The HR Cafe

Retaliation: The biggest legal threat

Email Address

Close

Dear HR Executive:

It's been a year since a landmark Supreme Court decision (Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Sheila White) broadened the definition of "retaliation" and made it much easier for employees to sue. HR execs are obviously aware of its impact. In B21's most recent survey, they cited retaliation as the biggest legal threat they face (see survey results below).

Think about it. A troublemaker at your company files a completely bogus discrimination complaint and threatens to sue. Let's say he's over-40, has the emotional maturity of a teenager and can barely manage himself -- but he's convinced he got passed over for promotion to a management role because of his age. For the guy's boss, or for you in HR, a normal human reaction would be to get a little angry. You have an information highway of documentation on Mr. Over-40 showing that he's not management material. The courts will dismiss the case instantly. But here you are wasting your precious time thinking about and talking about his potential legal case against your company.

That anger you feel is precisely why retaliation cases are so scary. How likely would it be for Mr. Over-40's boss -- who's really annoyed by the lawsuit threat -- to, say, change Mr. Over-40's shift? Or ask him to take on some administrative tasks that weren't in his job description? Or "forget" to invite him to the Friday night bowling party? Any of these actions could give Mr. Over-40 ammunition for a retaliation case.   

Here are the results of the B21 survey:

Q. In which area are you most concerned about being sued by an employee or former employee?

• Retaliation -- 32%
• Racial discrimination -- 16%
• FMLA -- 15%
• Age discrimination -- 12%
• Sex discrimination -- 12%
• Disability discrimination -- 8%
• National origin discrimination -- 1%

Here's an article from B21's newsletter Human Resources 21 that explains the Burlington Northern case and offers some advice for avoiding retaliation lawsuits. Read on.

Stephen Meyer
B21 Publisher

Worried about retaliation? Your peers certainly are
Why one-third of HR people consider it the biggest legal threat

I’m a bigger legal and compliance worry for HR pros than sex and race discrimination put together. What’s my name? Retaliation.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Burlington Northern decision last year significantly widened the definition of retaliation, courts around the country have been giving more leeway to retaliation plaintiffs.

An employee suing for retaliation used to have to show the company fired, demoted, or otherwise downgraded his work status because he complained of discrimination. But under Burlington, the employee need only prove the company did something that would deter a reasonable person from complaining – and even a lateral transfer or a disappointing evaluation could qualify.

Even before Burlington, retaliation accounted for almost as many EEOC charges annually as sex and race bias each did – and with this decision on the books, the trend looks set to accelerate.

On the radar screen
In a new Business 21 poll, 32% of responding employers said they considered retaliation the biggest legal threat they face today – compared with 16% for racial discrimination and 12% for sex discrimination.

Worries about the FMLA and age discrimination accounted for 15% and 12% of responses, respectively. Disability and national origin bias were more minor concerns, at 8% and 1%.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers love retaliation because it gives them two bites at the apple. If they can’t prove discrimination, they can marshal all the same arguments again – plus whatever you allegedly did wrong after the discrimination complaint – to try to sell retaliation. And increasingly, the courts are buying.
Your worries don’t end with federal law. State laws permit retaliation suits by whistle-blowers and workers comp claimants, too.

Reminding managers
We have no magic charms to ward off these suits. But you may want to reemphasize these points with managers:

• Try not to discipline an employee who has just made an internal or external bias complaint. Two months is a reasonable amount of time to wait.
• Don’t discipline one employee more severely than others. Unequal discipline – especially within the same department or workgroup – can feed a retaliation charge.
• Don’t let co-workers victimize an employee who has complained about them as a “rat” or “stool pigeon.”

Negotiations: Avoid emotional reactions

Dear HR Executive,

I did a post a while back about how we need to be skeptical about gut reactions when hiring people (the gist of that piece was that gut reactions are often wrong). Here's an article that ran in B21's Human Resources 21 newsletter about some new research that offers a fresh take on why it's dangerous to rely on intuition and emotion when negotiating. There's one really powerful piece of take-home value that I got out of the article. Read it and I'll tell you at the end the nugget I got...

