How Do I Fix a Problem Team?

I can´t seem to get my team members to complete their action items, let alone cooperate with the rest of the group. What can I do?

Though it´s too late for this project, for future teams look for people who have an interest in the outcome of the project and the ability to contribute. If your team members don´t care and don´t have anything to contribute, get a new team.

Most well managed projects have a few things in common. First, they have a predetermined schedule. If you know it´s a 12-week project, determine the finish date and work back from it. Second, set up checkpoint meetings with team members in which you are very clear about project goals and individual responsibilities. Even if you only do those two things, you´re increasing the chances of producing a better project. In addition, there are a number of good software packages on the market that can help you organize your project flow and set up checkpoints.

Take a hard look at your team and remove the bad apples. One troublesome person can derail an entire project. Worse, if it´s a process that involves customers, it could hurt your customer relationships or your company´s reputation.

There is almost always a root cause for this kind of behavior: This person may think they have a better idea or they may consider themselves overqualified (or underqualified) for the team or project. The important thing is to get to the root of the problem and either fix it or move the person off your team.
Regardless of the reason for your team´s ineffectiveness, don´t let the bad situation continue. Address it as a team or bring the situation to someone´s attention before it hurts the business.

[Source: AllBusiness.com]

How Do I Know If a Candidate Will Fit In at My Company?

How Do I Know If a Candidate Will Fit In at My Company?

 

Q: How do I know which personality types will be successful in my company? Sometimes when I'm looking at a resume, I feel like I'm comparing apples to oranges.

 

A: Poor fit with the corporate culture - not job performance is the most often cited reason for the termination of middle managers. The company's top brass generally screens senior managers to ensure a good culture fit. However, middle management hires are often poorly screened for culture fit, partly because department managers and staff screen their own candidates and tend not to seek input from other departments.

 

Behavioral and corporate culture assessment tools can often help remedy the problem. Tests that determine the compatibility of prospective employees and the hiring company's culture are gaining popularity and acceptance. Many companies are offering some type of assessment test to line managers and prospective employees as part of the hiring process.

 

Most of the personal diagnostic tools given to candidates measure character traits or personality type such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which assesses extroversion-introversion, sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling and judging-perceiving. Cultural evaluation tools generally audit several members of an organization at once to gauge the business environment. The Organizational Values Inventory (OVI) is a common tool that rates cultural types within the following areas: integrative, innovative, caring, stable, results driven.

 

Typically, these tools do a good job of identifying the parameters of a company's culture, such as:

 

1. Degree to which the company is hierarchical versus empowerment based.

 

2. Tendency of managers to be decisive in their decisions vs. flexible in their decision-making.

 

3. Encouragement of managers to be rotated into new functional areas to help them grow versus tendency to keep managers only in the functional area they were hired into

 

With both measures in hand, the HR manager should be able to make a more informed and mutually acceptable hiring decision.

 

 

[Source: AllBusiness.com]

 

How Do We Quell Rumors About an Executive's Abrupt Departure?

How Do We Quell Rumors About an Executive's Abrupt Departure?
	A top executive has left our firm abruptly and mysteriously and, so far, ownership has decided not to share the details. The rumors have been flying among the staff, and most are worse than the actual truth (to which I am privy). Some of them inaccurately and distastefully sully the character of other members of the company. Should the executives continue to say nothing? Even if they decide not to elaborate on the actual circumstances, should they address the rumors?—Worried About Fallout, services, Norridge, Illinois
	In today's world, rumors can be deadlier than facts. Perhaps it has always been that way. But when you consider the pressure on top management to be ethically correct, company leaders cannot possibly afford to ignore the rumors swirling about your organization. You had better believe that the subordinates, peers and employees who know the executive will fill the void with their own versions of what happened. Unfortunately, most times what happens are points of disagreement, another opportunity for the executive elsewhere or simply job elimination that causes a person to leave. The rumor mill, however, may indicate that the executive was having an affair, stole money from the company or misrepresented the firm in some dastardly way. The answer has always been for top management to be honest, straightforward, direct and brief. These types of situations do not warrant a three-page memorandum. Usually, the statement will read that Mary or Joe has left the company to pursue other interests or to take advantage of another opportunity. Nothing else is usually stated. Most employees realize that these are delicate moments. However, some information should be put forth as to what is going to happen because of the exodus of the individual. Far too often, companies let a void sit in the minds of the employees as to what will happen after the person leaves the company. As quickly as possible, a new organization should be announced, realignments made and responsibilities identified and explained. Most employees really don't care why the executive left, but they do wonder how it may affect them as individuals. Companies should always know that if a void is left open, then individuals will fill that void with misinformation. It is a rule that has never changed since organizations first began functioning.     [SOURCE: William J. Morin, chairman and CEO, WJM Associates Inc., New York City, June 26, 2006.]

What Should the Mandate Be for Our New Competency Development Unit?

