The HR Cafe

Don't trust HR: They’re softies with no business savvy

Email Address

Close

Dear HR Executive:

Professor Richard Beatty of Rutgers University has a message for hard-headed business types: Don’t trust HR people. 

“They don’t think like business people,” the prof told attendees at the CFO Rising conference last spring. “Many of them entered human resources because they wanted to help people, which I’m all for, but I’m also for building winning organizations.”

Which, apparently, HR people are against.

He also said:

• “The language of organizations is numbers, [but] HR isn’t very good at data analytics.”

• “HR wants to treat most employees the same way, and they spend considerable time trying to defend or fix poor performers, taking on the St. Bernard role.”

Beatty thinks the “employer of choice” concept is another example of soft-headed HR think. “If you are the employer of choice, who’s going to be applying for your jobs? Everybody and their dog’s brother.” Employers of choice attract “those who simply want to find a good place to hide out,” he warns.

He's down on training, too, if it's to improve subpar performers. He suggests firing them and moving on. “Low turnover isn’t necessarily a good thing,” he says. “Think about where you want to disinvest."

And he doesn’t believe HR is ready to handle the really grown-up tasks, such as finding and retaining strategic talent. Companies are better off bypassing HR and putting someone else in charge of that task, he suggests.

So guess what Professor Beatty teaches at Rutgers? Finance? Accounting? Nope. He’s the director of the Master in Human Resource Leadership Program.

Thoughts? Comments? Post them below. We’ll forward them to the prof and invite a response.

Here's a link to an article from CFO Magazine, which covered his speech to a crowd of CFOs in March 2009.

Michael Boyette
Editor
HR Café Training Center

When is an ex-offender safe to hire?

Email Address

Close

Dear HR Executive:

Many enlightened employers would like to hire an ex-offender, reasoning that people deserve a second chance and ex-cons need a paycheck, too. But nobody wants to hire somebody who makes them regret it – by, say, robbing or assaulting co-workers or customers.

That’s why a new study from criminologists at Carnegie-Mellon University is so interesting. Its authors determined that if an ex-con avoids recidivism for five years, he or she becomes a pretty safe employment bet.

The researchers looked at the criminal histories of 88,000 first-time offenders in New York. They found that most ex-offenders committed further crimes a few years after their initial arrest, but that of those who managed to stay out of trouble for five years, only a very small minority were ever arrested again.

Dave Clemens
Editor
HR Café Newsletter

UPCOMING AUDIO CONFERENCE: Don't miss B21’s upcoming audio conference , "Bullies, Harassers and Violent Workers: Tough Tactics to Protect Your People."   On Thursday August 27, our speaker Melissa Fleischer, Esq., will teach managers and HR professionals the legal ins and outs of dealing with problem employees and provide a proactive approach with five easy steps for avoiding violence and harassment in your workplace.

E-Verify resurrected by the Feds; “no match” rule scrapped

Email Address

Close

Dear HR Executive:

E-Verify is back. Yes, that controversial system for checking employees’ right to work in the U.S. is again supposed to become mandatory for federal contractors.

The Bush administration tried to push E-Verify through as a rule for companies doing business with the government, but failed. The Obama administration has now resurrected a regulation imposing the system, effective Sept. 8.

It’s not clear whether the rule can come into force with a federal lawsuit pending against it. Several employer groups filed the suit, claiming the databases E-Verify relies on are stuffed with mistakes. 
Meantime, the Senate’s immigration subcommittee says E-Verify is ineffective, and is pushing for biometric verification (e.g., fingerprints).

Win some, lose some
At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security announced it’s scrapping the equally controversial “no-match” rule.

The 2007 rule would have obliged employers to fire any employees whose Social Security information didn’t match government records. The rule was blocked by a federal court injunction after it came out.

Dave Clemens
Editor
HR Café Newsletter

Aging workforce: A strategy for improving employee productivity

Email Address

Close

Dear HR Executive,

Is your workforce getting older? Not surprising if it is. Lots of data shows that more employees are likely to work into what used to be considered retirement age.

To improve the productivity of an aging workforce Michael Silverstein, professor of occupational health at the University of Washington, suggest you target four key areas:

Work environment.  Consider tools from ergonomics and universal design – like bright task lighting, contrast controls on visual displays, nonskid surfaces, etc. – to improve the safety and efficiency of older workers.

Health promotion and disease prevention.  This is about more than reducing health care costs. It’s about encouraging older workers to do the things they specifically need to stay healthy and productive – like making sure to get flu shots, and regular vision and hearing exams.

Work-life balance within the organization.  Arrangements ranging from job-sharing to telecommuting to phased retirement fall into this category.

Work-life balance outside the organization.  Don’t forget the social support mechanisms in the community that older workers may want to take advantage of, such as public transportation or senior recreation services. You may want to help them leverage these services through focused employee benefits.

You may not be in a position to attack all four of these targets at once. But the more you achieve in at least one or two areas for improving employee productivity, the more your organization will benefit from your older employees’ skills and efforts.