Stephen Meyer
B21 Publisher

Study: When not to trust your gut reaction

New research shows that most of us trust our intuition much more than we should, especially when the pressure is on during negotiations.

Researchers have now distinguished between what’s being called System 1 and System 2 thought. System 1 describes intuition: quick, automatic, effortless, and influenced by emotion. System 2 thought is slower, more conscious, effortful and logical.

The intuition trap
Unfortunately, busy managers and executives often fall back on System 1 thinking during negotiations. In fact, intuition increases when a situation is complex and our ability to process information is pushed to the limit. The tipoff: Pressure to make a decision.

Of course, you don’t need logical System 2 thinking for every small negotiation, such as where to go for lunch. But the higher the stakes, the more important System 2 thinking is.

Here are four strategies that will help guard against making snap decisions that aren’t in your best interest:

• Make a System 2 list. Make a list of important coming negotiations. Examples: Money matters, complex issues, multiple parties, key strategic partners, or new directions for your firm. The list-making alone will help you prepare in advance.
• Don't succumb to time pressure. Instead of negotiating over a short lunch, set aside an entire morning. And, if someone catches you off guard, reschedule.
• Spread the negotiation out. Human beings have a natural desire for closure. As a result, most of us seek to reach an agreement or settlement as quickly as possible.
• Remain detached. An expert within your firm, a consultant or a trusted friend can identify factors you have ignored, and weigh negative information in ways that you cannot. If you cannot bring in an outsider, become an outsider yourself by assessing the situation as if you were not immersed in it.

Source: Adapted from the book, “It’s Not Intuitive: Strategies for Negotiating More Rationally,” Negotiation, May 2006.

The nugget I got: Never succumb to time pressure when negotiating. I have vendors tell me all the time, "Act by July 1 to get a 10% price break." I've had job candidates try to pressure me by saying they'll accept another offer by Friday if I don't hire them right away. We should shift to System 2 thinking and take a pass in these situations. Paradoxically, for me it's often my gut (System 1 thinking) that's screaming at me to take my time and avoid making rash emotional decisions. 

RISK-FREE TRIAL -- ONLINE TRAINING LIBRARY FOR HR AND MANAGERS: Want to learn about an amazingly effective and affordable way to train yourself, your HR staff and your managers and supervisors? Sign up for a risk-free trial to the HR Cafe Training Center Online. It's a powerful resource that allows HR executives to deploy high-impact training modules effortlessly throughout their organizations. Want to see what it's about before you sign up for a trial? Check out just one program from the huge library of content in the HR Cafe. It's a six-minute "Quick Take" training module called "Why 95% of Training Doesn't Stick."

Handling different types of employees #3

Email Address

Close

Dear HR Executive:

Here's our third post in a series about coaching challenges from Gary Markle's book "Catalytic Coaching." (Click here to read Post 1 and Post 2)

This time we'll look at two more challenging "employee types":

1. The Rebel -- an employee who's a good performer but whose behavior is erratic and/or nonconformist
2. The Liability -- a poor performer with a bad attitude.

Read on.

Stephen Meyer
B21 Publisher

Six coaching challenges and how to deal with them
(Part 3 in a series)

# 5 The Rebel
Good performer whose behavior is erratic and/or nonconformist

This is an employee who has excellent technical skills yet insists on doing highly disruptive things. Chances are good more than one can tell you about the employee who was a great performer but had a giant, seemingly suicidal, attitude flaw. Examples:

1. The executive wannabe who wears an inappropriate and more than mildly offensive costume to work on Halloween.
2. The top performer just awarded a special bonus. But he insists on pinning down visiting senior executives with extremely controversial questions in public meetings.
3. The workaholic who consistently puts in 50- to 70-hour weeks. But she often misses important meetings during normal office hours.