What Should the Mandate Be for Our New Competency Development Unit?
	We are establishing a new unit on competency development. What should its basic mandate be, and how do we determine which activities are to be prioritized?—Results-Oriented, finance/insurance/real estate, Manila, Philippines
	Creating a new unit specifically for competency development suggests the scope or impact of this unit applies to most, if not all, of the positions in the company and involves the development of both hiring and training systems that focus on the job's key accountabilities. For that reason, I'll argue the primary mandate is to articulate and otherwise ensure a solid foundation is defined for each job--that is, to identify the key accountabilities in the job and the related competencies required to deliver on those key accountabilities. Once that is accomplished, this unit should put in place hiring and training systems to deliver the most important competencies in the job, and to manage the development of competencies across the organization. Developing competencies within the organization can occur in two ways: 1) hiring the needed competencies or 2) training for the needed competencies. Both are methods that result in more of a given competency. Neither of these tasks needs to be owned by the competency development unit. Rather, they should be owned by the individual business units or departments. By some standards, building a competency development unit might be considered a huge undertaking requiring a large budget. But best-practice methodologies and technology make revealing key accountabilities in a job, and identifying the required competencies, much simpler and less expensive than ever before. These advancements also are empowering department managers to drive this process and use the results effectively, eliminating the need for this new unit to perform all of the required tasks. If the new unit wants to hit a grand slam in short order, it must consider how to balance high production levels and high-quality results with total stakeholder acceptance—none of which can happen without involving stakeholders. A high level of production suggests competency development for every position occurs not in years, but in one to two months, regardless of how many positions need to be profiled and studied. It also suggests putting more effort into selecting off-the-shelf training modules. The level of quality suggests the end results of each job study must be valid and reliable, and that training and development programs must be focused on development of the right competencies for each employee. That requires the ability to quickly compare the talents required in the job with the talent of the person in the job. You will also want a solution that managers and employees will accept and embrace. The best measure of stakeholder acceptance is when managers demand more of it. That only happens when they feel the program delivers results as defined by them, isn't expensive, and is easy to understand and use without an interpreter. To summarize, the primary mandate of your competency development unit is to: 1. Create and communicate to stakeholders a solid strategy for developing and documenting the key accountabilities of each job, including measures of success. 2. Empower managers and high-performing incumbents to identify the key accountabilities. Use the key accountabilities as the reference point for stakeholders to identify the most important competencies required in the job (online job profiling tools allow stakeholders to identify the key competencies in a manner of minutes). 3. Implement job-talent assessment tools that identify gaps in competencies. 4. Implement work processes that assess applicants early in the hiring process to reveal "best fit" candidates quickly and to expedite the recruitment of high potential candidates. 5. For the most popular competencies—those found across jobs throughout the organization such as a set of management or leadership competencies—develop internally delivered training programs (purchase off-the-shelf programs where possible) or contract with training/consulting firms to deliver the program on a regular basis at your locations. 6. For unique or not-so-popular competencies, provide guidance to department managers on the most cost-effective training and development alternatives. Many times, competency development requires nothing more than correctly identifying the competency, correctly assessing the level of the competency within the organization, and providing some basic strategies for developing skills in the competency.   [SOURCE: Carl Nielson, principal, the Nielson Group , Dallas, June 26, 2006.]

Which Method Helps Us Prove the Financial Return of Adding New Staff?

Which Method Helps Us Prove the Financial Return of Adding New Staff?
	Can you suggest a standard methodology to prove financial return on the costs of adding a position, including recruiting, salary and benefits? How could a department manager make the financial case for bringing new people on?—Number-Crunching Our Headcount, consulting/legal, Los Angeles
	The return on investment from adding a new position to your organization can be projected based on dollar amounts assigned to the various activities and outcomes resulting from that new hire. Assign dollar values to benefits. The first step is to assign dollar values per appropriate calendar period to the benefits you expect to receive by adding this position. You must determine the period of time most appropriate for this position and your organization. It might be a month, a quarter or a year. That includes numerical answers to the following questions: 1. How much revenue per calendar period will be directly generated as a result of this position? 2. How much money per calendar period will this position save your organization in terms of increased efficiency? 3. What improvements in productivity, quality, and customer service will result from this position and what is the value of those improvements per calendar period to your organization? The sum of these figures is the value your company will gain by adding this position. Assign dollar values to costs. Contrast that with how much it will cost you to add this new position. Consider the cost of recruiting, interviewing and hiring the person. Include travel, relocation and training expenses, as well as hidden costs such as lost productivity during the process. The following formulas are useful in assigning dollar values to the costs of hiring a new employee. 1. Number of advertisements multiplied by the price per ad equals your advertising cost. 2. Number of hours it will take to recruit and screen applicants multiplied by the hourly compensation of all the individuals involved in the recruiting and screening process yields your administrative cost. 3. Cost of travel by automobile or airline (plus the cost of meals and lodging) multiplied by the number of candidates you expect to bring in for interviews equals your travel costs. 4. The number of interviewers multiplied by interview hours and multiplied again by average hourly compensation of the interviewers equals yours interview costs. 5. Cost of moving employee and family gives you your relocation costs. 6. Number of hours a new employees spends in training multiplied by that person's hourly compensation equals your training costs. 7. Weekly compensation, including benefits for this new position, multiplied by the estimated number of weeks it will take to recruit and hire the new employee produces your lost productivity costs. The sum of these seven costs—advertising, administrative, travel, interviews, relocation, training and lost productivity—equals your cost of hiring. Add the cost of hiring to the annual compensation for the new position to get your initial investment. Compare your initial investment with the value your company will gain to determine the financial impact of adding the new position.     [SOURCE: Deborah Millhouse, CEO Inc ., Charlotte, North Carolina, June 26, 2006.]

Are Long-Term Contractors Risky?

Q: Right now our staff consists of several employees and a large number of independent contractors. I read about Microsoft's legal troubles with its independent contractors. Are we at risk if we use long-term independent contractors? 

A: Potentially. Proper use and management of independent contractors is a big issue for small bsousinesses. Simply because you and your company consider these workers independent contractors doesn't mean the government will. If they're later deemed to be misclassified employees, your company could be liable for unpaid employment taxes and insurance (and other penalties). You could also be liable to the workers themselves for the value of any benefits provided to your full-time employees but not to them.Below are a number of the factors the IRS uses to determine whether an employer has correctly classified its workers:

• Employer control. If a worker must follow an employer's instructions regarding when, where and how to perform the work, this suggests an employer-employee relationship. This is the biggest single factor in the determination.
  
• Hours of Work. Set hours of work suggests the individual is an employee.
  
• Full-Time. Working full-time or substantially full-time for one employer suggests an employer-employee relationship.
  
• Employer's Premises. Work performed substantially or exclusively on company premises suggests the individual is an employee.
  
• Payment by Hour, Week or Month. Payment on a regular schedule suggests the worker is an employee. Independent contractors are usually (but not always) paid by the job.
  
• Training. Any direct training provided by the employer suggests the individual is an employee.
  
• Assistants. If the worker hires and supervises her own assistants, this suggests that person is running an independent business and is not an employee.
  
• Profit or Loss. If the worker has no real exposure to profit or loss, beyond that of an ordinary employee, this also suggests an employment relationship.