Dave Clemens
Editor-in-Chief
The HR Café Newsletter

Staff turnover: What’s a NASCAR team to do?

Email Address

Close

Mergers, liquidations, staff turnover. Sounds like another day on Wall Street.

But the declining economy is hitting home with another bunch of fast-track workers as well: NASCAR pit crews. As many as 1,000 crew members have lost their jobs in the last year as teams combined, downsized or shut down, Fox News reports.

Layoffs have hit nearly every team. Even Hendrick Motorsports, which has won the past three Sprint Cup titles and employs about 500 people, cut its workforce last year.

Small competitors get top picks

It’s bad news for the big boys.

But not all bad news for their smaller, leaner competitors. As big-ticket race teams fall victim to high costs and declining sponsorships, small-budget teams are getting their pick of top-level talent. As a result, they’re learning how to play – and win – against the larger and better-known teams.

That could be a winning formula in many industries right now – and a strategy worth exploring with your top management: Stay lean, but keep an eye out for top talent that your larger competitors are cutting loose.

You may be able to turn their staff turnover to your advantage. After all, these folks will know better than anyone how to compete against their ex-employers. And they just might have a little extra motivation to do so.

Michael Boyette
Editor, HR Café Training Center

Candidate interviews -- questions that could trip you up

Email Address

Close

Dear HR Executive,

Some questions you would never ask when interviewing a job candidate – like “How old are you?” or “Are you disabled?”

Clearly, questions like these are invitations to legal mayhem.

There are some other questions whose danger signals aren’t quite as obvious, though – questions that can still get you in trouble.

Musts to avoid
Here are several to avoid, either orally or in your employment application:

• “What’s your maiden name?” You may ask whether a candidate has used other names in the past, in order to verify work experience and education. But if you ask for a maiden name, you risk discriminating on the basis of marital status or even national origin.
• “Who’s your nearest relative to contact in case of emergency?” Asking for a relative can open you up to charges of  marital status discrimination  And it’s unnecessary – just ask, "Who should we contact in an emergency?"
• “What kind of military discharge did you get?” You can ask only about skills acquired in the military.
• “Have you ever been arrested?” Irrelevant, since people are innocent until proven guilty. You may ask whether candidates have been convicted of a felony, if you also state that a conviction won’t necessarily bar them from consideration.
• “Would your religion prevent you from working weekends?” This is religious discrimination. Instead, state that weekend and holiday work is required, and ask: “Is that acceptable to you as a condition of employment?”

You can see a number of other questionable questions -- as well as questions you should ask -- in Paul Falcone's useful new book, "96 Great Interview Questions to Ask Before You Hire.” 

Dave Clemens
Editor in Chief
Human Resources 21

Hiring smart -- My take

Email Address

Close

Dear HR Executive:

In the last post, I laid out a scenario that raised the question, "Should you hire for smarts or experience?"

We got some great answers from HR Cafe readers. Let me share mine.

In general, hire for smarts. I say that knowing full well that in jobs that require repetitive tasks -- e.g., data entry -- high intelligence can be a liability. Smart people will quickly get bored and quit. I also recognize that some very smart people have low emotional intelligence and can be ineffective and even disruptive in many jobs.

But generally speaking, in any job requiring decision-making that affects the bottom line, raw intelligence -- measured by a pre-employment test -- should be a major factor in the hiring decision.

The reason is that smart people:

1. Process information faster and better, and
2. Handle stress better.

Most jobs in any business -- whether it be a customer service rep, a controller or a CEO -- involve solving problems. Thousands of times every day, employees at your company are faced with decisions big and small. They're given a series of input variables, they process them, and they come up with an answer.

Sometimes the variables aren't crystal clear and require interpretation. What's more, often employees are under tremendous pressure to make decisions quickly. When they don't come up with the right answer, they create unhappy customers, miss critical production deadlines, extend credit to bad actors, enter the wrong markets, make products no one wants, cause communication breakdowns, hire incompetent vendors, etc.

The smarter your workforce, the more likely those thousands of decisions getting made at your company every day are going to be the right ones. Hiring for smarts is risk insurance. Simple as that.

One last point: There's something to be said for "practical intelligence." You could argue that it's more useful to companies than high IQ. But I'd counter that really smart people, if given the chance, will develop practical intelligence more quickly, and deploy it more skillfully, than their less-intelligent colleagues.

That's why I try to hire brains.

Stephen Meyer
B21 Publisher

Scenario: Hiring the smart guy?

Email Address

Close

NOTE: We'd like your feedback on this post. Please go to "comments" below and tell us how you'd handle this scenario.

Dear HR Executive:

A manager comes into your office and says,

"I need your advice. I've got two candidates for a marketing manager position and can't decide which one to hire. One scored REALLY high on our intelligence tests but has just 6 months' experience. The other scored about average on our test but has four years' experience. Both are personable and seem like good team players who'd fit in. Salary expectations are similar. But I'm struggling because our needs are mixed: Yes, we need somebody who can make the trains run on time, but just as important we need creativity and problem solving skills."