Guidelines for handling a Rebel

1. Commit to trying to salvage the Rebel only if the employee is an excellent performer. Reason: A poor performer who is a radical nonconformist normally is not worth the effort needed to produce a turnaround.
2. Determine if the work environment may cause the Rebel to overdo it by answering these questions:
   • Even though the behavior is out of line, is it possible the Rebel is trying to inject a bit of levity in an otherwise uptight work environment?
   • Is it possible the work environment is perceived as stifling to others as well? If so, the Rebel may be pointing to something important.
3. Decide if the behavior reduces the promotion chances for an ambitious Rebel. If not, relax and enjoy the show. If so, the coach definitely needs to talk with the Rebel.
4. Determine, for example, if the Rebel’s arriving at inconsistent start times really propels the organization into chaos. Is it possible to accept such an arrangement on a negotiated basis?
5. Realize that if the behavior is, indeed, at least potentially damaging to the employee, the coach owes it to the Rebel to discuss it.
6. Be brutally honest and let the Rebel know what others are saying about the odd behavior.
7. Stress that failure to change could mean that a Performance Impacting message could escalate to a Job Threatening one, which could lead to termination.
8. Realize that most Rebels will appreciate learning how their behavior affects their promotion chances. But also expect that despite these efforts, some may not change their behavior. However, they will at least be aware of the potential consequences of following their chosen path.

Example of a Rebel -- Ken the tyrant ...

Ken managed corporate relocation for a financial company. He was also a tyrant. His direct reports loathed him. He was demeaning, demanding and demotivating. He sucked all the energy from his people and left them lifeless or bitter. Ken knew about his reputation as an extreme authoritarian, but didn’t seem to mind. It was an idiosyncrasy that, for a long time, the organization tolerated.

Ken’s new boss learned of the problem when she started work for the company. Three of Ken’s seven direct reports came to her independently pleading for relief. A month later the most experienced person in the group abruptly resigned, three years short of obtaining her pension. She said she couldn’t take it any more. Her mental health was more precious to her than a lifetime of paid medical benefits and a few more dollars in the bank. Ken had lost or run off three others in the last 18 months.

The irony is that most of those higher up in the organization saw Ken as a valuable performer. He was cordial and responsive and always bailed executives out of problems when they needed help. He was the backbone of the department and had been considered for – but ultimately was denied – the director position. Nonetheless, he quickly impressed the new director, who saw his technical skills as invaluable. Even so, she decided that Ken needed to change.

In confronting Ken, his coach started by reminding him he’d been passed up for promotion mostly because others perceived him as a poor people manager. If Ken still aspired to be director, he would have to change the way people felt about working for him. His boss gave Ken formal written feedback. It emphasized that his poor people management skills were hurting his performance. Without significant change, his boss could not recommend promotion. In fact, if Ken couldn’t turn things around, he’d lose his current position as a manager.

The key for Ken lay in his coach's suggested development recommendations. First, the coach asked Ken to consider a facilitated upward feedback session where his direct reports gave him specific suggestions on what they’d like him to do differently to be a better boss. Second, the coach offered to send Ken to a weeklong management workshop. Third, he gave Ken a copy of the book Zapp! The Lightning of Empowerment, by Byham and Cox. The book explains specific strategies designed to encourage responsibility and creativity. Finally, the coach offered a mentor to help him implement the “Zapp” empowerment strategies.

Ken took the feedback seriously, accepted all three of the recommendations and led the follow-up effort in each area. What happened? While Ken improved his relationship with direct reports, he still struggled to be a good boss. His coach forecast that Ken would never make director. But at least now he knows why. Perhaps he also has lengthened his stay with the organization and postponed forced early retirement.

This example demonstrates that coaching:

1. Doesn't always result in a shining success
2. Shows not just the employee being coached but the entire staff that the organization cares about its people and tries to help them fulfill their career goals
3. Provides clarity where there was none before. Ken now knows he's got a problem. And, just as important, others in the company know that Ken's management style isn't acceptable.

6. The Liability
Poor performer with a poor attitude
There’s no need for a Coach to spend a lot of time on this one. One of these two things must change almost immediately to make any time investment worthwhile. If an employee cannot do the job effectively, he had better at least be trying. If he’s a poor performer who also has an attitude problem, head immediately to HR and expedite the process to fire him. The Liability is not a good coaching candidate.