These are not rigid rules, but factual considerations that cumulatively determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Another hidden issue is that if your contractors are really employees, they are entitled to all the same anti-discrimination protections of your regular workers. That's because these civil rights laws are all premised on an employer-employee relationship.

 

[Source: AllBusiness.com]

 

What Is My Company's Corporate Culture?

Q: How do I determine what my company´s corporate culture is? 

A: I recently consulted with a company where a senior manager said, "The culture here is one where we eat our young and shoot our old." At another company they said, "This is an up-or-out place."Both of these comments provide big clues to these companies' corporate cultures — desirable or not. But defining corporate culture can be a tricky business because the spoken and unspoken culture can vary widely. A company can brag about its employees being "empowered," and yet these same "powerful" employees can't get a box of paper clips without filling out a form.
The easiest way to get an idea about an organization's culture is to listen to what people inside (and outside) say about the company. Corporate culture is created by what people say, how people treat each other and their customers, and the basis on which managers make decisions.
To get a sense of your company's culture, ask these questions:

• Does the company place emphasis on following established processes to complete a task or does it just care about results?
• Is management hands-on or hands-off?
• What is the company's attitude toward technology?
• Are flextime and telecommuting acceptable?
• Do managers work side by side with their staff or do they work in offices?

 

[Source: AllBusiness.com]

How Do We Determine Which Employees Are Best Suited for Expatriate Assignments?

How Do We Determine Which Employees Are Best Suited for Expatriate Assignments?
	My company is looking at purchasing formal assessment tools for expatriate assignment selection. Which surveys provide measurement that shows how the use of cultural/personality assessments actually increases the number of successful expatriate assignments?—Before We Send Them, manufacturing, Green Bay, Wisconsin
	Yours is a great question, and one that is becoming increasingly relevant with the steady increase in globalization we are currently experiencing. I am happy to say that there has been a good bit of research to demonstrate the effectiveness of using assessments to determine an individual's propensity for success in long-term overseas assignments. It is important to open by saying that this research has clearly shown the No. 1 reason for failure in such assignments is the inability of spouses or other family members to adapt to the new environment. This is often brought on by the fact that it is hard for the trailing spouse to find meaningful work during the assignment. For this reason, one of the very first things I recommend is to have a candidate's spouse and family go through an education and evaluation session to be sure they are up for the task. Part of this may also involve helping provide the spouse with career-development assistance and a liaison in the host country. Besides family issues, there has been a good deal of research that has shown the importance of several other factors. Chief among these is previous overseas experience. It goes without saying that those who have successfully completed and enjoyed a previous assignment will be more likely to have what it takes to complete similar assignments. That is, provided that the individual also possesses the interest and motivation to take on the assignment. Beyond family, experience and motivation, research has also shown the value of assessing certain key personality "constructs" that have been shown to be related to one's ability to adapt to a foreign assignment. In the past, many companies selected workers for expatriate assignments based solely on their technical skills. This has proved to be problematic because technical aptitude alone has almost no bearing on the ability of an individual to adapt to life in a foreign culture. When asking someone to perform within a foreign environment, it is critical to attend to some additional factors. Failure to assess these things as part of the selection process can prove quite costly, as failed expatriate assignments can carry substantial economic consequences. Research has shown that evaluation of an individual, in terms of their propensity to succeed on an expatriate assignment, should account for several dimensions. Although a full explanation of these things is beyond the scope of this article, included below is a brief explanation of these findings. These individual skills have been categorized into three dimensions by experts Mark Mendenhall and Gary Oddou: the self dimension, which includes skills that enable expatriates to maintain mental health and psychological well-being; the relationship dimension, which includes skills for fostering relationships with foreign nationals; and the perception dimension, which refers to an expatriate's ability to perceive and evaluate the environment. The literature also emphasizes the importance of factoring in the "cultural toughness" of the host country: namely, how different that country is from the expatriate's home country. A wide range of tests are available for assessing individual characteristics that are known predictors of success. In general, these tests measure things such as: Expectations Open-mindedness Respect for the beliefs of others Trust Flexibility Tolerance for discomfort Social adaptability Initiative Risk taking My advice is to look for an organization that has created and validated an assessment that covers these or similar dimensions. Discuss with them how well their assessment might work in your situation. You should look for them to provide evidence that this assessment has been properly constructed and has a good track record. There are a number of firms that I feel can definitely help you out. Good luck.     [SOURCE: Charles A. Handler Ph.D., PHR, Rocket-Hire, New Orleans, July 10, 2006.]

How Do I Frame Character Questions During Behavioral Interviews?

How Do I Frame Character Questions During Behavioral Interviews?
	I want to start adopting the behavioral interviews concept, but am having trouble thinking up suitable questions to learn about character traits. Which behavioral questions will help me get information necessary about traits such as high energy level, integrity and ownership?—Character Counts, education, Cairo, Egypt
	Behavioral interviewing is based on the assumption that one's past behavior is an excellent indicator of the actions that person will take, and the results he will generate, in the future under similar circumstances. Behavioral-based interview questions enable you as the interviewer to focus on how a candidate handled a real-life situation in the past, instead of how the person might handle a hypothetical situation in the future. The typical behavioral interview question is based on the following framework: Problem/Situation –> Action –> Result. Ask candidate to outline a problem or situation they have faced that highlights the skill, trait or core competency you are seeking (problem/situation). Then, ask candidates to describe the action they took and the results it generated. You can apply this technique to any question you find relevant to the role for which you are hiring by putting it in this problem/situation-action-results framework. For example, if you are looking to define integrity, you could ask the candidate to describe an actual situation or problem in their professional past that tested their integrity, what action they took, and what results they obtained. Ordinarily we encounter two challenges when using this type of questioning. First, if the candidate is unable to come up with a similar situation or problem, it can take serious probing on your part to find it. Of course, that process in and of itself can be revealing about your candidate. Second, a candidate can potentially reframe your question to make some unrelated point about him or herself. When that happens, I simply redirect them to the original question. If you are looking for character traits, an excellent complement to behavioral interviewing is personality and style testing. There are many excellent tools on the market to help you identify perfect candidates for your jobs.     [SOURCE: David Peck, Leadership Unleashed, San Francisco, July 10, 2006]

How Do We Guide Managers to Ask the Right Questions When Interviewing Candidates?

