Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on December 1, 1995July 10, 2018

Dress Codes Should Match Corporate Image

Casual dress has been sweeping the country—and dare we say, the world? However, lack of consistency is one of the biggest problems companies have in implementing casual dress policies. Although dress-down standards are spreading like wildfire, they often cause confusion among employees and may send mixed messages.


To help with some of the confusion around what casual dress means, some employers, such as Southfield, Michigan-based Chrysler Financial, a division of Chrysler, have held fashion shows to help employees understand they don’t mean T-shirts and ripped jeans when they say “casual.” In the process, employers clarify what they really do mean by relaxed dress.


Rockford, Michigan-based Hush Puppies, a division of Wolverine World Wide Inc., is one company that now allows business casual dress Monday through Thursday and “casual-casual” dress on Friday. The firm held a fashion show for employees last year to show what they hoped workers would wear—casual, but not too casual. “We’re an international company and we interface with people around the world,” says Maggi Mercado, vice president, design director for women’s shoes at Hush Puppies. “Therefore, there’s a certain level of decorum and polish that’s required here.” Some clothing items they don’t allow: Sandals without stockings, sneakers, leggings, tights, gym wear, cutoffs and ripped jeans.


J. Randall “Randy” MacDonald, senior vice president of HR and administration for Stamford, Connecticut-based GTE, is another enthusiastic supporter of the new casual dress trend. He explained that when GTE was looking for a corporate vice president, they told their recruiter to inform candidates it’s company policy to dress casually on Fridays. “I’ll tell you that in each case, I came dressed casually the day of the interviews,” says MacDonald. So did the interviewees. “Had those people showed up in a dress or with a tie, it wouldn’t have affected me one way or the other.” He says if people are professional, competent and perform well, that’s what counts.


Across America, employees are complaining that with the new casual dress option, they have to go out and buy new clothes just to fit a new corporate image. They say it’s especially frustrating after having carefully built a formal business wardrobe over the years. And with the trend toward reduced salaries and bonuses, employees have less disposable income with which to purchase these new clothes. So, don’t expect “country-club casual” from a work force who can’t afford to shop at Saks Fifth Avenue or aren’t comfortable wearing a more elite style. It may end up looking like a case of class discrimination in an organization.


“Nobody’s telling [employees here] they have to buy a new wardrobe,” says Mercado. “We show them they don’t have to go out and buy anything.” The firm simply wants to show them a more relaxed way of dressing by pairing their clothing differently. And casual is an option, not a mandate. Employees may still wear their suits if they want to.


It’s important that if your company decides on a casual image, executives should also embrace the practice. If the higher-ups are still dressing up, employees will get the idea that to reach the executive suite, they have to dress up, too, regardless of what the company says its standard is.


And if your company promotes a relaxed image, don’t have a double standard in rating employees down if they dress casually. You actually may be getting more work out of them, regardless of how they look. Some studies show casual dress actually increases productivity and morale. And many companies are finding that to be true.


Others aren’t. “Many of the studies, show wonderful benefits from [casual dress],” says Susan Morem, an image consultant in Minneapolis. “I’m not saying that’s not true.” But what she’s seeing among her clients is that some companies that go from a one-day-a-week casual schedule, to an every day casual schedule, find the overall atmosphere is more relaxed and casual, sometimes leading to lowered standards. She cautions: Just make sure that’s the kind of atmosphere you want.


Personnel Journal, November 1995, Vol. 74, No. 11, p. 54.


Posted on December 1, 1995July 10, 2018

How To Screen Job Candidates Effectively

Don’t let time and financial pressures rule the process.
Finding the time to thoroughly check candidates might be difficult. Spending $50 to $200 to have a candidate screened seems like a hefty sum—particularly when a company is hiring thousands of employees a year. But it’s time and money well spent. If only a single violent incident is avoided or theft is curtailed, thousands—perhaps millions—of dollars can be saved. Moreover, reducing turnover, absenteeism and other problems pays huge dividends. Finally, remember that every applicant doesn’t require a background check. Only the individual or persons seriously considered for the position.


Customize screening tools to fit your needs and situation.
There’s no single template that can determine the right approach, since no two companies are alike. Consider the needs and concerns of your company and the type of position you’re trying to fill. Learn about all available options so you can make an informed choice. And avoid screening methods that have no relationship to the job. For example, a credit check is almost always unnecessary for a truck driver or assembly line worker.


Verify information on resumes—and call the references.
Experts agree one of the biggest mistakes human resources recruiters make is not thoroughly checking resumes. Of course, many companies aren’t terribly cooperative. But there are ways to dig beneath the surface and piece together a picture of who the candidate really is. “The questions that are asked are key,” says Edward C. Andler, president of Bridgeton, Missouri-based Certified Reference Checking Company. So, choose your questions carefully.


Use structured interviewing, whenever possible.
Ask specific questions relating to skills and ask how an individual would react to a hypothetical work situation. Behavioral questions can provide strong clues as to how a person might react in a given situation. Written assessment tests also can provide insights.


Use professional services that have the expertise and resources to conduct a check.
Yes, it might cost a bit more up front, but firms that specialize in background and resume checks generally have the manpower and knowledge to dig beneath the surface.


Personnel Journal, December 1995, Vol. 74, No. 12, p. 92.


Posted on December 1, 1995July 10, 2018

Are You Well Armed to Screen Applicants

Thoroughly checking a job applicant’s background is one of those things that sounds like a good idea. After all, you don’t need to look past a newspaper or the nightly news to hear about the onslaught of crime and violence plaguing Corporate America. You don’t have to glance beyond the high turnover and sagging productivity many companies find themselves dealing with. But when your human resources department gets buried by the load of everyday work, it’s entirely too easy to gloss over things and dismiss a background investigation entirely. Add to that a dizzying array of legal restrictions and difficulty accessing information and it’s possible—if not probable—you’re hiring someone without knowing who they really are.


Just look at the facts. Experts say, depending on the position and industry, between 10% and 30% of all job applicants distort the truth or lie on their resumes. That’s about double the estimates from 20 years ago. Some exaggerate their educational or professional accomplishments; others fill in employment gaps. Many try to hide irresponsible work patterns; a few attempt to conceal a criminal background. A couple of years back, when the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ran an advertisement for electricians experienced at working with a Sontag connector, it received 170 responses, despite the fact such a device doesn’t even exist. The Port Authority placed the ad simply so it could determine how many applicants falsify information on resumes.


Horrible, but not hopeless. HR professionals like Bobbi Navarra say they have learned to look beyond the resume to know just who they’re hiring. “The hiring process can set you apart from the competition,” states the director of human resources administration for APCOA Inc., a Cleveland-based company that operates parking facilities at 400 urban sites, including 70 airports, in 42 states. Every time the organization considers hiring a new employee, it conducts a battery of checks. Depending on the exact position, the investigation can include driving record, credit history, criminal record, education and employment verification. But the company doesn’t stop there. It also might carry out a detailed reference check and conduct an interview that probes specific issues. “The perception is a parking company would never spend the time and energy to do all this, but if you’re committed to excellence, then it’s absolutely necessary,” says Navarra. “Nowadays, you have to know who the people are who work for you. The risk is just too great to ignore.”


Better safe than sorry.
Indeed, the horror stories abound. Not long ago, for example, McDonald’s Corp. found itself paying out $210,000 in damages to a family of a 3-year-old boy who was assaulted by an employee who had a previous conviction for child molestation. And a Florida furniture company recently got walloped with a $2.5 million judgment for negligent hiring after an employee—whose background hadn’t been checked—returned to a home after a delivery and viciously attacked a woman with a knife, nearly killing her. At the ensuing trial, it became clear the man had an extensive criminal record and a long history of mental problems. Says Edward Niam, president of Hudson, Ohio-based Corporate Solutions Inc., a company that conducts background checks: “The entire incident would never have taken place if the company would have spent a few dollars on a criminal check.”


The dollars spent for a check are nothing if you consider workplace violence and harassment cost businesses more than $4 billion a year, according to the National Safe Workplace Institute in Monroe, North Carolina. Or that workplace theft tops out at more than $120 billion annually—more than 10 times the cost of all theft that takes place in the streets of America. Or that a single lawsuit for negligent hiring can drain a company of millions of dollars and severely cripple its stability.