Why bother trying to salvage struggling employees?
Trying for positive progress with employees who lack either skill or the right mindset (but not both) requires a lot of effort. So why bother? Some reasons to ponder:

1. Helping someone resurrect their career and become a valued asset is an act of creation. Coaches get a great deal of satisfaction from knowing they were the catalyst in an employee’s successful effort to grow, develop and win.
2. A coach's efforts also increase motivation, reduce turnover and minimize legal exposure. These are all good business reasons that greatly benefit the organization.
3. Poor performers who feel slighted could be lawsuits waiting to happen.
4. Failure to try to salvage troubled good performers can leave termination as the only option. And that involves downtime, recruiting and training costs.
5. Losing a good performer hurts the employee and the company. Whether it’s because they cannot overcome a specific issue (Unreliable or Rebel) or because they never reach their true potential (Climber or Leaper), the loss hurts. These are cases where advanced coaching skills can make a critical difference, and they’re almost always worth the effort.

Source: "Catalytic Coaching," by Gary Markle of Energage.

(Click here to read Post 1 and Post 2)

Handling different types of employees #2

Email Address

Close

Dear HR Executive:

Here's our second post in a series about coaching challenges from Gary Markle's book "Catalytic Coaching." (Click here to read Post 1.)

This time we'll look at two challenging "employee types":

1. The Unreliable -- an employee who's a good performer when he's there (hint: he often isn't)
2. The Leaper -- a good performer who's nonexempt but strives for exempt status (hint: the organization often puts up roadblocks for this one)

Next time: We'll talk about the final two "types" -- The Rebel and The Liability. Read on.

Stephen Meyer
B21 Publisher

Six coaching challenges and how to deal with them
(Part 2 in a three-part series)

Here we identify #3 and #4 of the six different types of employees a manager is likely to encounter and offer coaching strategies for dealing with them.

#3 The Unreliable:
Good performer when present
This is a highly capable employee who seems to be on a perpetual coffee break. Examples:

1. The receptionist who delights her customers but habitually misses work and shows up late.
2. The computer help desk analyst who has missed three Mondays in a row but is revered by those who use his services.

The bad and the good
Like many employee problems, the Unreliable case has a good and a bad point.

• The bad: Failure to directly and quickly address a problem like this can allow a minor irritation to grow into an ulcerated wound. Also, failing to deal with the problem in a formal, organized fashion will worsen it.
• The good: Once successfully coached, an Unreliable recovers quite rapidly from performance problems.

When deciding what to do about the Unreliable, first look carefully at the situation. Guidelines:

1. Prepare to deal with Unreliables by examining the job they occupy. Questions to ask:
   • Is this job definition artificially rigid? For example, can someone to do this job successfully without working rigidly enforced hours?
   • If so, is it possible some of the discipline problems stem from Unreliables knowing they can still do all the work without being obsessive about start and stop times?
2. Expect Unreliables to argue. This may occur, for example, if the reasons for enforcing rigid attendance standards are arbitrary or merely represent a long-standing tradition. Reasons:
   • Unreliables may resist, especially if they feel the reason for occasional tardiness or sick days use is a good one. Examples: taking care of sick children, parents or animals.
   • Young employees, especially those who have grown up in a world of plentiful work opportunities, may challenge the rules.
   • Long-term employees who are dealing with temporary outside-of-work problems may also bristle.
   • All may ask why flextime or telecommuting is not an option.
3. Answer these questions:
   • Has the employee ever explained—or even hinted at—the root cause of repeated lateness or absence?
   • Has the employee ever shown any signs of a medical condition that might justify the absences? Note: The answers to these questions do not prevent a coach from confronting the employee, but merely color how to do so.