How Do We Judge Return on Investment From Our Education-Assistance Benefit?
	We are reviewing our voluntary education-assistance program, which presently provides up to $2,500 to eligible employees. For courses that cost more, employees can apply for an exemption, which must be approved by the employee's VP and our VP of human resources. I have heard of some corporations that require a "service return contract" that binds employees to the company for a specified period once a company-paid college degree is earned. What are other companies requesting, aside from these contracts, to get a better return on investment for offering this monetary education assistance? How do we make sure we don't pay for somebody's education only to watch them jump ship?—Education Isn't Cheap, utilities, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
	Education assistance or tuition reimbursement programs are typically one of the most poorly managed benefits that companies offer. While nearly every company offers a variant of the benefit, few even attempt to evaluate the return on investment (or lack thereof). Such programs rarely have goals, and primarily exist just because everyone else has one. You are right to question what must be done to increase the program ROI, but I assure you that service return contracts are not the answer. Consider asking yourself: Historically what is the percentage of participants in the program who have voluntarily separated following completion or near completion of their education? How has completing the education affected the capability or capacity of the program participants to perform their jobs? In other words, does their on-the-job performance increase? Do they receive promotions more often? Does the quality of their work improve? Historically, how has the organization leveraged the education it sponsored? Was a career plan in place to make use of what the participants were learning? Did the organization re-evaluate the position of the participant or their compensation upon completion of the education (re-recruiting them)? What is the performance profile of the typical program participant? Is this a program that is primarily used by existing top performers, average employees or minimally engaged employees who continuously perform just above minimum performance standards? The key in maximizing the ROI of this program, or any HR program for that matter, is to: Develop and clearly articulate a business reason for the program to exist. Cascade that reason down into clearly defined and measurable goals and objectives for the program. Establish metrics relevant to each goal/objective. Routinely communicate program performance and rigorously investigate/resolve non-ideal results. Completing a degree or even adding new skills to one's portfolio increases the person's perceived market value, if not their actual value. Few organizations manage toward that perception. They do not re-recruit the program participant, placing them into a new position that utilizes their current skills. They do not adjust the compensation to levels that a competitor would now pay. And more often than not, they do not even congratulate the employees on their achievement. If such programs can have a positive ROI, achieving it will require that you manage the program for planned results, not administration.     [SOURCE: Dr. John Sullivan , San Francisco State University, July 18, 2006.]

How Do We Guide Managers to Ask the Right Questions When Interviewing Candidates?

How Do We Guide Managers to Ask the Right Questions When Interviewing Candidates?
	What recruitment guidelines can we give to line managers who are involved in our recruiting/hiring process? How can we get them to ask the right questions or follow the right processes/procedures?―Searching for Answers, mining/oil/gas, Johannesburg, South Africa
	Having the right fit is the key to keeping talent on board. Although managers do have the clearest sense of which employees are the right fit for an organization, they often see the selection process as a less-important part of their job. By "right fit" we mean a person whose skills (technical and interpersonal) and interests match the requirements of the position at hand, and whose core values are consistent with those of the organization. Your managers need to spend time identifying the critical success factors for a position, preparing for and conducting thorough interviews, evaluating and comparing the candidates, and selling the job and the organization. Here are some tips: Determine FitAnalyze the job and get input from others to clarify tasks, traits, and style required. Prepare for your interview using a grid with your questions: Create set questions to make certain the candidate has the skills and style you are looking for. Ask behaviorally based interview questions about candidates' past experiences, and be consistent by asking them of all candidates. Use appropriate testing and assessment tools. Involve multiple interviewers to get diverse perspectives about each candidate. Ask the candidates what would entice them enough to take your job vs. that of key competitors; make sure you are meeting their needs as well. Sell the Candidate    ● Be prepared to sell your position, team and organization by addressing the key issues raised by each candidate.    ● Think carefully about what you and your team can offer and be ready to give specific examples. For example, if you are offering a great team environment and camaraderie, demonstrate that by having all team members meet and briefly talk with your top candidates.    ● Think about your team or organizational "wow" factors--those things that differentiate you from all others. It might be your cutting-edge technology, ultra-creative environment or fun-filled atmosphere. "Fit is it" when it comes to hiring. If you get the right people in the right roles on your team and for your organization, you will absolutely increase the odds of retaining them in the future.     [SOURCE: Beverly Kaye, co-author, Love 'Em or Lose 'Em: Getting Good People to Stay (Berrett-Koehler, 2005), July 17, 2006.]

How Do We Persuade Our Well-Trained Workforce to Relocate?

How Do We Persuade Our Well-Trained Workforce to Relocate?
	We are a small metal fabrication shop that has been in business for 14 years. Most of our staff has been with us for about six to eight years. These people were trained by us and have excellent benefits. We now have to relocate our company to accommodate business growth. This relocation is about 35 miles from where we are currently located. We decided to be open with employees and announced our relocation plans. We asked for interest as to who would go to the new site with us. We were surprised to discover there were very few takers outside of management. Any suggestions as to how to we could "sweeten the pot" to get more followers?—Desperate for Answers, vice president of HR, manufacturing, Roseville, California
	The cost of replacing a staff such as yours, well-trained and with a considerable number of years spent with the company, would be steep--as much as one and a half times current salaries. With that in mind, you'll want to provide the most bang for your buck in relocation benefits. In today's softer real estate market, that translates to helping them sell their homes or providing special mortgage programs as incentive for moving. A relocation company can help you explore those options and identify the most cost- effective alternatives. Because your move does not meet the federal tax-deductible guidelines, any allowances or benefits employees receive are likely to be taxable. Most companies today will "tax protect" the employee. Should you follow a similar strategy, it would thereby increase your costs. If you opt for providing any allowances or benefits, I'd strongly recommended using a payback agreement, which would require employees who opt to leave the company within a certain time after the move to repay the cost of their relocations. Such agreements are quite common and help to discourage attrition while ensuring that you retain this valuable staff. To further accelerate your growth plans and overcome reluctance to relocate, you may also consider offering a variety of "sweeteners," such as a moving allowance or commuter allowance. You might also partner with a real estate provider in the destination location to develop an orientation program for these employees to help sell the advantages of the new location. For example, maybe the schools are better or the tax rate lower. Whichever road you choose, a clearly documented policy that can be presented to the employees as part of the deal may encourage a higher acceptance rate and be useful as a reference document during their move. [SOURCE: Ellie Sullivan, director of consulting, Weichert Relocation Resources , Morris Plains, New Jersey, July 25, 2006.]