The companies that use background checks and other screening tools generally find themselves with far fewer problems. They find themselves reducing hiring and training costs and creating an environment in which violence, crime and sexual harassment are kept to an absolute minimum. “No system is going to eliminate every problem and no amount of interviewing or screening is going to make the workplace a perfect environment,” says Niam. “It’s all about reducing the odds that incidents take place. Investing dollars and hours up front can save enormous headaches later on.”


“Not investigating an employee’s background can lead to a lawsuit if that person commits a crime or infringes on another individual’s civil rights.”


The words sound convincing. The concept seems clear enough. Yet few companies screen job applicants as thoroughly as APCOA—particularly those hiring lower-paid service workers. That’s because screening applicants requires serious effort and a commitment to use all available resources. And, getting reliable information about a person isn’t easy. According to a recent survey conducted by Alexandria, Virginia-based Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), 63% of all human resources professionals have refused to provide information about a former employee for fear of a lawsuit. Nearly 40% indicated that HR professionals should refuse to provide job-related information to prospective employers, even if the information is honest and factual. And while 92% of respondents in the survey indicated they do speak to an applicant’s former employer, only 61% verify educational information, 42% check driving records and 25% conduct credit checks. “There’s a dire need for better reference information, but fear of litigation keeps employers from providing much more than name, rank and serial number,” says H. Kenneth Ranftle, chair of SHRM’s board of directors.


Add to that the fact that over the last two decades, laws and restrictions have become ever more confining. One of the major issues, of course, is that Americans respect their privacy a great deal and resent others having access to what they would consider personal information. So, legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act denies access to such things as arrest, trial and conviction records. Yet, a tort—known as negligent hiring—holds employers responsible for determining an existing conviction record. In other words, not investigating a person’s background can lead to a lawsuit if that person commits a crime or infringes on another individual’s civil rights. Not making things any easier, 20 states have their own policies about how one can search criminal records. These laws override federal restrictions.


And that’s not all. The decentralized nature of information translates into a major obstacle for any HR department going the route alone. Many records, including criminal convictions, are generally not available in a central repository. In most states, they’re stored in county offices, which must be searched individually. Although an individual might have a felony conviction, there’s no way to know without checking a specific locale or knowing where that person has been in the past. If an applicant has falsified information about where he or she has lived in the past, a criminal check alone isn’t going to pull up any hits.


Anticipate the obstacles.
Despite all the hurdles, it’s possible to legally obtain the data needed to make intelligent choices, experts insist. Perhaps the most basic but useful tool is a Social Security trace, which verifies previous addresses. Another popular tool is a motor-vehicle records check, which can show violations, convictions and restrictions—usually for the last three years. An education check can confirm degrees and offer transcripts. A credit history can show how individuals have handled money and whether they have any judgments or liens against them. And criminal conviction and court records can show civil litigation and any felonies a person has committed over the last seven years. (For a complete discussion of various background checks, please see, “How To Screen Job Candidates Effectively,”).


Although each individual check can be useful, experts say it’s often more important to look at how everything fits together. According to Niam, a cross section of checks can expose someone who is using a false name, has lied about the employment history or fabricated other information. He points out, for example, a Social Security trace can verify a current address, and also show where that individual has lived in the past. That information can be used to check the accuracy of employment dates and also provide a framework for conducting a county-by-county search for a criminal conviction. Likewise, the fact an applicant doesn’t have a motor-vehicle record might be an indication of a suspended license due to alcohol or drug problems. With an accurate list of previous addresses, it’s possible to probe deeper into that issue. The cost of conducting a background check? Depending on the firm and the scope of the check, typically $50 to $200. In a few cases, the fee can run as high as $500. Turnaround time is typically 24 to 72 hours.


Many companies take the issue seriously enough to willingly plunk down the cash. At Atmel Corp., a San Jose, California-based producer of highly specialized semiconductors and microprocessors, all prospective employees are thoroughly investigated, using a variety of methods. The 10-year-old company, which has almost 3,000 workers in the United States and overseas, has been growing at an annual rate of more than 50%. That puts tremendous pressure on recruiters to fill positions, says Bobbi LaPlante, Atmel’s manager of human resources. “It’s a huge challenge,” she says. “The problem is nobody ever wants to think the preferred candidate can possibly have anything wrong. Recruiters often don’t want to wait the three to five days needed to get the information about an individual’s background. They want to make an offer immediately, and they think it might show bad faith on their part to tell a person they’re checking on him or her. All it takes is getting pinched one time for you to realize you can’t make exceptions. The reality is the money spent on screening is an investment.


Match the tools to the job.
Atmel—which frequently uses outside consultants—conducts different types of checks for different positions. Line employees, who typically work in chip fabrication, undergo a Social Security verification and a criminal check. Since education and financial issues aren’t important for the job, the company forgoes any background check to verify that information. At the management level, the firm conducts a more detailed investigation. It verifies education, checks that employment dates are correct, conducts a Social Security check, and a criminal-record check. And, depending on the position, it sometimes requests a credit check. “The higher we go up the ladder, the more we focus on personal references,” says LaPlante.


Any type of criminal violation catches HR’s attention, although several issues weigh into a decision about whether to hire the applicant. For example, if an individual has a DUI (driving under the influence) conviction, it’s considerably less of an issue if the person isn’t going to be driving for the company, says LaPlante. However, if the individual has been convicted of criminal fraud, that eliminates the candidate from consideration altogether. And when it comes to checking the accuracy of the information that’s been provided by an applicant, the same general rules apply. “If someone is a few months off in their employment record, it isn’t something we’re too concerned about. Obviously, you have to allow for some margin of error. We get a lot more concerned if someone has worked somewhere and doesn’t put it down. Or when the person claims to have a degree or credentials and doesn’t.”


The company is particularly careful about who it hires for reasons that extend beyond possible violence or theft. Industrial espionage always is a concern, particularly for a technology company like Atmel. There’s also some concern about an individual’s employment history and what information that individual claims. Even the perception one is carrying secrets to a new company can spawn lawsuits. And then there’s the general issue of finding people who are reliable and honest. “You want someone who’s stable and productive,” says LaPlante.


Although the firm has never had a violent incident or a problem with theft, LaPlante recently was reminded how insidious the problem can be. Under pressure from a manager who had an open position and desperately needed to fill it, the HR department allowed an engineer to begin work before all the usual checks were completed. Only a week into the new job, the background investigation revealed the person had falsified his degree, work experience and other facts. Although Atmel had to pay a week’s salary, that was the least of the headache. HR also had to go back to find a new candidate to fill the position. “It reminded us a couple of hundred dollars and some patience are a good investment,” says LaPlante.


APCOA’s Navarra is no less committed to knowing who the company is hiring. Although it uses Hiring Authorities (the name given to managers who hire employees) to make employment decisions at its various locations, it has established a standardized process for checking on applicants. After a Hiring Authority has weeded through applications and narrowed the list of finalists, an outside company checks on the applicants’ driving records and looks for criminal convictions. Additionally, management candidates are subjected to a credit history check, as well as education and employment verification. Navarra says approximately 15% of all entry-level applicants falsify information and approximately 5% of all management candidates—something that’s usually apparent after a background check.


But the company doesn’t limit itself to verifying information. It also conducts reference checks in-house. In some cases, that translates into a phone call and direct questions to an individual listed as a reference. In other situations, staff sends out specialized forms and then examines the responses. “Usually, a person puts someone down as a reference who’s going to say something good, and many people assume there’s no point in talking to them because of that. But asking the right questions can provide clues and insights into attitudes, behaviors and actions. It can open up things the reference might not otherwise discuss,” Navarra explains. For example, HR managers might ask a former employer whether the candidate ever showed signs of irresponsible behavior.


At Intuit Corp., the Menlo Park, California software company that produces Quicken, reference checking has turned into something between an art and a science. The organization typically requests that applicants for management positions supply between five and nine references—occasionally a dozen. Then the HR department calls these personal and professional references and asks specific questions, such as: “What are the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses? Can you describe a project in which the candidate achieved outstanding results? Can you describe a situation in which a candidate’s performance was disappointing?” “We find the folks we call are pretty open and honest,” says Sharyn Vucinich, staffing manager for Intuit. “The common perception that they’re only going to say positive things isn’t true.” And if those conducting the interview—a combination of hiring managers and those from other departments—run into roadblocks, they simply ask the candidate for more references.