In your feedback to an Unreliable:

1. Be fair. Changing behavior and motivating the employee to work hard is your top priority. Next in line is the need to minimize legal exposure.
2. Don’t overlook strengths that make Unreliables worth spending time on. If they struggle with fundamental aspects of the job as well as attendance and punctuality, treat them as Problem Performers. Make sure to list at least four Strengths and give at least three good examples of each positive attribute to show their good work is appreciated.
3. Avoid describing “Attendance” and/or “Punctuality” as job threatening in the first interview. Strategy: Classify them as Performance Impacting while noting they’re serious and can become Job Threatening very quickly if performance does not change.
4. Assure Unreliables they’re still held in high esteem and that this is not the end of their career.
5. Make clear this talk aims to correct their performance before it can damage their careers.
6. Remind Unreliables of the business reasons for the confrontation. It’s not personal but is related to fulfilling the department’s duties to the organization.
7. Describe how the behavior affects the organization. Example: A receptionist is late or repeatedly calls in sick. That means routing customer calls to an answering machine until it’s possible to take someone else from a job to cover.
8. Recommend – when appropriate – that Unreliables use an Employee Assistance Program. An EAP counselor can be very helpful, especially if the problem involves drug or alcohol issues.

#4 The Leaper
A good performer who is nonexempt but wants exempt status
Leapers are those who have decided they’ll do whatever it takes to move one way—up. They’ll give up a standard work week and overtime pay for exempt status even if it initially means a cut in total earnings. Why do they do it? Status and future pay.

Considerations when coaching a Leaper:

1. Understand that in many organizations, top nonexempt employees often function almost the same as their exempt counterparts. Even so, in many companies the perceived status difference between “professional” (exempt) and “nonprofessional” (nonexempt) persists.
2. Realize that despite some overlap between the two pay grades, exempt status will ultimately lead to higher salary ceilings. Once on top of the nonexempt ladder, there is nowhere else to go—without changing ladders.
3. Expect that the best of nonexempts will usually be the ones who aspire to exempt status.
4. Prepare to be frustrated by lack of organizational support for a Leaper to advance. This often occurs because top management fails or is unwilling to cross these traditional boundaries.

Caveats about helping Leapers
Not all employees can or should be allowed to leap from nonexempt to exempt status. Reason: Nothing is sadder than seeing an outstanding performer in one class promoted to mediocrity in another. A close second: the individual fairly denied promotion who fails to understand the decision-making process. Whatever you do, give Leapers the straight scoop. Two coaching success strategies:

1. Help those with the skill and determination mount effective campaigns.
2. Help those who lack key ingredients for advancement get comfortable with their status as top contributors in the nonexempt ranks.

Source: "Catalytic Coaching," by Gary Markle of Energage.

Handling different types of employees #1

Email Address

Close

Dear HR Executive:

One key reason managers fail is that they don't "get" that all employees are different.

The biggest mistake one-trick-pony managers make is to assume everyone is just like them, and that the managerial style they respond to best will work for everyone. I did this myself in my first management job. Since I'd always succeeded with blunt bosses who said, "This is wrong; go make it right," I figured that managerial style would work for me. And it did, with about 20% of my direct reports. The other 80% wanted to airmail me to Tasmania.

But I learned that people, and the situations they're in, are very different. A really good manager needs 1) a full repertoire of managerial styles and 2) the ability to analyze problems with an open mind and tailor solutions that fit. 

Our friend Gary Markle of Energage is an expert on performance management. In his book, "Catalytic Coaching," he offers an interesting breakdown of different employee "types" that present unique coaching challenges for managers.

In this, the first of three posts on this subject, we'll look at

1. The Climber: A Good performer with high potential/ambition, and
2. The Problem Performer: An employee with a good attitude who fails to meet expectations.

Next time: The Unreliable and the Leaper. After that: The Rebel and the Liability. Read on.

Stephen Meyer
B21 Publisher

Six coaching challenges and how to deal with them
(Part 1 in a series)

Here we identify six different types of employees a manager is likely to encounter and offer coaching strategies for dealing with them:

#1 - The Climber
Good performer with high potential/ambition
Climbers take a lot of work. But it's worth it. Reason: They’re one of an organization’s most valuable assets because they want more responsibility and have what it takes to assume higher office. Points to ponder:

• The good: Having an attention-hungry Climber is a good problem. Employees who can—and want to—assume greater responsibility are the lifeblood of an organization.
• The bad: Climbers require more time and energy to properly coach than perhaps any other employee.

