy. Many employers today have policies that say one thing—for instance, “We can terminate you at will.” On the other hand, managers are promising something different: “We believe in due process. We believe in giving you a fair chance.” To some extent we’ve created this problem by being schizophrenic, by saying one thing and doing something else. You have this tension between written policies and what’s verbally represented. I think there needs to be more consistency. You just can’t say your practices are at odds with something you’ve written or vice versa.


Any final suggestions?
Audit your handbooks and manuals to make sure you’ve retained your discretion in making disciplinary decisions. Ensure you’re not inconsistent in your dated, written policies and practices. Stick to written formal agreements. All these are good ways of avoiding misunderstandings or inconsistencies.


Personnel Journal, July 1996, Vol. 75, No. 7, pp. 83-87.


Posted on July 1, 1996July 10, 2018

Top Ten Ways To Motivate Today’s Employees

Today’s employees may not need a pay raise as much as they need a personal thanks from their manager for a job well done. Following, in priority order, is the top-ten things to do to motivate today’s employees.


  • Personally thank employees for doing a good job-one on one-verbally, in writing or both. Do it in a timely manner, often and sincerely.
  • Be willing to take the time to meet with and listen to employees-as much as they need or want.
  • Provide specific feedback about performance of the person, the department and the organization.
  • Strive to create a work environment that is open, trusting and fun. Encourage new ideas and initiative.
  • Provide information about how the company makes and loses money, upcoming products, strategies for competing in the marketplace and how the person fits in with the overall plan.
  • Involve employees in decisions, especially when those decisions affect them.
  • Provide employees with a sense of ownership in their work and the work environment.
  • Recognize, reward and promote people based on their performance. Deal with low and marginal performers so they either improve or leave.
  • Give people a chance to grow and learn new skills. Show them how you can help them meet their goals within the context of meeting the organization’s goals. Create a partnership with each employee.
  • Celebrate successes-of the company, of the department and of individuals in it. Take time for team- and morale-building meetings and activities.

Personnel Journal, July 1996, Vol. 75, No. 7, p. 68.


Posted on July 1, 1996July 10, 2018

When To View Personnel Files

Al Christenson, personnel and MIS manager of Solid State Stamping Inc., in Temecula, California, says:
An employee’s right to review his or her personnel file greatly depends on respective state laws. In California, for example, an employee has the right to review the file once a year, although exceptions are made under certain conditions. The employer may require the viewing take place during an employee’s free time. It normally isn’t permitted on demand, but must be at a time mutually convenient to both parties. Employees may review nearly everything in their files, with the exception of items such as letters of reference or documents from criminal investigations. Furthermore, employees are allowed to have a copy of any document they’ve signed, subject to reasonable costs of copying.


But employers shouldn’t feel threatened by an employee’s request to review his or her file. Of course, this is assuming the employer has been honest and objective in documenting performance. Employees have legitimate concerns about the accuracy of their files and should periodically review their contents. Employers should be ready and willing to discuss any item in an employee’s file and back up written comments with specific examples of behavior. An employee’s request to review his or her file should alert employers to the vital nature of documentation. Employee files should reflect the realities of the relationship: Notes should indicate extra effort and excellent performance in specific areas, as well as document discussions that indicate a need to alter one’s behavior or performance. To have only positive notes or negative notes would, in my opinion, raise a number of questions about the supervisor. Rarely, if ever, are employees all good or all bad. If that were the case, we would never hire the bad ones and wouldn’t need to worry about the good ones. Who, then, would need HR?


Thomas M. Terry, human resources manager at Zephyr Manufacturing Co. in Inglewood, California, says:
It’s important to view the issue of personnel records from a human resources manager and an employee’s position. As HR manager, I must strive to be fair and impartial in any situation. First of all, personnel files should be kept strictly confidential. In our company, the only individuals who are allowed to view employee personnel files are the employee, president, vice presidents and myself. Occasionally, a supervisor is allowed to see a person’s file as long as there’s a reasonable justification. Everything that affects an employee is entered or filed in his or her personnel record. That’s why it’s a touchy issue for the person accessing those files. Our company allows an employee to view his or her file as long as the request to view it is convenient for the company and the employee.


As an employee and manager, I would always want to have the option of knowing what’s in my personnel file. In some states, a third party may also review information from an employee’s file—if the employee isn’t available and has authorized his or her desire in writing. It’s always important to review state and federal labor laws before making any decisions so violations aren’t committed by either the employee or the employer.


As human resources professionals, we have an obligation to serve our company’s employees as well as our company. I strive to treat each employee with respect and grant the option of viewing one’s records. If push comes to shove, and there’s a legal battle, the employee will see records anyway. Keep in mind, there may be some items neither the company nor the employee would want revealed in public.


Personnel Journal, July 1996, Vol. 75, No. 7, p. 93.


Posted on July 1, 1996July 10, 2018

Rhino’s Owner Explains the Company’s Purpose

Ted Castle knows what a good company should look like. When he started Rhino Foods 15 years ago, the owner and president specifically wove an Employee Principle section into his company’s purpose statement. The statement serves as a beacon for human resources efforts, keeping Rhino on track:



The employees and families of Rhino Foods are its greatest assets. The company’s relationship with its employees is founded on a climate of mutual trust and respect within an environment for listening and personal expression. Rhino Foods declares that it is a vehicle for its people to get what they want.


Here Castle explains how these words translate into everyday actions.


The employees and families of Rhino Foods are its greatest assets.


“We added “families” not because we want to dive into people’s lives, but because we do think about working from the outside in — and people come from the outside in. We want people to have a healthy life outside because if they do, we think they come to work in much better shape. And if we have a work environment here that creates healthy people inside our company, when they go home they have a better chance of a healthy environment there. To try to say that one doesn’t affect the other is putting blinders on.”


The company’s relationship with its employees is founded on a climate of mutual trust and respect within an environment for listening and personal expression.


“We do what we can to get people to trust us. At our company meetings, we’re being as honest as we can with people. Trust is a huge thing. People don’t come to work for a company and trust that company right off the bat. It takes a number of years for people to develop trust for their employer. We also try to create an environment for listening. We work hard at listening to what our people are saying, and we work hard to get people to express what they think.”


Rhino Foods declares that it is a vehicle for its people to get what they want.


“If we can get people who are good at getting what they want, then we have a group of people who can be proactive about getting results either in their personal life or while they’re here at work.”


Castle emphasizes that it’s crucial to stay true to Rhino’s employee principles, continually performing an HR progress report of sorts: “It’s a lot of work. You need to constantly evaluate how you’re doing. You can’t wait a few years and do a program and then wait another few years and do another. It’s too patchwork and it doesn’t work that way. You have to stay focused all the time.”


Personnel Journal, July 1996, Vol. 75, No. 7, pp. 38.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 560 Page 561 Page 562 … 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