Even when a reference isn’t overly cooperative or forthcoming with information, it’s still possible to glean insights about the candidate, according to Edward C. Andler, president of Bridgeton, Missouri-based Certified Reference Checking Company. At the very least, he says, it’s often possible to get some idea just by the tone of the voice and the demeanor of the person answering the questions. What’s more, basic information, such as employment dates, job title and whether a previous employee is eligible for rehire, can help a great deal. He also points out there are other ways to overcome reluctant sources. One of the most effective strategies: calling one’s counterpart at another company and engaging in old-fashioned networking—informal and off-the-record, if necessary. “The worst the person can do is say, ‘No.'”


Regardless of whether a company conducts its own checks or contracts with an outside firm, Andler believes the crucial thing is to verify those being considered for a position are really who they say they are. He explains: “Most crimes and most problems are committed by a small percentage of people. It might be difficult to determine a top performer from an average performer, but it’s relatively easy to spot the vast majority of individuals who are poor performers, dishonest or have other problems. Once you weed out the bottom 20% of the work force, quality and productivity will increase. Once you get the troublemakers out of the loop, you’ve solved many of your personnel problems.”


Take advantage of tests.
Background checks and interviews with references can certainly go a long way toward weeding out undesirable applicants. But a diligent HR department doesn’t stop there. In fact, verifying the accuracy of information is sometimes just a start. James M. Powell, a senior vice president at Charlotte, North Carolina-based Pinkerton Services Group, argues organizations also can screen applicants by using personality tests, psychological assessments and structured interviews. He also believes an individual well heeled in the art of interviewing can expose inconsistencies and potential problems. “Many companies are beginning to understand it isn’t just an issue of theft or violence. They need to provide a high level of customer service and they have to find people who can do that.”


One of those companies is Nordstrom Inc., a Seattle-based department store chain. It uses the Reid Survey, an integrity test, to screen for violent tendencies, drug use and dishonesty. The paper-based test takes approximately 15 minutes to complete and immediately is fed through a scanner to obtain results. It’s given to anyone who a manager shows interest in pursuing beyond the application process. “Although it’s only one step in the hiring process, it immediately eliminates people who are suspect,” says Joe Demarte, vice president of personnel. And he has the numbers to back that statement up. When Nordstrom conducted a controlled test of 400 applicants at one store, it tracked the results of the Reid Survey. Approximately 100 weren’t recommended, but the company hired them anyway. Three months later, 44% of the group had left the company, compared to a 22% turnover rate for those who scored in the appropriate range on the test.


“Background checks and interviews with reference checks can certainly go a long way toward weeding out undesirable applicants.”


Overall, approximately 20% to 25% of those tested aren’t recommended for hire, says Demarte. “[The test] simply increases the probability of tagging those who wouldn’t be acceptable employees.” He explains a Nordstrom interviewer has roughly a 60% chance of screening out an undesirable applicant. With the assessment test as an additional tool, the probability rises to 90%. “Spending $5 on the test is well worth it. It’s a negligible cost compared to the alternative of having employees steal and treat customers in an undesirable way,” he says. Nordstrom also conducts criminal, driving and credit checks, depending on whether they’re relevant for the position. It typically spends $20 to $30 per applicant for anyone being seriously considered for hire.


Nordstrom isn’t the only company that has turned to testing and a more structured approach to hiring. A growing number of firms are using psychological assessments—and even personality tests—to match workers with a predefined profile of who a successful person is within that company. Says Pinkerton’s Powell: “The tests can’t tell you whether to hire the person or not. They simply provide insights into how that individual might function in that environment. They can show a person’s strengths and weaknesses.” Pinkerton’s Stanton Survey, for example, gauges an applicant’s attitude and provides some insights into how well the individual is likely to handle a particular position.


Don’t underrate face-to-face interviews.
All the discussion about background checks and screening, however important, overshadows another important part of the process: face-to-face interviewing. It’s one of the most powerful screening tools that exist, although many human resources professionals fail to use it effectively. “By asking good questions and by probing beneath the surface, it’s possible to find out a lot about a person. No amount of testing can ever take the place of a human being asking questions. A trained interviewer is crucial to finding people who have the people-skills to flourish,” says Demarte. Adds Atmel’s LaPlante: “A good interviewer who phrases things the right way can coax a good deal of information out of someone.”


One of the most effective methods is simply asking the applicant questions that are relevant to the job: How would you handle a customer who gives you a hard time? What would you do if another employee yelled at you or told you that you weren’t doing your job right? Such questions can evoke responses that provide clues about how that individual might react in a stressful situation or deal with others.


Pinkerton’s Powell agrees people often will provide all sorts of information, and applicants will admit to all kinds of things, if the questions are well designed. Another technique that works best, Powell believes, is a structured interview. It can eliminate many of the variables and inconsistencies that can sneak into the process—particularly at decentralized organizations that use field managers for hiring. Rather than sitting an applicant down and saying, “Tell me about yourself,” the exact questions are phrased ahead—and are often linked to follow-up questions. The process is constructed to address the specific needs of a specific job and so questions are tied into job functions. Popular in the 1940s and ’50s, it’s now making a strong comeback.


“The tests can’t tell you whether to hire the person or not. They simply provide insights into how that individual might function in that environment.”


At Ameritech Cellular Services, the Hoffman, Illinois subsidiary of Ameritech Corp., structured interviews are becoming the norm. That has created greater uniformity in the way the hiring process works and reduced the potential for legal problems. Hiring managers use a behavioral approach that focuses on past accomplishments and actions. From this, they’re able to get a much better idea who the people are and what they bring into the organization. Candidates answer questions directly relating to skills and abilities. “It’s not just an exercise in running down all the points of the resume,” says James A. Riecks, director of human resources. “We’re shifting toward competency-based systems, which really zero in on the attributes of a candidate. We’re looking for specific examples of how they succeeded on previous jobs rather than examining their entire work history.” In some cases, the company also uses computer-based simulations to determine if an individual has the skills to do the job.


Yet the firm doesn’t overlook conventional methods. Once an applicant is considered a finalist for a position, Ameritech conducts a background check—using a variety of different methods. It also has hiring managers and staff who check references. “The philosophy is driven from a cost perspective. If you can do a better job up front, if you can select a person who has the skills and attributes to fit the organization, you’re probably going to lower turnover, boost productivity and eliminate problems,” Riecks explains.


Whatever method you choose, ensure consistency.
Of course, there’s no single formula that works for every company in every situation. Experts say one of the keys to creating a solid screening program is to first determine what the company’s needs and concerns are. A candidate for the accounting department will require a far different background check than an individual who will drive a delivery truck. A sales manager will dictate an entirely different approach than a shipping clerk. Likewise, different industries require different types of screening. Certain sectors, particularly those paying low wages and with little opportunity for advancement, are far more prone to attract candidates with questionable backgrounds.Yet, as Niam puts it: “Nobody’s immune.”


Whatever approaches a company takes, those on the front lines say consistency is a key to success. Not only does a standard approach ensure the organization will follow its stated policies and pursue its goals, it also reduces the odds of a lawsuit. “You don’t have to screen everyone you hire,” says Niam, “but anyone who you consider for a specific position should be subjected to the exact same screening procedure and background checks as everyone else.” That’s also true for pre-employment drug tests and post-hire physicals. Moreover, it’s important to avoid tests and checks that aren’t relevant for the position and could be construed as a personal invasion. In some instances, they could serve as the basis for a discrimination suit. And when it comes to psychological and attitude assessments, experts caution that a test must not be biased toward a specific race, gender, religion or age group.


Niam also points out one should never assume all information is accurate and up-to-date. Mistakes take place. Credit reports are notoriously sloppy, for example, and things aren’t always how they appear on the surface. “It’s important to discuss an inconsistency or a red flag with a candidate. It’s crucial to give him or her the opportunity to explain why there’s a discrepancy or a problem. In some cases, a person will make an admission of guilt if confronted. In other instances, an individual may have a valid explanation.” Of course, there’s a big difference between an employment gap of a couple of months and a criminal conviction. And that’s when human judgment and expertise plays a role. No matter how sophisticated tests and checks become, HR must still weigh the results.


Finally, there’s the issue of not overstepping certain boundaries in the pursuit of information. Courts have found some employers liable for collecting intrusive data about job applicants and employees. Although virtually every employer requires a release form that allows the employer to check references and background information, that doesn’t provide carte blanche power to conduct an investigation and ask any question. One California company that began asking candidates about their sexual orientation and inclination to attend church found itself the target of a major class-action discrimination suit. By the time the dust had settled, the firm had coughed up $2 million for a settlement.