Here are some guidelines on fulfilling Climbers’ needs:

1. Realize that Climbers are feedback sponges. They work hard, deliver a lot and want to know you appreciate them. Because most are ambitious, they want confirmation that they’re progressing toward their goals.
2. Don’t take them for granted. That’s an easy trap to fall into because they need minimal supervision on routine matters.
3. Invest more time with younger Climbers who have little perspective on the organization. Help them to think beyond their limited perspective and ask them to spend time with potential mentors or role models in other areas.
4. Understand that what Climbers need exceeds fair and reasonable salary treatment. They appreciate salary increases. But they also want to know what they can do to advance their careers.
5. Listen extra carefully when Climbers discuss their aspirations in the formal interview. Ask tough questions to identify gaps that may exist between their skills/abilities and their aspirations.

#2 The Problem Performer:
Individual with good attitude who fails to meet expectations
These employees try to do the job but are not able to do so consistently. Their careers are going in the wrong direction. Coaches will likely agree that this is the most intimidating and unpleasant aspect of their jobs. Problem Performer guidelines:

1. Assume all the facts are not in. It may be clear the employee is not meeting goals, but sometimes circumstances the coach may be unaware of affect the Poor Performer’s performance.
2. Coaches must show Problem Performers they’re being more than fair. Building trust by listening and questioning are critical to an effective investigation.
3. Confront Problem Performers in a formal discussion, not in a impromptu conversation that began on another topic. This sends the message that the issues at hand are important and possibly even Job Threatening.
4. Follow this cardinal rule: Meet with the person as soon as it seems even one aspect of the employee’s behavior is Job Threatening.
5. Don't fire a Poor Performer without answering these questions:

• Have I told the employee directly that his or her job was at risk?
• Have I gathered the necessary information or taken the steps required for a dismissal to take place?
• Am I fully convinced that firing this employee is the fair thing to do and will not expose the company to legal action?

Why it's important to try
Firing a poor performer without attempting to salvage the person is the easy way out. In fact, it’s the path chosen all too often by organizations that use traditional performance evaluation systems (rather than a coaching-based system).

Changing behavior and motivating people to improve how they work is much harder to do, but the extra effort increases the odds of producing a positive outcome for all parties by:

1. Requiring the active participation of the individual whose behavior needs to change.
2. Showing employees the company views them as people, not just numbers.
3. Aiming for positive results by treating employees fairly.
4. Keeping communications honest when describing shortcomings.

Next time: The #3 The Unreliable and the #4 The Leaper. After that: #5 The Rebel and the #6 The Liability.

Source: "Catalytic Coaching," by Gary Markle of Energage.

Follow-up -- Bible study scenario

Dear HR Executive:

Our last post (Interactive scenario: Is Workplace Bible study group okay) generated a lot of comments from HR execs. Some felt it was okay to let employees have a lunchtime Bible study group; others said no way. But what would a lawyer say?

Just in case you may have missed it, I'm devoting this post to an insightful comment sent in by Harold Goldner, one of the many employment law attorneys who conduct training for Business 21 Publishing.

Here it is:

This is probably one of the better examples of 'no good deed goes unpunished' I've seen in a while. Unfortunately, it's also a great example for how small mistakes can beget disproportionately larger consequences.

Sure, the manager who permitted the use of the conference room in the first place made what at the time appeared to be a harmless blunder, but now we're dealing with a perceived fracture in the workforce which must be addressed, and quickly.

Presumably the employer has a well-written EEO policy and harassment policy and enforces uniformly and consistently violations of this policy. (If not, there are even bigger problems lurking out there). Assuming so, what has to happen is that HR must 'remind' everyone of the EEO and anti-harassment policies, and indicate that in light of this fact, religious activity *of any kind* must not take place on the premises.

The members of the Bible group may be encouraged to meet during their own time (lunch) at their own locations, but they must be aware that any indication that non-members are suffering anything remotely resembling adverse employment actions based upon non-membership will be deemed violations of the EEO and anti-harassment policies.

It's just like a lot of things, when a mistake is made, everything can be fixed if the message is given properly.

To put it another way, most medical malpractice cases are a product of bad bedside manner, not bad medicine.

Harold Goldner, Esq.

Well said, Harold.