The Ins and Outs of Buyouts: Should Companies Offer Them? Should Employees Accept Them? - Knowledge@Wharton

When General Motors last month offered buyouts and early retirement packages to 113,000 hourly workers, the move focused new attention on a key aspect of the continually evolving relationship between employers and employees. Buyouts are essentially management's attempts to trim costs and make their operations more efficient -- usually when the company is in a slump or under attack -- by offering workers incentives to voluntarily leave their jobs. Buyouts are a clear alternative to layoffs, in which management gets to choose who heads for the door rather than give employees the opportunity to make that decision for themselves. But layoffs leave managers facing sticky legal issues, especially with regards to union contracts, and also require the companies to pay unemployment compensation. In addition, layoffs can create bad will among the remaining employees. Buyouts, frequently described as a "humane" way to handle employment reduction, show up in a variety of industries. In 2003, Verizon offered buyouts to 152,000 employees. Ford is trying to eliminate 30,000 jobs through buyouts by 2102. Federal agencies have increased the buyout offers to government employees, resulting in more than 22,000 federal workers leaving their jobs over the last two years. Insurance company Allstate announced this month that 1,000 employees had accepted a voluntary buyout offer extended to 6,800 members of the workforce. Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters at The New York Times, Boston Globe and Philadelphia Inquirer are among those journalists who recently took buyout offers at their newspapers. While members of a company's human resources department and general counsel's office are often consulted about a buyout's structure and terms, the final agreement usually comes from the very top of the company, says Daniel P. O'Meara, an employment law attorney with Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads in Philadelphia, Pa. "When I worked through a buyout at a hospital, we presented the CEO with all the pluses and minuses, and he made the decision." The same is true when smaller operations are involved, such as a facility with 250 employees. The general manager may take part in, and announce, the buyout, but he is most likely working on directives from headquarters. According to Ethan Kra, a Mercer Human Resources Consulting chief actuary for retirement, the thinking behind buyouts can go like this: "Figure out what it will cost you to get an individual to walk out the door. It will take a combination of cash, benefits such as health insurance or pension enhancement, and severance." Then consider "the flip side: What is it going to cost you to keep the person? If this employee leaves, will I replace him or her with someone cheaper or eliminate the position? How much do I shave off costs by replacing him with a cheaper person? How much do I save by not paying him, against what would I gain by having him around? If I lose no revenue by losing this employee, then everything I save is a benefit." Employers can be nervous when they announce a buyout. Will they have enough takers? And will they be the "right" takers? The most valuable workers could end up leaving because they are confident that they can easily line up another job elsewhere. What employers don't want is to offer a buyout to those who are planning to leave or retire anyway. "Then it's wasted money," says Kra. "You must make it rich enough that others take it, too. Otherwise, it's penny-wise, pound foolish." Kra's colleague, Mercer senior consultant Steve Gross, says employers generally target a range of economic savings with an assumption that a buyout's payback will never be exactly as planned. Structuring a buyout -- and letting employees self-select -- is an inexact equation. "No one likes to do this," says Gross. "An employer is trying to make the best of a bad situation. It's not [from a manual] in their back pocket." As imprecise as they may be, buyouts are also accompanied by certain legal requirements. Workers must have at least 45 days to respond to a buyout offer. Management must provide employees with a breakdown by age of all those offered the package. Typically, non-compete restrictions are not part of a broadly offered buyout package. OMeara's clients often ask him what constitutes fair severance pay, but there are no standards for this. Offering a certain number of weeks or even months of pay for each year of service is a common equation for a big company. GM, for example, is offering hourly workers packages to retire or leave that range from $35,000 to $140,000 depending on their length of service with the company and their retirement eligibility. But there are other methods as well. "You can look at the skill set and determine how long it will take a person to get a comparable job," says O'Meara. "You can set the buyout package based on that, too." O'Meara notes that while an employer must advise an employee to consult an attorney, "if an agreement is straight forward," a lawyer might not be needed. New Direction, New Workforce All the technicalities associated with buyouts don't get at a key issue associated with these types of staff reductions. Buyouts involve the loss of workers who walk out the door with years of institutional knowledge. In addition, their departure could significantly affect the morale of those who choose to stay. According to Peter Cappelli, director of Wharton's Center for Human Resources, buyouts can reflect management vision as well as poor financial performance. "The process, which is more art than science, is driven by assumptions about the direction the business is headed in. When [managers] shift strategy, they want to be a different kind of company. They think: 'We are trying to change our capabilities in important ways.... We don't need the old workers.'" Because these managers "don't care about institutional memory, there is a prejudice against workers from the old regime who have been there a long time. They are seen as hampering" the process of moving forward.   This mindset -- that a change in direction requires a change in workforce -- did not exist in the previous generation of managers, Capelli adds. "Twenty years ago, the feeling was that we owe [employees]. Now the feeling is, 'We need to get something new.'" That attitude arose from the faster pace of business. A company can, relatively quickly, radically change its strategy and start off in a new direction with the help of better technology and a new set of workers. Those workers, however, now recognize that they are replaceable parts. A buyout -- when management, in essence, says, "We don't care who goes just as long as enough of you go" -- drills the message home. "Even though we think we have a new generation of employees not as concerned about job security, most of that is baloney," says David Sirota, co-author ofThe Enthusiastic Employee: How Companies Profit by Giving Workers What They Want (Wharton School Publishing). "People can say that job security is not that important in a booming economy," Sirota adds. "But after the implosion of the high tech portion of the economy, security went to the top of the list. These days, in fact, it is terribly important to people to have [steady] paychecks." Yet at the same time, "many large corporations are shifting from offering workers a lifetime career in one place to a more transactional form of management. 'On Friday, we paid you. Now we are even. We owe nothing more to you.'" Watching co-workers who voluntarily choose to walk away can be disheartening for those left behind. Management, however, can counter falling morale with a well-crafted, post-buyout plan acknowledging that the workload may change, notes Sirota. "Companies that have done it best make sure that, as they prepare for downsizing, they are pushing decisions down to the lowest possible levels. For example, they are organizing self-managed work teams and delegating responsibility to them. If the company is seen as one that cares about its employees, teams are likely to assume these new responsibilities because they feel that they are not being exploited." Sirota, an industrial psychologist and founder of Sirota Consulting of Purchase, N.Y., says companies that spread out responsibility post-buyout are telling those employees who remain that they are valuable. "No place is utopia, but the fundamental culture [should be] to treat people generously when you are buying them out," and to consider the people who remain as "assets" to your company. That generous treatment at buyout time can extend to helping employees find another job. Sirota suggests that where possible, companies contact their suppliers about hiring staff members who leave. "It's dealing with employees as partners," he says, "and that thoughtful action is not lost on those who remain." Anxiety and Ambivalence For some workers, trying to decide whether to walk out the door is agonizing. They need to assess how easily they can find another job or whether they are financially able to retire. Middle-aged workers may see the buyout as an opportunity to change careers or start a new business with a bankroll of buyout money; others may worry that the buyout will lead to a dead end of unemployment. According to a notary at one mid-sized company, whose job includes witnessing the signatures of workers signing buyout acceptance forms, 50 employees last fall had lined up at her desk for the notary stamp in the last hour of the last eligible day of a buyout which had been announced months earlier. Their 11th hour appearance, she said, indicated not just anxiety but continuing ambivalence over their decision.    The pressure on employees to take the buyout can be huge. From the first day of the buyout announcement, employees are often warned to "grab it now" because, if not enough people apply for it, layoffs will follow. When management states that it must reach a certain number of departing employees, workers wonder if they are being scared into doing something they will regret. And they also wonder if layoffs really are going to happen. In other words, is the threat real? "Yes, those threats are real," says Kra. "Sometimes layoffs will begin and an employee will say, 'I now accept that offer you made four weeks ago,'" says O'Meara. "But that offer is gone." Adds Cappelli: "If the supervisors hint, 'I think you should take the buyout,' take it."