Of course, all the checks and tests in the world can’t eliminate every problem. Crime, violence and unproductive workers always will be a part of the workscape. People with emotional problems or a poor work ethic sometimes slip past even the most careful scrutiny. Yet human resources professionals who screen applicants and conduct background checks insist the money and time invested is well worth it. “It reduces turnover, it reduces theft and it cuts down on liability,” says APCOA’s Navarra. “You can have the best product or service in the world. You can create an award-winning training program. But if you haven’t selected the right person for the job, it’s all for naught. An organization is only as good as its employees.”


Personnel Journal, December 1995, Vol. 74, No. 12, pp. 84-95.


Posted on December 1, 1995July 10, 2018

Use Technology To Manage Your Expats

Michael Merrill eats at his desk a lot these days. With more than 500 expatriates in 18 international locations under his wing-about 400 of whom can switch locations in a given year-his hands are full. Merrill, international personnel director for New York City-based Goldman Sachs & Co., isn’t alone. Human resources executives like Merrill, responsible for expatriate administration, face many hurdles. Among them: recruitment, relocation, cultural adaptation, compensation, taxation, communication and repatriation. All this on top of the regular roles expected of a human resources executive.


Merrill and others also face unique financial challenges. Some experts estimate the cost of sending representatives across the globe is several times higher than for a locally-based employee. Careful planning is essential to ensure the benefits of sending an executive overseas justify the expense. Hence, information technology may be a salve that helps soothe the pain. Whether it’s used for global orientation, training, financial planning or just plain communication, technology can make expatriate administration a more efficient work experience.


Combine the human factor with technology.
Computers aren’t a miracle drug. They’re effective only if your strategy simultaneously addresses the human element. Global HR managers must first ask the right questions. “Too often expatriate assignments are unsuccessful because [HR doesn’t] zero in on the right things,” says Calvin Reynolds, senior counselor at New York City-based Organization Resources Counselors.


Reynolds says that for an expatriate assignment to succeed, the company really needs to look at core competencies and language skills, but must also carefully evaluate whether the expatriate has the essential interpersonal skills and actually wants to go.


Merrill agrees. “Managers tend to have an idealized view of expatriate assignments,” he says. “They don’t realize expatriates usually make sacrifices, particularly if they have families.” Technology, therefore, can play a role in easing this transition. A growing number of companies are entering the field of cross-cultural training. For example, ITAP International-a Princeton, New Jersey-based firm that specializes in consulting, training and developing products for expats-is introducing a series of interactive diskettes to help employees and their families prepare for relocation. Working with the diskettes, expatriates can explore the history, culture and business protocols of the 10 largest emerging global markets: China, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Turkey, Poland and South Africa.


“Interactive disks allow expatriates to absorb the information at their own pace and seek answers to the questions relevant to them at the time,” says Kathy Mendes, ITAP international director of marketing. To complement the technology, ITAP also offers the KIT™-a package containing maps, books, articles, safety tips and health profiles of the destination country.


Chicago-based Bennett Associates is another cross-cultural training firm. It uses videoconferencing as one element in its training programs. Within its training rooms, expatriates can meet local experts in the destination country. Heidi O’Gorman, director, business development, says this method gives the potential expatriate a unique perspective: “Teleconferencing works well because the person converses with someone who’s actually working and living in the country,” she says.


However, O’Gorman is quick to point out that technology is only one element in the training process. “Technology is excellent for research and for connecting people around the globe, but the trainer-participant relationship is vital to cross-cultural training. There’s no substitute for face-to-face interaction.”


Ensure careful financial planning.
Beyond the cultural factors, technology is a vital component in forecasting overall costs, keeping records and projecting tax adjustments. Goldman Sachs’ international personnel group uses an internally developed modeling tool to determine whether a manager can afford to send an employee to another country. The system translates factors such as current salary, estimated total compensation, family size, tax status, nationality and destination into a series of projections: pay, allowances, housing, education and home leave. The end result is a clear picture of net pay to the employee and net cost to the firm.


“Members of our group can sit down with an employee to discuss his or her questions and concerns, and walk through the various what if scenarios. This use of technology allows us to be clear and accurate up front, to reduce uncertainty so no uncomfortable and costly surprises emerge later on,” says Merrill.


Goldman Sachs also uses its technology system for ongoing budget projections. Every financial quarter, it feeds expatriates’ data through the model to help managers forecast the cost of keeping each person in the host country. Technology also allows controllers to account for international expenses accurately. At year-end, HR can translate the projections into actual figures for the subsequent year.


By being able to estimate and monitor international costs, the firm can do a better job at containing and reducing expenses. Goldman Sachs estimates its international per capita expatriate costs to be among the lowest in the industry for a full-service expatriate program. Clearly, technology allows the firm to develop and experiment with cheaper alternative expatriate programs. The company’s approach has evolved over decades-from the manual administration of 45 employees to an advanced system for more than 10 times as many expatriates.


Keep employees in touch with home.
While technology plays a key role in administrating expatriates, it’s also an important communication tool. Electronic mail, voicemail, videoconferencing, online newsletters and shared data bases are among the ways global employees remain linked to their home country and colleagues. “Communication is critical with expatriates, not only for ongoing information-sharing, but also so the person doesn’t feel out of place when [he or she] repatriates,” says O’Gorman. “So much can change in a couple of years.”


According to Reynolds, some employees who expatriate go native-that is, they make a significant effort to integrate themselves into the local culture of the host country. Then when their international assignments end, they tend to have more difficulty than others in repatriating effectively. He says in many cases, these individuals feel rejected by the people at home.


“Too often, organizations forget about their expatriate audience in terms of communication,” says Reynolds. “Companies need to make more of an effort to share information about finances, new programs and other activities so it’s not as much of a culture shock for expatriates when they return.”


E-mail is perhaps the most important tool because it facilitates communication where time zones may prevent real-time discussion. Because many expatriates are highly mobile, E-mail is one of the more efficient means of access. E-mail enables companies to send expats clear reports and calculations quickly and in a high-quality format. Mendes also says electronic communication can help employees adjust to their new surroundings by providing a channel to seek feedback on cultural issues. ITAP International encourages its clients to contact headquarters by E-mail, to ask any questions they have as they settle in.


Do it yourself-or outsource?
Reynolds says given the relatively small number of expatriates in most organizations, developing an in-house system may not be a viable option. “You would need to make too many compromises because every employee and every country is different. You could very easily spend more money designing a system than it’s worth,” he says.


Instead, companies may decide to purchase a system designed by one of the major accounting firms. Ernst & Young, for example, offers its Global Expatriate Management System-EY/GEMS™. “More information is required in the expatriate arena than for domestic operations,” says Jay Levine, director, tax software solutions for Ernst & Young. “A separate system allows you to monitor all this information without clogging your domestic systems with several extra fields.”


According to Reynolds, one key consideration in selecting an offsite system should be ensuring it effectively can be integrated with your existing human resources systems. The danger in pulling expatriates out of the main system is the expatriates may not receive their paychecks. A successful approach will marry onsite and outsourced systems to ensure the executive is included in the most basic payroll functions.


A full-scale centralized system costs roughly between $70,000 and $100,000. Levine says many companies consider this expenditure a good investment, particularly since cutbacks in HR have forced departments to become more efficient. Moreover, Levine says few organizations have the knowledge base to handle the sophisticated tax planning capability an accounting firm’s system can offer.


In terms of the future, one might question how much technology will replace the expatriate’s role. Merrill believes as technology evolves, some-but not all-roles filled by expatriates will become less necessary. “If we can do the same things with technology that an expatriate currently does, then we can avoid the costs of international travel and placement,” he says.


Adds Reynolds: “Technology such as videoconferencing will facilitate communication and make visits less frequent, but for starting up manufacturing sites and establishing relationships, someone must still physically be there.”


So how can we expect expatriate administration to change in response to the global marketplace? Merrill says: “The conditions under which we send someone-and the approaches we use for compensation and other matters-will continue to be complex. We will need sophisticated regionalized systems with more flexibility.” And in the meantime, Merrill will continue to eat lunch at his desk.


Personnel Journal, December 1995, Vol. 74, No. 12, pp. 113-117.


Posted on December 1, 1995July 10, 2018

1995 General Excellence Optimas Award ProfileBRCity of Hampton, Virginia

When you think of government operations, what comes to mind? Poor service? Maybe. Inefficiencies? Probably. How about bureaucracy? Most definitely.