I've set up this scenario so there's no obvious answer. It really depends on how strongly you believe in the wisdom of hiring extremely smart people. Some hiring managers will tell you flat out that you should always hire for smarts. Microsoft, for example, would agree. And it's hard to argue with their results.

But then there's Enron, which was McKinsey's showcase client for how to win the "War on Talent." The elite consulting firm lauded Enron for hiring smart people and giving them all the resources and freedom they needed to succeed. But all these brilliant people contributed to the greatest business collapse in U.S. history.

So, the manager's question is a tough one. How would you answer? Share your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link below.

Stephen Meyer
B21 Publisher

You're NOT hired... and DON'T sue me

Email Address

Close

Dear HR Executive:

To avoid potential liability issues or damage to your firm's reputation, you and your hiring managers need to watch the language you use with candidates who are not hired and be aware of how you treat them.

How you handle candidates who are not hired is as important as how you handle the ones you do hire.

To avoid liability issues, be careful of the reasons you give for not hiring a candidate and be aware of how you treat each person overall. A company's reputation can sour quickly by disgruntled, angry, and hurt job candidates who turn to their favorite employment law attorney to exact their revenge for being rejected.

Here are a few suggestions:

• Liability wise, the safest answer on why someone wasn't hired is "while the hiring manager felt there were a lot of positives about this candidate, the company has decided to go in a different direction." This is direct yet positive and leaves no room for negotiation. This is the verbiage you can use to disengage all candidates, regardless of the situation.
• Avoid giving a candidate who was not hired any specific reason that is personal in nature, such as the person does not have the right image for the company. Also, NEVER tell a candidate that he/she did poorly on any type of testing as the sole reason for not moving forward in the interview process.
• If a candidate has been extended an offer only to fail a background check, it is fair to let them know specifically what issues are not allowing the person to successfully pass the check. In the event it is erroneous information, give the candidate a chance to rectify it. Be aware that there have been cases of mistaken identity and once given the opportunity to clear it, candidates have been able to pass the background check and start work.
• Ensure a positive experience for all candidates. Regardless of whether the person is hired or not, be respectful of their time (since many are still employed while interviewing) and don't keep them waiting unless absolutely necessary. During the interview, be respectful and give each candidate your undivided attention, keeping in mind that rude behavior on your part reflects negatively on the company you represent.
• Handle all referrals so you're sure to get more. Even though you may not hire a candidate who someone refers, remember that the person who referred them will feel accountable to the candidate interviewed. If you do not treat the referred person well, you may not get another referral in the future.
• Be timely in your decision. If you know soon after the interview is over that you will not be hiring the candidate, the most considerate action is to give the job candidate a call as soon as possible and be positive but direct. If sending a letter, make it as timely as possible.

David Newman
B21 VP of Product Development

Retention Woes: Finding the Issues BEHIND the Issue

Email Address

Close

Dear HR Executive:

Organizations that struggle with workforce retention usually have a host of people problems lurking not far below the surface — recruiting, hiring, onboarding, training, development, coaching, mentoring, career pathing, progressive discipline, and so on.

Before your top-performing employees disappear into the talent shark tank, you need to do some hard thinking - and possibly hard work - to identify and fix the holes in your talent management pipeline.

Low retention is typically a symptom of much larger problems. The core problems usually stem from a lack of a "big picture" talent management mindset that takes the entire employee life cycle into consideration and closely examines the gaps and shortcomings at every phase from hiring to termination and/or retirement. This tends to set off a ripple effect across the major areas of hiring, retaining, and developing premium talent.

One quick example from the front lines — let's say you're having trouble retaining high-potential female employees. A July 2007 survey from the Pew Research Center found that 60 percent of working mothers prefer part-time work rather than full-time — compared with 48 percent a decade earlier. Are you making this available as an option? Or is your organization losing access to that talent pool in favor of a rigid "all or nothing" approach?

Different challenges require different approaches. You need to “connect the dots” when modifying your people practices and talent management strategies. Any "big picture" talent management initiative should satisfy four guiding principles:

Persistence:
A leadership team must be held accountable for championing the new system and communicating successes along the way.

Flexibility:
Employee onboarding, executive coaching, team development and other elements must be flexible in design and execution to fit with different cultures, initiatives and mandates within the organization.

Accountability:
Managers and supervisors must be held responsible — financially and non-financially — for the new system's success. Without it, this work is likely to be ignored or left unfinished because of more "urgent" short-term priorities.

Measurability:
Success metrics must be established early on, implemented, reviewed, and publicized to ensure long-term effectiveness and continual improvement.

The payoff for your retention strategy? It's simple — once your overall talent management practices take their rightful place on the "front burner", this integrated approach to talent management can be scaled to any level, focusing on individuals, departments and the entire organization.

David Newman
B21 VP of Product Development