Published: April 19, 2006

 

How Do We Reduce the Chance Our Employees Will Unionize?

How Do We Reduce the Chance Our Employees Will Unionize?
	What are companies doing to reduce the likelihood of employees wanting to join unions?—Looking Over Our Shoulder, education, Columbus, Ohio
	Dr. Charles Hughes of the Center for Values Research once said, "Companies that get a union deserve it, and they get the one they deserve." We agree. Though unions in the U.S. private sector have largely become irrelevant, they still exist, and pose a threat to businesses that prefer to deal directly with their workforces. So what are union-free companies doing? In short, they are treating people well enough that the union proposition is of no perceived value, and no interest. More specifically, they realize that people give up on their management for the same reasons that they give up on their spouse or significant other--when they believe they have been abused, ignored, taken advantage of or disrespected. As evidenced by the meltdowns at passenger airlines and automakers, unions can no longer make credible claims to providing pay, benefit or job security advantages. Forward-thinking organizations are removing unions' last remaining value proposition by installing viable employee complaint resolution procedures, notably those with a peer review element. Indeed, a number of companies have seen formerly unionized portions of their workforce decertified by virtue of having adopted a scrupulously fair alternative dispute resolution process. Union-free companies are beginning to do a better job of listening. We have noticed in our own practice that employers are paying more careful attention to climate survey results. The ones who are really serious about it are incorporating those results into their business metrics, and holding managers as accountable for people results as they do for production results. Most organizations are dealing more aggressively with non-performers and malcontents--people who stand to gain the most from the Byzantine work rules that often accompany a collective bargaining agreement--and also with managers whose boorish behavior provides fertile territory for an organizing campaign in the first place. The use of executive coaching often provides good results for those in the latter category. Some companies are using open-book management principles as a way of dealing in good faith, and telling their employees the truth--about everything, large and small. They share with them good news, and bad. And when it's bad news, they tell them early, in person, and with some human sensitivity. All other things being equal, people tend to trust managers they see a lot more than ones they don't. Absentee or invisible managers make people wonder what they're up to, and do little to create the kind of worker/manager relationship that keeps unions at bay. Workers simply don't vote to bring in a union to represent them against managers with whom they have a trusting, respectful relationship. Managers who demonstrate that they genuinely care about their employees are rarely repaid with a union certification. [SOURCE: Richard Hadden and Bill Catlette , co-authors, Contented Cows Give Better Milk , April 4, 2006.]

How Do We Determine Which Employees Are Suitable Candidates for Telecommuting?

How Do We Determine Which Employees Are Suitable Candidates for Telecommuting?
	I came across survey results recently from CareerBuilder.com that indicated fairly significant abuse of telecommuting—people claiming to be working from home while sleeping, surfing the Internet, running errands, etc. How should we reconcile the desire of our employees to do more telecommuting, especially given the apparent trend of "time fraud"?—Keeping Tabs on Telecommuters, human resources, insurance
	My first response, though tongue-in-cheek, is that there always has been (and always will be) an incredible amount of time abuse by employees within offices. Anyone who thinks that employees in an office aren't surfing the Web, running sports pools or doing worse things lives in a fantasy world. I mention this only to point out that it is unfair and not sensible to hold telecommuting employees to a higher standard than those who work in offices. That said, I'll concede that the risk of "time fraud" while working from home tends be to greater than in the office. But the very wording of the term underscores the nature of the problem: Are we paying workers for time spent or results produced? There certainly are some jobs, both in the office and at home, where time spent equates to results produced, such as people handling inbound customer service calls, processing claims forms or doing other tasks where a unit of work equates to a unit of time and vice versa. Still, the majority of telecommuting tasks are higher up on the knowledge-work scale, and what really counts in those jobs is the deliverable. If, for example, a financial analyst has to prepare a budget according to certain criteria, and it must be submitted to the boss by noon on Friday, then it doesn't make much difference if the analyst takes some time on Wednesday or Thursday to run an errand, do a load of laundry, exercise or even take a nap. As long as the work is done on time and according to specifications, and as long as he or she meets whatever commitments have been made about accessibility (response time on e-mails and voice mail, attending staff meetings/conference calls, etc.), those private errands really don't matter. One last point: People being considered for telecommuting assignments should be screened by management in the same way as those being considered for any other assignment: Compare their past work performance with job requirements. An employee who has missed deadlines in the office, takes long lunches or otherwise is known to abuse the trust placed in him while in the office isn't going to be a good candidate for telecommuting. [SOURCE: Gil Gordon, Gil Gordon Associates , Monmouth Junction, New Jersey, April 14, 2006.]