Indeed, the public sector has a not-so-shiny reputation. But one city government has spent the past decade trying to change this. And change it has. Using private-sector techniques, such as team-building, empowerment and total-quality principles, the City of Hampton, Virginia has transformed from a stereotypical paper-pushing governmental agency into a customer-focused, productive organization.


The transformation hasn’t been easy for city workers. Reengineering the city has required workers to learn new skills, change the way they work and view their jobs differently. It has forced some workers—unable to adapt to the changes—to quit their jobs, and forced others out simply through reorganization. Some have outwardly criticized the city for its efforts. But all in all, with HR in the workers’ corner, the gain has been worth the pain, not only for workers but also for the community in which they live.


City’s woes prompt change.
The whole thing started in the early 1980s, a not-so-bright period for Hampton. This historical Southeastern seaport on the Chesapeake Bay was dying a slow death. Its population had stagnated, only growing by 1% during a 12-year period. Consequently, school enrollment was in a continuous decline, dropping from more than 32,000 students in the mid-70s to less than 19,000.


Even more daunting were the city’s economic woes. It faced high real estate tax rates, large annual debt payments and a small commercial tax base. “We had no business parks per se here in Hampton for new businesses to come to or for our existing businesses to expand into,” says Hampton’s Mayor James Eason. “So we were losing businesses to surrounding communities.”


It was these problems, and more specifically the attitude of the former political powers toward these problems, that motivated Eason in 1981 to run for the office of mayor the following year. On the school board at the time, Eason was appalled by the former mayor’s comments about teachers such as: “If they don’t like whatever their pay is, they’re welcome to leave the city and seek employment elsewhere, because we’re a declining city.”


Eason calculated what the city would be like in three to five years if, as the former government suggested, nothing was done. Not liking what he saw, he ran for mayor in 1982 and won the election. By that summer, he began working on a strategy to revitalize the city. The timing was right, he says, because Reagan was close to seeking re-election and therefore pursuing a strong economy.


The major thrust toward action came two years later, however, when Eason appointed Robert O’Neill to the city manager position. O’Neill had been with the city previously, but had worked the past several years in the private sector, partly in consultant roles. He and the city council immediately began to strategize around Eason’s newly formed mission for the city: To bring together the resources of businesses, neighborhoods, community groups and government to establish Hampton as the most livable city in Virginia. “The mayor and the council had a clear perception of what they wanted the community to be like,” explains O’Neill. “Once we had that vision, the question became: ‘What do we need to do now?'”


What they did was look at successful public and private organizations for common strategies. They found the organizations shared these traits: flexibility, clarity of purpose, and a willingness to share power with employees and customers. Most also tended to be customer-driven—focusing on results rather than activities—and investing substantial resources in the work force.


The mayor and council took these traits and developed a set of values to which the city would aspire. These are: responsiveness to citizens, quality, integrity, teamwork, professionalism and innovation. Admirable goals, but probably out of reach given the city’s structure and systems. As was typical of many organizations at the time—especially government institutions—Hampton was hierarchical and top-down driven, with control of information and activities hoarded in the higher ranks. It consisted of 35 departments reporting to a city manager and three assistant city managers.


New goals require new structure.
For the city to accomplish its goals, the structure would need to change. But to what? “We realized our strengths were our department managers, so we began to look at ways to free up those managers to run their departments without a lot of supervision,” says O’Neill. The emerging structure took the assistant city managers out of line authority and focused their efforts on long-term strategic issues identified earlier in the planning process: acquiring and developing certain lands, improving the physical appearance and image of the city, improving the tax rates, enhancing citizens’ life quality, and working to re-engineer services within the school system, to integrate duplicate processes.


Each of these five issues encompasses a large number of projects. Just under quality of life, for example, the council created approximately 30 projects to be done between 1987 and 1991. These ranged from opening new library branches to building a new football field for the high school. They included turning the old landfill into a 27-hole golf course, opening a senior citizen recreation center and an adult day-care center, and laying the ground work for a youth coalition project that ultimately became a three-year effort involving 5,000 people.


With the assistant city managers involved in these projects, the department heads were given nearly total control of the day-to-day operations, including accountability for their budgets. They also became members of department-head teams that share resources and solve problems. “Direct service is handled almost completely by the departments without interference,” says O’Neill.


Many projects within departments are assigned to task forces of employees. The city asked employees to become involved in most aspects of decision-making—either within their departments or across department lines—and gave them training to do so. At any given time, more than 100 employee problem-solving groups, task forces and committees are meeting, involving as many as 1,500 of the city’s approximately 2,000 workers.


Human resources changes its structure—and role.
Once the new structure was in place, it became imperative to change the systems from ones that supported the previous structure to ones that would enhance teamwork, empowerment, quality and all the other elements tied in with the new values. That’s when human resources came in. “The human resources group is the group we really charged with being responsible for bringing about the change,” O’Neill says. “We changed them from being rules-driven, and basically the police of the internal organization, to being internal consultants.”


But before it could help change the organization, HR had to change its own structure. As with the overall city government, the human resources department had been organized as a hierarchy—with a director overseeing specialized branches, such as recruitment and placement, employee relations, compensation and administration. Each branch had a branch chief, specialists and clerical workers. Work within the department was “very slow moving, with a lot of handoffs, long cycle times, and up-over-and-down communications,” says Tharon Greene, director of HR.


To restructure, HR took a clue from O’Neill’s restructuring and wiped out the mid-manager layer of supervision, collapsing the department into two self-directed work teams—a team of professionals and a team of technicians. Greene remained director and focuses on long-term goals. All five professional team members have been cross-trained, and each provides a full range of human resources services to as many as nine or ten diverse customer departments. For example, Margaret Schmitt, a five-year employee with Hampton’s HR function, is responsible for employee relations, compensation, training and recruitment for parks and recreation, the city manager’s office, the city council, the library, the finance department, the procurement office, the treasurer and the sheriff’s department.


“As an organization, we’re really questioning whether all this wonderful stuff is appreciated by the customers – if it’s important to them.”


The HR team disperses the customers so that each HR professional has a good mix of activities. Think about it. Running a city is like running a bunch of diverse businesses—from fire and police departments to a major coliseum, from libraries to health departments. As O’Neill says, “We’re in the rock-n-roll business, the medical field and the energy industry.” Obviously, each of these “businesses” requires different needs at different times. One may have mainly training issues at a given time, while another may be focused on team-building or quality improvement.


Also, different techniques are needed for handling the same situations in different types of businesses. For example, the city sent police officers through total quality management training and “they loved it. They went to class, got a manual, and learned what was in it. From the first day they walked into the academy, that was they way they handled learning,” ONeill says. This method would never fly with the city’s arts commission, however. “These people would look at us like we were out of our minds. That’s just not the way they do things.”


Because each of the different businesses offers the HR professionals different challenges, the team rotates them among the team members periodically. It’s partly based on their own developmental needs. For example, Charlene Wilson, who has been on the team for less than a year, currently is assigned the customers who will give her the greatest HR entry-level experience. And Schmitt, who was a volunteer coordinator until joining the team, is handling some departments with a large number of organizational development issues, because this is an area in which she needs more experience.


The team surveys its customers twice a year, and the satisfaction ratings have increased markedly since the restructuring. In addition, Greene says HR’s customers consistently tell O’Neill they’re happy with HR’s service, and feel the HR professionals are part of their department teams rather than outside servants, or worse, obstacles.


Teaching by example: HR facilitates movement to self-directed work teams.
With this new structure in place, HR has been able to be an important change leader within the city. Take its involvement with the permits function of the city, for example. Before the city’s restructuring, the permits function was split into four separate departments: one for acquiring zoning permits, another for building permits, one for right-of-way permits, and still another for planning permits. This system wasn’t conducive to the city’s vision of providing quality customer service—citizens had to go to four different places, and stand in four different lines.


To bring the function up to speed, the city formed a team of workers from the four departments. Their goal—to create one central permitting department where citizens in need of permits could do one-stop shopping.


The team struggled for two years on the project. The problem was employees were attached to their department heads, and also to their particular functions. They were experts in zoning permits or building permits and hadn’t really considered cross-training. If they had made the move to one building at this point, they still would have had four separate lines, just under one roof rather than four.