Stephen Meyer
B21 Publisher

RISK-FREE TRIAL -- ONLINE TRAINING LIBRARY FOR HR AND MANAGERS: Want to learn about an amazingly effective and affordable way to train yourself, your HR staff and your managers and supervisors? Sign up for a risk-free trial to the HR Cafe Training Center Online. It's a powerful resource that allows HR executives to deploy high-impact training modules effortlessly throughout their organizations. Want to see what it's about before you sign up for a trial? Check out just one program from the huge library of content in the HR Cafe. It's a six-minute "Quick Take" training module called "Why 95% of Training Doesn't Stick."

Interactive Scenario: Is workplace Bible group okay?

Dear HR Executive:

Take just a minute to tell us how you'd handle this tricky scenario (click on "Comments" below).

Scenario

Could a Bible study group pose a legal risk for your company?

A year ago four employees asked if they could conduct a weekly Bible study group in an office conference room over lunch. You said sure.

After three months the group grew to 7 participants. At six months there were 10. Now, a year later, 14 employees attend.

Today, two young Marketing department employees, David and Karen, enter your office with a complaint. David's Jewish and Karen has let it be known publicly that she's a lapsed Catholic. Neither attends the Bible sessions and both are concerned that the participation of the Assistant Director of Marketing could have troubling implications.

"It's starting to feel that being in the Bible group is your ticket to promotion around here," said David.

Karen added, "The people in that group sit together at lunch and talk about religion; they socialize together outside work. It's more than a coincidence that a couple junior marketers got assigned to really cool projects right after joining the Bible group."

You listen carefully to David's and Karen's complaint, assure them that no promotion or assignment decision would ever be made based on participation in the Bible group, and send them on their way.

Is this a potential problem? What would you do?

Click on "Comments" below and share your answer.

Stephen Meyer
B21 Publisher

RISK-FREE TRIAL -- ONLINE TRAINING LIBRARY FOR HR AND MANAGERS: Want to learn about an amazingly effective and affordable way to train yourself, your HR staff and your managers and supervisors? Sign up for a risk-free trial to the HR Cafe Training Center Online. It's a powerful resource that allows HR executives to deploy high-impact training modules effortlessly throughout their organizations. Want to see what it's about before you sign up for a trial? Check out just one program from the huge library of content in the HR Cafe. It's a six-minute "Quick Take" training module called "Why 95% of Training Doesn't Stick."

Don't sabotage your hiring

Email Address

Close

Dear HR Executive

Early in my career as a rank-and-file employee it never -- ever -- occurred to me that my success or failure reflected not just on me but on my boss as well.

The first time I actually hired a subordinate, it hit me like a ton of bricks that if this person bombed, my boss might think less of me. And give me a smaller salary increase. And deny me part of my bonus. And give somebody else the promotion I wanted.

The reason: hiring mistakes are just plain disastrous. You've all seen the calculators that show you how a bad hire costs you two, five or even 10 times the person's salary. But that's only part of it. Workloads increase when others have to pick up the slack. Morale plummets. Employees see management as incompetent. Top performers, who want to work with the best of the best, start questioning whether their career needs wouldn't be better met elsewhere.

Hiring managers "own" the success or failure of the people they hire. But HR plays a key role, too. If your CEO perceives a bad-hire trend throughout your organization, you're likely to be summoned and asked, "Why are we so incompetent when it comes to hiring people?"

Here's an article from B21's newsletter Human Resources 21 that'll help eliminate some common hiring mistakes and increase the chances your future hires will be keepers. Read on.

Stephen Meyer
B21 Publisher

Do unmet expectations sabotage your hiring?
Five ways to head off new-job disillusionment

The job wasn’t what I thought it was going to be.” – An employee’s exit interview.

How many people are lost and how many recruitment and training dollars wasted because new employees didn’t realize what they were getting into?

Early attrition
It’s worth thinking about – especially when you consider that 4% of employees walk out their first day on the job, and an estimated half of all workers quit within six months. Unmet expectations are to blame for a lot of this turnover.

If you’d like to cut down on the “failure to thrive” rate of new employees in your company, here are five techniques you may want to try:

1. Make maximum use of your best candidate pools
Who’s least likely to have unrealistic or inflated ideas about the position they’re getting into? People who have been around it already.