How Do We Customize Training for Sales Managers?

How Do We Customize Training for Sales Managers?
	How could our retail organization customize training for our inside sales managers, the people that coach our sales reps? What competencies should we should require?—We Want the Best, retail, Pasig City, Philippines
	This would depend on your company's learning environment. Start by making sure the delivery method fits the training population. Is this a geographically dispersed group, or is everyone under one roof? Is there time for traditional classroom learning, or would a blended solution with a CD, DVD or Web-based components be more appropriate? The heart of soft-skills training remains real-time skills practice with another person. But an urgent need to increase the impact of training while reducing its cost may necessitate that you search for more efficient methods and media. Classroom learning could be the answer for a group in a single location. For a large retail organization with numerous divisions and locations, a well-conceived blended solution that includes Web-based learning or other delivery methods (such as self study or just-in-time training) would be more accessible, more individualized and perhaps less costly than classroom training alone. Once you determine the best delivery method, begin to align the learning content with the specific competencies that your sales managers will need. Business leaders consider problem-solving skills, along with communication, strategic, technical and decision-making skills, to be crucial. More specifically, managers must be able to help their team members overcome their weaknesses while recognizing and cultivating their strengths. This requires competency in the initiation of coaching, ability to evaluate sales calls, pre- and post-call coaching, and planning for and facilitating the long-term professional growth of individual salespeople. Leaders at global sales organizations say new supervisors generally need training in: Motivating others and getting them to go "the extra mile." Adapting to new and changing situations, and helping others do the same. Understanding organizational goals and using them to determine priorities and motivate employees. Establishing productive relationships with managers. Making a smooth transition into supervision. Delegating. For the training itself, learning scenarios should reflect situations that are likely to occur as managers interact with team members. Allowing learners to practice the desired competencies in scenarios that are realistic and connected to their organizational roles helps them quickly recognize opportunities for application and seize them.      [SOURCE: K.C. Blonski, AchieveGlobal , Tampa, Florida, February 3, 2006.]

Burden of Expectation Can Block Progress

Prayer, time, distance and balance are needed to give us perspective. We get distracted by a thousand things. A rock along the path can become a mountain we cannot move. Sometimes all we need is a helping hand to lift it up. 
William Breault recounts a story. A monk was walking down a country road. He was going to meet friends who lived a great distance away. Around noontime he began to tire. He was hungry, but he had forgotten to bring lunch. He began to get edgy and distracted, even a bit paranoid about the length of the road, the heat of the sun, and the 'why' of the journey.

Uncentred and distracted, he stumbled upon a rock right in the middle of the road. He hadn't even seen it, so taken up was he with his own thoughts and concerns. With the pain of the wounded toe, however, he immediately became aware of his surroundings.

Why would a rock be right in the centre of the road he was walking on? As though someone had intended it! (The rock started to grow in size.) That's it! Someone had put the rock there, just so he would stumble on it! (The rock grew even larger.) Someone who didn't like him? (The rock by now had grown so large that it blocked the road entirely.)

By this time, the rock had become an insurmountable mountain. The monk was defeated, totally distracted. He sat, staring up at the gigantic mountain that had risen up to block his efforts and frustrate his plans.

Along came a lady on the same road. Seeing the distracted monk, she went over to him and asked him what the matter was. He told her the whole story of his desire and good intentions, how he had been wounded and blocked by the great mountain someone had put in his way.

The lady picked up the rock and threw it to one side. The monk was surprised at this great feat of strength. Ever so slowly the reason why he had started on his journey in the first place came back to his mind — Yes! The journey to see his friends!

That was the important thing. Collecting his thoughts, he got up and continued his journey. As he left the place of his accident, and his fortunate encounter with lady Prayer, he noticed that the mountain was only a rock after all, hardly big enough to prevent him from making his journey and seeing his friends.

Sometimes the rocks we encounter along the way are labels that people put on us. Even if we believe they fit us — often they don't — the expectations of other people can become burdens. They mask who we truly are. They can warp because they do not reflect our true personalities.

Like the paranoid monk we often get distracted by these labels and expectations and forget where we are headed and why we started on our journey. The paradox of living is that those who are most confused themselves and who lack real purpose in their lives, often are the very people who burden others with their unrealistic expectations.