This wasn’t good enough, so Mary Bunting, an assistant city manager, and Greene from HR, helped facilitate a different approach. Although through experience the HR professionals have learned there’s no one right way to build teams—some work best just “doing it” while others need more structured planning—they have identified some key elements necessary for success. For one, they need good performance goals. O’Neill gave them these: Citizens should be able to get at least 90% of their permit needs taken care of by the new one-stop shop, and every employee should be able to do 90% of the permitting.


Another key element is the newly forming team must be able to take apart its work and put it back together in a way that’s aligned with the performance goals. HR is helping facilitate this process for the permitting team. Using models, videos, flip charts and any other tools available, the team has evaluated all its processes, eliminated some and combined others. In July the four departments moved into one facility and took the leap. Since then, customer satisfaction ratings have been outstanding. “I like the fact that I can walk into one office and get my permits with little or no delay,” Steve Jensen, a general contractor, told Hampton’s internal newsletter editors. “The staff works together to provide consistent code interpretation so I don’t waste time going from department to department or waiting for supervisors to resolve differences. The whole permit experience is now very customer oriented, and as a businessman, I appreciate that.”


Workers in the department have grown attached to the new arrangement too. Explains Sharon Bass, a 25-year permits employee: “Even though I knew pieces of the process that zoning, pubic works and planning did, I couldn’t help the contractors with all their permit questions. Now, with the cross-training we’ve been doing, I’m better able to handle customers’questions and not have to pass them on to someone else.”


Team formation and development such as this, as well as team training, take up a major portion of HR’s time in Hampton. Currently, approximately 10% of the city’s 2,000 employees work in teams. Some of these teams have been in existence for ten years, some for three to four years; others are still in the formation process.


The parks department is one area in which self-directed teams have been operating for several years. Originally, the change wasn’t easy. Supervisors who drove around in their pick-up trucks, checking to see if their workers were cutting the grass as instructed, had to relinquish control to the team; they had to move into the roles of long-term strategic planners. Team members, on the other hand, had to take on more responsibility for ensuring whole projects were completed, (maintaining the grounds around the library, for example) rather than just doing their one piece, (such as mowing the grass). They had to be cross-trained on equipment and taught to be team players.


As with many of the new teams, there was some resistance by both supervisors and parks employees to the new arrangement. However, according to HR, moving to teams was a necessity in this case. Budget cuts were forcing downsizing, making it necessary to restructure to get work done. Now, three or four years into the process, the system is working well and workers admit they like being more in control of their work.


Part of what has made this team successful is that they’re all working off the same page. In a recent training session, the instructor, associated with the Virginia State Department of Education, asked the 23 parks employees to write their mission statements on a piece of paper. He expected the answers to run the gamut. He was amazed when all 23 workers wrote: “To make Hampton the most livable city in Virginia.”


Another team that has embraced this concept and has made major strides is the automated refuse collection department. It used to be that as a trash collector finished his or her route, he or she would return to the station and wait around for co-workers to return, ridiculing them for being so slow. On top of that, according to Wanda Hardy, a supervisor in the automated refuse collection department, many of the workers, not thrilled by their jobs, would call in sick “just because they didn’t feel like working,” not caring they were making extra work for their peers.


Today, however, as workers finish their rounds, they radio to co-workers, find out their destinations, and pitch in to finish every route. And, few people call in sick when they aren’t. Hardy, who worked her way up the ranks, credits this both to new automated equipment, as well as a new attitude brought on from team spirit. She constantly preaches to the workers that no one wins unless everyone wins, a credo being echoed throughout the city and supported by HR systems.


The city removes barriers to success.
For the new structure to work, evaluation, compensation, and rewards and recognition programs had to be changed to better align with the city’s mission and values.


“Those had to change to reinforce the results we wanted and to send the message to workers that we were committed to these results,” O’Neill says.


One of the first things HR did after the restructuring was put department heads on performance contracts tied to the organization’s new mission. The contracts spell out each department’s goals, its critical success factors and its strategies. Department heads report on their progress with the city manager twice a year, and their pay is based on accomplishments. They can receive base pay increases and bonuses for outstanding performance.


Greene, for example, received a base pay increase and bonus for her extraordinary work in helping to put together a major conference in Hampton. She provided City Manager O’Neill with revenue figures generated from the conference, including hotel stays and food purchased, and O’Neill calculated her pay based on this. Even such activities as chairing a task force can earn city managers bonuses because of the extra time and commitment needed.


Employees are evaluated annually on performance using appraisal systems developed by teams of employees and managers. Human resources helps the teams develop and implement their new systems. The only stipulation is that each new plan must tie into the city’s performance goals. One important lesson the city has learned through the restructuring process is, because of the myriad businesses it runs, one-size-doesn’t-fit-all in terms of such work-related systems as performance appraisals. For example, you can’t use the same criteria for judging a coliseum worker’s productivity and service as you would for a librarian. What should be consistent, however, is the values behind those appraisal systems, such as delivering high quality service.


In some areas, such as compensation, the city needed an organizationwide system that would work for all businesses and support the city’s new mission and values. In fact, during a series of Quality Forums conducted by the city and attended by nearly 250 employees, the overriding recommendation made was to change the compensation system. The system in place at the time more often rewarded longevity than performance. As a consequence, the city’s limited compensation dollars were going to employees who already were being paid above market rates, rather than being spent on recruiting well-qualified new employees or rewarding for high performance. The old system also focused on internal classification rather than the marketplace and failed to effectively reward varying levels of performance. Another major problem with the system was it didn’t support team work structures.


With the help of Washington, D.C.-based Wyatt Company and the involvement of more than 100 employees, the HR department overhauled the city’s compensation system and implemented a market-driven system that now takes into account the strategic value of jobs as defined by the city manager. The city eliminated the position-classification function, and allows the city manager to pay around the market. It also allows for unbundling pay grades, which gives flexibility to develop pay ranges for specific jobs without focusing on the politics of internal rankings. The new pay system allows control of base-pay growth by moving employees through the pay ranges based strictly on performance. When the employee reaches a point slightly above the market rate, all future increases are variable and don’t compound into base pay until the pay range is adjusted based on market growth.


In addition, workers who receive outstanding ratings in their reviews may be awarded a bonus that equals up to 2% of their pay. O’Neill allocates a pool of money each year from which these bonuses are drawn. The objective is to reward for sustained high-level performance.


To support the formation of self-directed work teams, the city developed a model for paying employees who work on these teams. The model provides an integrated approach to team-performance planning, training, customer- and staff-performance feedback and rewards. Team members receive equal percentage increases for what they accomplish collectively. Customer satisfaction ratings and budget performance also are factors in the team pay increase. The system provides for cash bonuses for individual team members who initiate outstanding work above and beyond expectations for the team. The team-compensation system was applied in human resources first, and currently is in various stages of application throughout the organization.


Just as the team-based pay system helps reinforce teamwork, a bonus program reinforces quality service. Each year Hampton, through an outside marketing firm, conducts a citizen-satisfaction survey. If satisfaction ratings exceed 80%, all employees receive a bonus. A base amount is established annually for full-time employees; part-time and hourly workers receive half the amount.


Workers can receive additional bonuses through a citywide program called The Achievement Program. The initiative’s intent is to reward employees for innovation and productivity improvements. The way it does this is by requiring each department—with the help of its employees—to develop its own alternative reward system. The only guideline is departments must share 10% of annual savings resulting from their employees’ suggestions. And there are no limitations on the specific type of nonmonetary rewards the departments can give out. Office equipment, training, time off, money (in addition to the above 10%), dinners, theater tickets and parking spaces have all been given as awards. The Achievement Program has generated more than $4 million in savings since 1987—with more than $250,000 in cash bonuses having been awarded to employees so far.


An old city gets a new lease on life.
Programs such as these have motivated city workers to go above and beyond their job duties. Not only do they serve on problem-solving teams, task forces and committees, most also have volunteered for community projects. In 1993, for example, nearly 1,400 employees participated in such activities as fundraising to renovate an antique carousel and open a $30 million air and space museum—revitalizing the downtown area. Current internal and external activities include running festival events, streamlining operations, redesigning benefit programs, beautifying city buildings and tutoring co-workers. Groups are formed at the direction of management or arise spontaneously through employee initiative.


Results of these on- and off-the-job efforts have been substantial. New businesses, including the world headquarters of Lucas Industries and a Radisson Hotel complex—which was a joint business/ government endeavor—have improved the city’s commercial tax base. Today, Hampton has one of the lowest tax rates in the area and low debt service, despite the fact Hampton has one of the smallest work forces vs. citizens-served of any city in the state.