When you set out to fill a vacancy, think about such folks as interns and part-timers who have done the job – or part of it – in the past or are doing it now.

Depending on your policy on rehiring ex-employees, you may want to reach out to someone who left for greener pastures but found them dry and yellow.

Also, current employees who may not know the particular job, but do know the culture of the company, are good bets.

If you do promote or transfer someone like this, though, bear in mind that they still need a realistic preview of what the job will be like. (See #3.)

2. Encourage and use employee referrals
Other than promoting a current employee, this is the surest way to beat the rosy expectations trap. First year turnover rate for those hired through co-worker referrals is much lower than for those who come in “over the transom.”

It’s simple: The referring employee doesn’t want to lose a friend or alienate the employer. He or she plays the role of “honest broker,” explaining the job fully to the new person and leveling with the company about the person’s skills.

Try either cash incentives or prizes for employees who bring in “keepers.”

3. Preview the job with the candidate in a realistic way
Sometimes you may be hesitant to let applicants know what it’s really like to do the job, for fear that they’ll be overwhelmed and turn it down.

Trust us: If a lifelike preview makes someone refuse a job, he or she probably would have quit anyway when they hit the rough spots you smoothed over.

Some of the previewing we’re talking about can take place in the interview(s). Don’t go overboard on the negatives, but let people know if, for example, your culture favors frank and frequent feedback. You may also want to let candidates spend an hour or so observing the job, if it’s safe and appropriate.

You may even be able to create a simulated experience of a particularly hard or tricky aspect of the job. One bank had teller candidates watch a DVD-ROM of an angry customer approaching with a complaint. The interviewer would freeze the frame and ask the applicant how he or she would respond. 

4. Have team members interview candidates, too
No matter how honest the interviewer has been, a candidate will usually want to get the “straight dope” from a peer.

You can take advantage of this instinct. Get a couple of members of the team or department involved in interviewing the candidates after you’ve done so. Have them vote “yea” or “nay” on each candidate, giving solid reasons.

You’ll reap at least three benefits:

• The candidate will have a clearer idea of what the job is really like.
• You’ll send a message to team members that their opinions count.
• Close-knit teams won’t feel blindsided by the sudden arrival of a stranger.

5. Talk to new hires afterward
Don’t wait until that new hire is suddenly on the way out to find out, in an exit interview, what went wrong.

Consider interviewing or surveying all new hires after 30 or 60 days on the job. You’ll learn how you could better manage expectations in the future, and your intervention may keep the person on board if they’ve been feeling misled.

Source: “The 7 Hidden Reasons Employees Leave,” by Leigh Branham, ISBN 0-8144-0851-6.

Final word on Circuit City layoffs

Email Address

Close

Dear HR Executive:

We've done two posts on the Circuit City layoffs recently (Post 1, Post 2). Most of the HR Cafe readers who commented on them felt that Circuit City is somewhere between amoral and downright stupid for laying off 3,400 aging salesclerks who were making, on average, 51 cents too much per hour.

Those who feel that way will be delighted to learn that Circuit City's stock fell 4% the day after it announced the layoffs. In a recent article by James Surowiecki of the New Yorker, the author points out that although Wall Street still sends CEOs the message that layoffs boost stock prices, in reality they don't. He writes that, "...investors seem to understand that fewer people doesn't always mean more profits. Downsizing may make companies temporarily more productive, but the gains quickly erode, in part because of the predictably negative effect on morale."

Surowiecky says that numerous studies, including one by the University of Colorado, revealed that 300+ firms that downsized in the 1980s saw no improvement in profits after three years.

More evidence: Perhaps you saw that Citigroup recently laid off 17,000 workers. Its stock price didn't budge.

My guess is we'll continue seeing big layoffs, despite the message the market seems to be sending -- i.e., that demographic changes are creating tight labor conditions and, long term, companies that make huge cuts may not be able to replace the workers they need to fuel future growth. That's a turnoff for investors who, we'd all like to believe, will increasingly see human capital as the key driver of long-term profits.

Stephen Meyer
B21 Publisher