 

http://spirituality.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1385344.cms

Resolution Followed By Action Yields Results

Life is being and becoming. We exist; that is being. We desire; that is becoming. Each one of us wants to be something other than what we are. So we are not content. Becoming involves effort — a search for new ways of living, ending of laxity and the creation of a new environment. We want to attain the truth, and we long for success, health and growth. 
It is our nature to be preoccupied with results and it is this that gives rise to problems. Our whole attention is concentrated on achievement; natural aptitude or inclination is often ignored. 
A newly appointed official was informed that the villagers had achieved an excellent potato crop. He inspected field after field and found them covered with green leaves. "What, just leaves! But where is the crop?" he exclaimed, "You said you have had an excellent crop, but here are mere leaves and no potatoes". The villagers laughed and said, "Sir, potatoes grow underground; above the ground you find only leaves. Dig into the soil and you'll find potatoes everywhere". 
We tend to have a superficial view of things; we should go deeper to know the truth. We need to distinguish between disposition and essential nature. Mere preoccupation misleads, producing illusion. Do away with anger, evil, ignorance, indiscipline, aggression and acquisitiveness. Probe deeper. Truth will reveal itself. 
Don't be concerned only with removing ills; try to understand it. Violence is an effect, an outward manifestation. So is anger. If the root is not destroyed, the result flowing therefrom remains. Anger arises out of a particular disposition. The inner overcomes the outer. To remove outward ills, bring about a fundamental inner transformation. 
Psychologists say that a particular nature gives rise to certain tendencies with its attendant consequences. Scriptures, too, speak of deep inner transformation. "Is it possible", I asked, "to achieve nonviolence or continence or nonacquisitiveness through an effort of will?" They say it can be done. We exercise our will. We determine not to indulge in violence, not to tell lies, not to steal, not to be acquisitive. 
To resolve to do or not to do something is not enough. If one could ensure nonviolence through mere exertion of one's will it would be wonderful. Each man would take a vow not to remain poor, and there would be no more poverty. Mere utterance of a word cannot accomplish results. There is no magic wand that can instantly bring forth all that we desire. Mere determination would not do. 
Spiritual thinkers advocate the disciplining of mind, body and tongue. With discipline comes fulfilment and nonviolence. If the mind is still, non-violence comes into being. If the mind is pure and still, continence follows; and nongreed. A restless mind wanders like a monkey. If it were so simple, I would urge you to take to the monastic life. Just pronounce a word and the thing, whatever it is, is done! But in reality, it is not so. And a spiritual practitioner who tries to go forward without first maturing his meditation, is often obliged to retrace his steps. So resolve first to spare some time for meditation.

http://spirituality.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1352448.cms

All ambition is the same

All ambition arises out of an inferiority complex. An intelligent person, by his very intelligence, becomes noncompetitive. Intelligence is noncompetitive. 

Intelligence can see the whole absurdity of it. Intelligence can see: "I am myself and there is no need to compare myself with anybody else. I am neither higher nor lower. Not that I am just like others – I am different – but there is no higher and lower." We are all different and unique human beings, but nobody is lower and nobody is higher – the whole effort to become higher is stupid. 

A man can go to the monastery. He cannot earn money there, but he can earn virtue. He can become more and more religious, he can meditate more than others – he can become the greatest meditator. He can repress himself more than the others and can become the greatest saint. Again an attitude is bound to arise: the attitude of holier than thou. It is the same politics, the same competition, the same ego. Nothing has changed; only the object of competition has changed, but the subject remains the same. Now there will be politics again. 

You can see a continuous hierarchy from the lowest priest to the pope. The lowest priest is trying to reach the higher post. Every bishop is trying to become the archbishop. Once they were trying to rise in political power; now they are trying to rise in religious power. But the whole effort is the same. 

The world cannot be renounced. Renunciation is a desperate effort of a person who has indulged too much. Indulgence is foolish, renunciation too. The wise man finds the harmony. He neither indulges nor renounces. He simply becomes aware of the whole situation. He does not bother to escape from the world; he starts becoming aware of his ego which projects the world. 

By becoming aware of all the hidden desires of the ego, those desires disappear. The more light enters in your being, the more aware you become, the less competition. Not that you make any effort to renounce; the very understanding becomes a subtle light in your being and you start laughing at all the foolish competitions, comparisons, evaluations that you have been suffering for. 

Remember, renunciation is of the same stupid mind. Nothing has changed. One day you were seeking more and more indulgence – more and more money, more and more women and men. Now you have become afraid and you start escaping, running away from the world, but your stupidity has not changed. 

Unless your innermost core changes, transforms, becomes luminous with a new light and new awareness, it is impossible. The change cannot happen. The change does not happen from the outside; the change has to happen somewhere in the inside. Then the glow spreads all over. 

Excerpted from Ecstasy – The Forgotten Language /courtesy Osho International

 

http://spirituality.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1325801.cms

 

How Do We Redistribute Workloads?

How Do We Redistribute Workloads?
	We have a major problem that is causing undue stress in our workplace. It seems our senior employees are passing off more work to their juniors, rather than making an effort to share the work. We're concerned that if junior employees spend the first few years of their company life continuously stressed out and overworked, that they will in turn treat their juniors with the same indifference and laziness. How did we miss this signal? More important, does it mean we need to redesign jobs/duties to alleviate stress? Please help. —High-strung in HR, manufacturing, Gamagori, Japan
	Don't run through the next red light because you missed a signal earlier. Barring intervention, you will wind up losing solid workers fed up with being taken advantage of. Before engaging in redesign, consider the following steps: Interview a sample of employees. Individual interviews are best, with both senior and junior employees. Explain to them that management is dissatisfied with the current distribution-of-work system and is soliciting ideas. If interviewing all employees proves impractical, select a representative sample. You might even run small feedback groups to glean both sides' viewpoints on the current situation: the advantages and disadvantages, the efficiencies and inefficiencies, short- and long-tem consequences, etc. If using a group forum, everyone should feel comfortable giving input. Convene joint meetings to share the data with junior and senior employees. (You also may need to allow time for junior employees to vent their frustration, including with management, for allowing these inequities to exist. Clearing the air should help people see why changes are needed. It also should stimulate clear-headed approaches to changing your operational procedures, job duties, and so on. Start small, perhaps with a department or two, to see how your new delegation-of-duties format is working. Conduct a brief trial-and-error run to highlight bugs. Have the entire company, and not just department supervisors, meet regularly with senior managers to monitor how things are progressing. Hopefully, some kinks will come to light that can be addressed. Report back to relevant staff within a month or so of the starting date. Share the results: the positives, the glitches, any unanticipated discoveries, and other notable information. Laying a proper foundation helps your employees support the operational changes. This problem-solving process democratizes operational processes and should yield a more current and productive redesign system. What's more, you should expect stronger work teams to emerge, displaying greater cohesion and camaraderie.     [SOURCE: Mark Gorkin, LICSW, The Stress Doc , Washington, D.C., January 27, 2006.]