The city also has received accolades from such noted management experts as Tom Peters, David Osborne and Ted Gaebler. They credit Hampton as being “a city possessing exemplary management principles.” But do the citizens recognize their government’s improvements? They have consistently rated city workers’ service well above average since the city began surveying them. Greene admits, however, the city’s efforts are much more appreciated outside the city than within. Some of the city’s activities, in fact, have created controversy and discontent among its citizenry, such as its partnership with private enterprise in building the Radisson Hotel complex.


At least some citizens are seeing the big picture, however. A reporter for the Daily Press—a community newspaper—in response to Personnel Journal’s Optimas Award to the city, wrote on February 8th: “Not everyone will be happy with every decision the city makes, but citizens should take pride in the fact that their local government is a recognized leader in finding better ways to serve its citizens.”


And the city consistently is searching for those better ways. A primary emphasis now, says Mayor Eason, is to involve the members of the community at greater lengths than before to ensure the city is serving their needs. “We’ve been thinking we’ve done a good job because we built four new recreation centers around the community, when the fact of the matter is that in one of those areas a recreation center isn’t their top priority. Maybe it’s a day-care center or an after-school program. So now we’re trying to get the neighborhoods involved and let the city be a facilitator, so we really can focus on their needs.”


Greene goes on to say: “As an organization, we’re really questioning whether all this wonderful stuff is appreciated by the customers—if it’s important to them. We’re running around doing all these wonderful things with the little bit of resources we have, but if those resources are going into the wrong investments, and people still aren’t moving here—or worse, the people paying the bills are leaving—then we have problems. We may meet our goal of being the most livable city in Virginia, but maybe only for people on public assistance.”


The fact that the city is even asking these questions is a sign it’s on the right track. And because it has put a system in place to help it meet these customer-service goals, it’s likely things will only get better in Hampton. At the very least, the words poor service, inefficiency and bureaucracy no longer fit to describe the city. And that, by itself, is a major breakthrough.


Personnel Journal , December 1995, Vol. 74, No. 12, pp. 38-46.


Posted on November 1, 1995July 10, 2018

Best Practices Code of Conduct

The International Benchmarking Clearinghouse of the American Productivity and Quality Center in Houston offers the following advice on how to engage in best practices studies ethically and effectively:


Principle of Legality
If there’s any potential question on the legality of an activity, don’t do it.


Avoid discussions or actions that could lead to or imply an interest in restraint of trade, market and/or customer allocation schemes, price fixing, dealing arrangements, bid rigging or bribery. Don’t discuss costs with competitors if costs are an element of pricing.


Refrain from the acquisition of trade secrets by any means that could be interpreted as improper, including the breach or inducement of a breach of any duty to maintain secrecy. Do not disclose or use any trade secret that may have been obtained through improper means or that was disclosed by another in violation of duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use.


Principle of Exchange
Be willing to provide the same type and level of information that you request from your benchmarking partner to your benchmarking partner.


Communicate fully and early in the relationship to clarify expectations, avoid misunderstandings and establish mutual interest in the benchmarking exchange.


Be honest and complete.


Principle of Confidentiality
Treat benchmarking interchange as confidential to the individuals and companies involved. Information must not be communicated outside the partnering organizations without the prior consent of the benchmarking partner who shared the information.


A company’s participation in a study is confidential and shouldn’t be communicated externally without the company’s prior permission.


Principle of Use
Use information obtained through benchmarking only for purposes of formulating improvement of operations or processes within the companies participating in the benchmarking study.


The use or communication of a benchmarking partner’s name with the data obtained or practices observed requires the prior permission of that partner.


Don’t use benchmarking information, or any information resulting from a benchmarking exchange, or benchmarking-related networking, as a means to market or sell.


Contact lists or other contact information provided by the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse in any form may not be used for marketing in any way.


Principle of FirsT-Party Contact
Initiate benchmarking contacts, whenever possible, through a benchmarking contact designated by the desired partner’s company.


Respect the corporate culture of partner companies. Establish—and work within—mutually agreed upon procedures.


Obtain mutual agreement with the designated benchmarking contact on any hand-off of communication or responsibility to other parties.


Principle of Third-Party Contact
Obtain an individual’s permission before providing his or her name in response to a contact request.


Avoid communicating a contact’s name in an open forum without the contact’s prior permission.


Principle of Preparation
Demonstrate commitment to the efficiency and effectiveness of benchmarking by being prepared prior to making an initial benchmarking contact.


Make the most of your benchmarking partner’s time by being fully prepared for each exchange.


Help your benchmarking partners prepare by providing a questionnaire and agenda prior to benchmarking visits.


Principle of Completion
Follow through with each commitment made to your benchmarking partner in a timely manner.


Complete each benchmarking study to the satisfaction of all benchmarking partners as mutually agreed.


Principle of the Understanding and Action
Understand how your benchmarking partner would like to be treated. Treat your benchmarking partner in the way that your benchmarking partner would want to be treated.


Understand how your benchmarking partner would like to have the information he or she provides handled and used, and handle and use it in that manner.


SOURCE: The International Benchmarking Clearinghouse of the American Productivity and Quality Center in Houston


Personnel Journal, November 1995, Vol. 74, No. 11, p. 66.


Posted on November 1, 1995July 10, 2018

English-only Rules Can Cause Legal Tongue Ties

Why institute an English-only policy? There are a number of reasons. Maybe your company deals with an English-speaking customer base and must have employees who communicate effectively. Maybe in the past, separate languages have segregated the work force.Whatever your reason, English-only workplaces can be tricky propositions. If poorly handled, they’re vulnerable to discrimination claims by employees who feel banning their language is a disparagement of their race or nationality.


Here, Christine Cesare, partner, and Lisa Lerner, associate, with employment law and litigation firm New York City-based Emmet, Marvin and Martin LLP, explain the difference between a legal English-only workplace and a liable one.


Since language isn’t protected ground under human rights legislation, how is it that so many employers are finding themselves vulnerable to discrimination suits?
LL: Some employees base their [complaints by arguing that] their language is linked to their national origin. That’s when the employer runs into a potential problem under Title VII. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has had interpretive guidelines [since 1980] that pretty much define what constitutes national-origin discrimination. The EEOC has mentioned that English-only rules may violate Title VII.


So in what case would English-only rules represent discriminatory action?
LL: The EEOC looks at two different things. First, the EEOC has said that if you have a per se rule that states employees must speak only English in the workplace, at all times, it’s going to closely scrutinize the rule, and will [likely] construe that as discrimination. But if an employer has a rule that English must be spoken at certain times, but on break or lunch periods employees may speak any language they want, and if that rule is justified by a compelling business necessity, then it may withstand scrutiny. The interesting thing here is that in this type of discrimination, unlike other types of discrimination, you actually have an employer admitting the discriminatory conduct. It’s admitting it has an English-only rule, and it’s relying on its policy in the litigation.


What kind of business necessity would justify an English-only rule?
CC: It depends on the nature of the business. You usually see it in cases of promoting safety, order and discipline. Also, and I don’t know if this has risen to a legitimate justification, but there’s a concern that people speaking different languages can create disharmony in the workplace. Sometimes employers articulate that as a reason why they’d like the English-only rule, because it tends to eliminate some divisiveness. But I don’t know if that has risen to a business justification.


Has anyone successfully used something like workplace disharmony as a business justification?
LL: The first circuit court of appeals to consider the issue—the ninth circuit—upheld the EEOC interpretive guidelines and essentially used them to find an employer’s practice discriminatory. But the next time the ninth circuit considered the issue, it rejected the EEOC guidelines. They found that an employer may have legitimate reasons for essentially having an English-only rule under circumstances that aren’t designed to promote workplace safety. In that case, Garcia vs. Spun Steak Co., the employer had instituted an English-only policy because certain employees were using the Spanish language allegedly to harass other co-workers.


How did the court explain its decision?
LL: The court found that the employer could have an English-only policy. It held that Title VII doesn’t protect employees’ right to express their cultural heritage on the job and that bilingual employees aren’t denied a privilege of their employment when [English-only is enforced]. The court held that you have to look at an employee’s claim under the hostile work-environment analysis of Title VII. In the [Garcia] case, the employees hadn’t proven that the English-only work rule constituted a hostile work environment.


What does that mean to employers?
LL: It means an employer has leeway to have an English-only policy; and that English-only policy is going to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.


CC: Employers can feel hopeful because these recent cases tend to look favorably at the employer’s reasons and take them into account—as opposed to the first ninth circuit case that adopted virtually wholesale the EEOC guidelines, which are pretty limiting and restrictive.


What advice would you give employers who are considering instituting this kind of policy? What kinds of questions should they ask themselves before they do this?
LL: It depends on what kind of business you’re in. Some of the cases coming down deal with hospitals and whether nurses and doctors have to speak English. That gets into an area in which there are safety concerns—you want to be careful that a doctor is effectively communicating to a patient. So one thing is the nature of the business and what type of contact [your employees] have with other people, how imperative it is that [they] can communicate in English.


So a justification could be that the work simply required English fluency?
CC: It could happen in a hospital or certainly in sales work, depending on whom your customers are. An employer whose customers are English-speaking is going to have a problem if all the sales people speak a different language.


LL: By the same token, as technology increases, as people work [more] on computers and communicate by E-mail, the language part of the job becomes less imperative. In terms of communicating in the workplace, it becomes less imperative that you speak only English.


What about choosing not to promote someone because of an accent?
CC: Employers can’t use accent as a reason not to promote somebody unless it’s a true impediment—unless there’s a demonstrated problem, such as the people working for that person can’t understand him or her. If the accent is that pronounced and it’s a legitimate problem, that’s a reason why an employer may not be able to promote somebody. But you can’t use that as a subterfuge to discriminate against someone based on national origin.


LL: The issue of accent discrimination also was addressed by the EEOC in its interpretive guidelines. The EEOC has said it will carefully investigate charges involving disparate treatment and adverse impact on the basis of national origin. But the issue of accent ties into an employee’s ability to communicate, so what you have are employers claiming that employees were unable to communicate effectively in the workplace, and that hinders their ability to perform their jobs properly.


Do you see any general legal trends for English-only workplaces?
LL: The Supreme Court refused to reconsider the Garcia decision, and in the aftermath of the Court’s refusal to hear the case, a lot was written on what this is going to mean for employers. The interpretation that people are giving is that employers may be able to get away with more in terms of English-only policies, and employees may be less likely to rely upon the EEOC’s interpretive guidelines.


So where does the EEOC fit in?
LL: While the courts are demonstrating a willingness to favor the employer, the EEOC is strictly adhering to its guidelines. When employees have a claim of discrimination, the first thing they’ll do is file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. So employers still have reason to be concerned about an English-only policy.


CC: You always have to be concerned about the EEOC. It can start an investigation on its own, file charges and fine the plaintiff—and they determine and assess the claims [not on a case-by-case basis] but by looking strictly at their guidelines.


Any legislation pending on the topic?
LL: There are several bills pending in Congress right now. They don’t deal directly with the workplace, but they do deal with English-only measures. One of the reasons this issue has been brought to the forefront is because there are two bills pending attempting to make English the official language of the U.S. government. There was also a bill proposed in July that goes the other way and encourages multilingualism; it discourages English-only measures. So although these don’t deal directly with the workplace, they certainly affect the way the public is going to view workplace regulations. The two bills introduced to declare English the official language have been pending for several months. The odds they’ll pass each stage of the legislative process are slim.


Some states also now recognize English as their official language. What does that mean exactly?
LL: What these states have essentially said is that they recognize English as the official language. It’s a response to the influx of immigrants. According to the 1990 Census—and the numbers are growing—there are more than 31.8 million people in the U.S. who speak languages other than English. There’s a trend to preserve the English language that’s been fueled by the rise of non-English-speaking and multilingual people in the United States.


Personnel Journal, November 1995, Vol. 74, No. 11, pp. 87-92.


Posted on November 1, 1995July 10, 2018

Beat the Benchmarking Blues

Although benchmarking is a powerful tool for achieving organizational change, it’s not always as simple or straightforward as it seems. In fact, many organizations find themselves getting tripped up over several common problems. Here are some things to keep an eye on:


Ignoring Internal Processes.
Finding best-in-class companies is a key part of benchmarking. But all the information in the world about how world-class companies operate won’t do a bit of good if there’s nothing to compare it to. Internal benchmarking offers a starting point and is crucial to the overall process.


Missing the Real Issues.
Some companies focus too closely on details and completely miss The Big Picture. Others conduct too broad of a search—looking for the best employee orientation program in the United States, for example—and wind up chasing rainbows.


Emphasizing Numbers Rather Than Processes.
Quantitative data has its place and can prove highly useful. But benchmarking isn’t just a science, it’s somewhat of an art too. Qualitative issues shouldn’t be ignored.


Lack of Commitment from Management.
If management isn’t willing to backup a project and provide the necessary support and funding, the process is doomed from the start.


Becoming Too Industry-centric or Company-fixated.
Just because a company is in a different industry doesn’t mean it can’t provide useful information. Many processes and practices transcend industry lines. Also, a lot of great benchmarking information comes from other-than-famous or award-winning firms.


Superficial Research.
Benchmarking works when a company finds other organizations that are truly outstanding. A lack of effort in identifying best practices can easily translate into a study of mediocre practices. Moreover, it’s essential to assemble a list of appropriate questions that can provide solid information.


Egos.
It’s easy for those involved in benchmarking to become overly defensive and sabotage the program or become overly ambitious about ramming change down everyone’s throats. Benchmarking requires a delicate balance and functions best in an environment in which people don’t feel threatened.


Failing To Follow Through and Implement Change.
Many a benchmarking project has been derailed because of the time and energy required to make changes. There’s certainly no shortage of obstacles along the way. A benchmarking team must be willing to work through problems and stay on track over a period of months or years.


Personnel Journal, November 1995, Vol. 74, No. 11, p. 68.


Posted on November 1, 1995July 10, 2018

Legal Entanglements of Motivating Temps

Companies that use long-term temporary workers from staffing agencies need to be aware of the legal obligations and risks involved in establishing programs designed to motivate those workers. These risks include IRS audits and penalties, and Department of Labor liabilities. The chief concern, according to Irene Cohen, CEO of Corporate Staffing Alternatives Inc., is in not violating the agency’s status as employer of record.


“Most companies don’t have a problem until the temps have been there for more than six months,” she says. At that point, the more you treat them like regular employees, the harder it’ll be to convince the Department of Labor or the IRS they aren’t, or they shouldn’t be, your employees.


In terms of motivating employees, Cohen explains employers should be careful not to:


  • Offer temps company business cards with their names imprinted on them
  • Put the temporaries’ names on their office doors
  • Extend special recognition awards directly to temporaries
  • Directly invite the temps to company parties or picnics or offer free meal tickets. Instead, extend the invitation through the staffing agency, if you use one. If not, exercise good judgment as to the kinds of gatherings you invite temps to, and the frequency with which you include them.

Ideally, Cohen says, to stay clear of legal risks, all motivational incentives-whether financial or otherwise-should be arranged through the staffing agency. “You want to avoid liabilities under tax and labor laws, and the only way to do that is to make sure that nothing makes the company look like the temporary’s actual employer.”


Karen Ford, an employment and labor lawyer with Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff, Tichy & Mathiason in San Francisco, adds that employers should recognize the possible risk. And to be on the safe side, they should check with an employment lawyer before devising any type of motivational program for their temporary employees.


In the long run, the question of employer status isn’t based on hard and fast criteria, she says, but on a combination of many specifics. “What you want to look at is the totality of circumstances,” she says.


Personnel Journal, November 1995, Vol. 74, No. 11, p. 34.


Posted on November 1, 1995July 10, 2018

How To Help Managers Oversee New Inpatriates

These five tips can help you make the transition smooth:


  • Give managers who will have responsibility for international assignees classes in cultural awareness, especially in ways that America may differ from the rest of the world
  • At the very least, use your company’s diversity program to highlight working with different kinds of people
  • Help managers become sensitive to different communication styles
  • Remind managers not to assume the international corporate culture is the same as the one at headquarters. For example, a U.S.-based company may have a do-it-yesterday type of attitude that isn’t shared in other locations around the world. This will affect employee performance, especially at the beginning
  • Help them realize that the employee-if coming from a subsidiary-may not be used to the scrutiny of working at headquarters. The same holds true for the bureaucracy.

Personnel Journal, November 1995, Vol. 74, No. 11, p. 46.


Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 568 Page 569 Page 570 … 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